Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 037

Thursday, April 29 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:41:16 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
sefardi scholars


> > > Here's a list of sephardi poskim from the past 300 years: (in no
> > > particular order)
> > > 
> > > Yechave Da'at (R. Ovadiah Yosef)
> > > Yaskil Avdi (R. Ovadiah Hadaya)
> > > Massa Chayim (R. Chaim Palaggi)
> > > Shemesh Tzedaka ((R. Shimshon Morpugo)
> > > Sdei Chemed
> > > Ner Maaravi
> > > Neeman Shmuel
> > > Ora Latzaddik
> > > Michtam LeDavid
> > > Mishpatim Yesharim
> > > Kerem Shlomo
> > > Divrei Emet
> > > Edut B'Yossef
> > > Divrei Shmuel
> > > 
What happened to Chida and Ben Ish Chai?
Also the other chief rabbis of Israel like Rav Uzziel?


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 14:02 +0200
From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject:
Re: Yatziv Pitgam


Davidson's THESAURUS OF MEDIEVAL HEBREW POETRY lists Rabbenu Tam as the
author of Yatziv Pitgam (as does Zunz). The recent Dfus Koren MACHZOR
GOLDSCHMIDT (Yonah Frankel) lists on page 632 the Rabbenu Tam as author;
see lso the MAVO on page MEM HEH (quoting a facsimile of the Machzor
Vermeyza).

Josh


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:09:44 -0400
From: "Allen Baruch" <Abaruch@SINAI-BALT.COM>
Subject:
Re: Producing Gedolim


>Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:36:20 EDT
>From: Joelirich@aol.com 
>Subject: Re: Producing Gedolim  (RE: Avodah V3#34)
>Dear Sender,
>A most interesting story.  Did you get a sense from R' Eisenmann that the 
>Alter did a cost/benefit analysis of the "cost" done to the dropped students 
>to the "benefit" of R' Aharon factoring in the likelihood of the various 
>outcomes for them as individuals as well as for klal yisrael with associated 
>probabilities?(This is not meant tongue in cheek at all) Or was it a case of 
>"libi omer li" with history only mentioned to 'justify' the decision. Of 
>course the implication is that had the Alter not focused solely on R' Aharon, 
>he would have turned out differently....  As for the statement ...there is no 
>tora in america.... one might wonder about revach vhatzala coming from 
>elsewhere for the Jews had the case been different.
>Kol Tuv,
>Joel
The impression I got from R' Eisenmann was that the Alter would concentrate more on those that had the most potential in his view.

As for R' Ruderman's statement - (I did not write this before as I am not certain about this after the passage of time.) but the way I remember it told over was that it was not an "off the cuff" statement, but rather given after a minute's thought.
--------------------------
>Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:53:43 -0500 (CDT)
>From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" ><sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Producing Gedolim  (RE: Avodah V3#34)
>While i have the utmost respect for R' Eisenmann - who I learnt much from
>and consulted on important issues when I was in Ner Israel - I have
>difficulty with the story. R' Aharon Kotler seems very far removed from
>the Alter's scope and approach. As to cultivating lomdus, that was the
>Rosh Yeshiva, R' Moshe Mordechai Epstein's job.
>
>YGB

I recall reading references to R' Aharon, R'Ruderman, R' Y Kaminetzky etc as the "Alter's talmidim", and I (we?) think of it as the Alter's yeshiva, not R' MM Epstein's. I don't really know. 
But I would venture to say that someone giving a really good shiur is not what created Lakewood and all that developed from/due to it....

Sender Baruch


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:24:58 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Kollel Stipends


Zvi:>>> Question: in this quid pro quo is it allowed to be done despite that
> beshito you
> oppose taking money for Talmud Torah?  or since this is a form of
> shelichus, it 
> is not considered remuneration for learning?

==> NO. this is considered a TRUE partnership.  That is, the "secular"
partner is entitled to 1/2 of the Torah learned and "developed" by the
"holy" partner.  I believe that R. Moshe has a Teshuva (that I saw a LONG
time ago) in which he says that a Yissochor/Zevulun arrangement MUST be a
50/50 arrangement ONLY.  That it is a special chiddush that one is even
ABLE to make such a deal because how can 1/2 of one's Torah be "equal" to
1/2 of worldy goods...
In any event, it seems clear that this is NOT Shlichus nor "remuneration"
(since the "Learning partner" is GIVING UP his Torah to the other person).
You may also want to reference the Mishna about "Shim'on Achi Azarya" (I
htink that I got the name correct) and note how the gemara attributes the
learning of the "learner" to the one who is supporting...<<

Questions:
1) Were such Yissachar/Zvulun arragnes used in Europe in the time of the 
Rishonim? Acharonim?

2) Would there have been a difference in approach between the Ashkenazi shitos 
re: remuneration for Torah and the Sefardi shitos?

3) Would such a Y/Z arrangement of those days be equivalent to Kollel?  Would 
supporting todya's  Kollel be euqivalent to a Y/Z arrangement (That is putting 
aside R. Moshe's Teshuvo).

Rich Wolpoe 


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:30:22 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Evaluating Communities


A Mutltiple Choice Question:

Is equating the levels of intellectual or "lomdusher" prowess of community A to 
that of community B a function of:

A) Historical Facts?
B) Historical Revisionism?
C) Political Correctness?

<smile>

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:02:00 -0400
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject:
More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar


RYGB asks:

>The problem that I continue to have is with the Rambam. R' Remy Landau
>wrote to ask where the Rambam comments on the RSG/RABM controversy. As R'
>Kasher notes in Torah Sheleima vol. 13 p. 62, the Rambam comments in his
>Commentary on the Mishna Chap. 2, where, without mentioning RSG by name,
>he makes the stunning statement that the RSG didn't really mean what he
>said (i.e., the rationale outlined by REC above), but only used it as
>polemic. This is problematic because the RSG seems to have "fooled" an
>awful lot of Rishonim into thinking he meant what he said - see that
>volume of TS Chap. 3 - but, more importantly to me: If so, would the
>Rambam himself, had he been around, have paskened like RABM? I do not
>think so, and have a theory - but would like others' opinions.

Once you have reviewed all of the sources, I do not think you will find
the Rambam's statement so stunning.  First, though, it helps to
understand the historical context.  As is well-known, much of R.
Sa`adia's polemical activity was directed against the Karaites.  The
Karaites sharply criticized the use of the fixed calendar as a
non-authoritative innovation (a "Reform," if you will).  Consequently,
it is reasonable to assume that R. Sa'adia's calendrical theory, which
seems at odds with the peshat of the Talmud, was merely a polemical
argument.  Indeed, this is how R. Hai Gaon characterizes it in the
teshuvah quoted in the Otzar ha-Geonim, Sanhedrin, no. 207, as a "kaneh
she-dahah bo et ha-minim" (I think that was his langauge).  Rambam,
then, may simply have been following R. Hai.

On the other hand, as Beryl Septimus pointed out to me, there is a huge
difference between making an argument against Karaites and making the
same argument against R. Aharon b. Meir of Yerushalayim.  It strains
credulity that R. Sa'adia would have invoked a polemical argument in
which he did not believe in the context of a serious halakhic debate
with obvious de-Oraita consequences.

In addition, I believe R. Hananel echoes the view of R. Sa`adia,
although I cannot find the source at the moment.

Rambam's theoy is much more in line with the simple understanding of the
Mishnah and Gemara.  But one can distinguish between the formal
requirement that the kiddush ha-hodesh take place in Eretz Yisrael and
the technical issue of whether a particular calculation is
authoritative.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:11:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Producing Gedolim


I think it interesting that the community that places the greatest premium
on gedolim produces the most gedolim. After all, it's the Yeshiva community
that stresses da'as Torah as a means of leadership, and emphasis an authority
hierarchy topped by gedolim.

I can think of two reasons for this "coincidence":

1- Because of the value placed on gedolim, the Yeshiva community is more likely
to pay the price required to produce them.

2- Within the Yeshiva community, because gedolim are more needed, potential
gedolim are more likely to be placed where they can obtain the title. When one
community actively seeks a teshuvah to give a final say on a subject and
another is less likely to, the former is the one more likely to produce authors
of teshuvos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Apr-99: Chamishi, Emor
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 316:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 72b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari I 117


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:25:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar


On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> RYGB asks:
> 
> Once you have reviewed all of the sources, I do not think you will
> find the Rambam's statement so stunning.  First, though, it helps to
> understand the historical context.  As is well-known, much of R. 
> Sa`adia's polemical activity was directed against the Karaites.  The
> Karaites sharply criticized the use of the fixed calendar as a
> non-authoritative innovation (a "Reform," if you will).  Consequently,
> it is reasonable to assume that R. Sa'adia's calendrical theory, which
> seems at odds with the peshat of the Talmud, was merely a polemical
> argument.  Indeed, this is how R. Hai Gaon characterizes it in the
> teshuvah quoted in the Otzar ha-Geonim, Sanhedrin, no. 207, as a "kaneh
> she-dahah bo et ha-minim" (I think that was his langauge).  Rambam,
> then, may simply have been following R. Hai. 
> 

That may be, but, REC, does this not move back your critique against the
"Artscrollization" of Jewish theory and history by about 1000 years? IT
gives - me at least - pause.

> On the other hand, as Beryl Septimus pointed out to me, there is a huge
> difference between making an argument against Karaites and making the
> same argument against R. Aharon b. Meir of Yerushalayim.  It strains
> credulity that R. Sa'adia would have invoked a polemical argument in
> which he did not believe in the context of a serious halakhic debate
> with obvious de-Oraita consequences. 
> 

Exactly.

> In addition, I believe R. Hananel echoes the view of R. Sa`adia,
> although I cannot find the source at the moment.
> 

R' Kasher quotes him at length as the primary source for RSG's shitta - it
is in the Rach's Peirush al ha'Torah. Ka'amur, he seems to be one of the
Rishonim who was (l'shittas ha'Rambam) "duped" by RSG - all the more
remarkable considering the affinity between the Beis Medrash of the Rach
and the Rambam.

> Rambam's theoy is much more in line with the simple understanding of the
> Mishnah and Gemara.  But one can distinguish between the formal
> requirement that the kiddush ha-hodesh take place in Eretz Yisrael and
> the technical issue of whether a particular calculation is
> authoritative. 
> 

Srill have a problem, because the halcha of "Atem, afilu mut'im... afilu
mezidin" should require us to follow Chachmei EY regardless of the precise
validity of their claculation.

I think one must say, l'shittas ha'Rambam, that Chachmei EY are also bound
by Ravina and Rav Ashi sof horo'oh, and if, as RABM did, they attempt to
introduce a mode of reckoning that varies (in this case by 642 chalokim)
from that authorized by the Talmud, they are to be disregarded. Since the
Rambam holds their Kiddush is tacit, not active, this can then be done
over their objections.

Comments, please?

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: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:31:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net>
Subject:
Respect For Gedolim


> 
> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:37:00 -0400
> From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
> Subject: Hirschian Gedolim
> 
> Zvi Weiss takes issue with my statements regarding R. Schwab.  I have no
> wish to get into a spitting contest with him.  A few points, however, in
> defense.
> 
> >First of all,
> >there is the "rule" of Ain meshivin al Ha'ari achar she'meis -- that one
> >must be extremely circumspect in countering a Gadol -- and which (I
> >believe) only another Gadol can do).
> 
> Sorry.  Neither I nor anyone on this list defers to a Gadol just because
> he's dead.  In any case, on this issue, we do have another Gadol
> disagreeing with R. Schwab, namely R. Dessler.

===> Then I would suggest that the Poster consult a competent Posek about
Kavod Talmidei Chachamim.  The Gemara in Berachot makes VERY clear that
disrespect to a Talmid Chacham AFTER his Petira is treated VERY seriously.
And, stating that a Gadol like R. Schwab "reacted" based upon a "negius"
rather than upon a crytal-clear attachment to Emes is (to me) an
extraordinary insult.  R. Dessler NEVER stated that R. Schwab had such a
Negius so I see no basis in citing him as support.  Had the poster simply
stated that he (the poster) felt [based -- perhaps -- upon historical
evidence] that R. Dessler was correct and R. Schwab was incorrect, that is
one thing.  However, to impugn R. Schwab ZT"L by injecting a "p'sul" of
Negius is [to me] unforgiveable.


> 
> > Second, anyone who knows R. Schwab's
> >tremedous integrity (at one point he "rejected" Torah Im Derech Eretz
> >and then reversed himself -- without any hesitation) KNOWS that he did not
> >respond to R. Dessler simply because of "negiah".
> 
> I did not say he did.  I leave the uncovering of other people's
> motivations to the Bohen Kelayot..  At the same time, as head of the KAJ
> community, R. Schwab obviously felt strongly about defending the
> Frankfurt derekh.  It is incomprehensible to me how anyone can say he
> was not a noge'a ba-davar.  For what it's worth, I think that the
> Frankfurt derekh is wonderful.  But I don't think it has produced much
> in the way of Gedolim.

===> The statement that there was "negius" either was part of the original
statement or it was not.  If it was part of the original statement, then
it is difficult to escape the impression that R. Schwab ZT"L was being
described as having answered something based upon a negius. If -- indeed
-- there was NO negius. THEN IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED.  Perhaps,
the poster should READ R. Schwab's comments before he blithly comments
that "it has not produced much in the way of Gedolim"...




> 
> Regarding the parenthetical comment about R. Schwab's integrity, I don't
> know what to make of it.  How does changing one's mind prove integrity?
> Indecision, maybe.  I believe that it was under R. Schwab's watch that
> the offical KAJ interpretation of "Torah im Derekh Eretz" took on a
> "blacker" hue.  Do you consider denying R. Hirsch's commitment to
> Western culture a sign of integrity?  What about R. Schwab's memorable
> article in the Jewish Observer regarding the suppression of historical
> facts (in that case, regarding Moshe Mendelssohn) that do not accord
> with a desired educational aim?  Need I go on?

===> Again, the poster appears to reveal an ENORMOUS ignorance about R.
Schwab.  This was not a "flip-flop".  Rather, R. Schwab had -- at one
point in his life become "committed" to the idea that Torah im Derekh
Eretz was only a "Hora'as Sha'a" and did not have "on-going application".
He "strongly" held to this view for more than a little while.  Later,
however, he "revisited" the matter and was willing to admit that he had
"erred" in his earlier detemination.  There was, however, no evidence of
"indecision" involved.  As far as the "suppression of historical data", I
do not think that this was in conflict with TIDE.  His point is that not
EVERYTHING need be taught to everyone.  One can disagree with that point
but I do not see it as fundamentally at odds with Hirsch.  I think, too,
that R. Schwab was responding to a society that was far "coarser" than the
past.



> 
> >Yes.  But he was also already married into the family.  And, I believe
> >that (in Frankfurt) the rest of the family FIRST received their education
> >at the RealSchule BEFORE going out to other Yeshivot...
> 
> I don't know one way or the other.  But even if so, the need to go to a
> proper yeshiva afterward fortifies the argument against te Frankfurt
> derekh.  After all, R. Shimon Eider went to YU, but he did not become a
> big posek until he spent a decade or more at Lakewood.

===> No it does not.  The point is that unlike the "Dessler Derekh" where
EVERYONE was "supposed" to go to Yeshiva (and which is why R. Dessler
opposed the set-up of a Frum Seminary in B'nei B'rak!), the Frankfurt
Derekh was that MOST people did not "need" to continue to YEshiva and a
"few" would "further" thier education as needed.  This is hardly support
for " all must sit and learn".  As for R. Eider SHLIT"A, how much of his
gadlus was "delayed" simply BECAUSE he went to YU??

<snipped>


> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli Clark

--Zvi


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 07:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Kollel Stipends


--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> ==> NO. this is considered a TRUE partnership.  That is, the
> "secular"
> partner is entitled to 1/2 of the Torah learned and "developed" by
> the
> "holy" partner.  I believe that R. Moshe has a Teshuva (that I saw
> a LONG
> time ago) in which he says that a Yissochor/Zevulun arrangement
> MUST be a
> 50/50 arrangement ONLY.  That it is a special chiddush that one is
> even
> ABLE to make such a deal because how can 1/2 of one's Torah be
> "equal" to
> 1/2 of worldy goods...
> In any event, it seems clear that this is NOT Shlichus nor
> "remuneration"
> (since the "Learning partner" is GIVING UP his Torah to the other
> person).

I seem to recall that as a result of this, one cannot use Ma'aser
Kesafim to pay for a Yissachar/Zevulun relationship.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:57:00 -0400
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject:
Political Theories and Dina de-Malkhuta Dina (Avodah V3 #33)


Joel Rich asks:

>, I wonder if anyone has looked at, or has any thoughts on, a
>possible link to prevailing views in political science(eg divine rule of
>kings, separation of power of king from power of courts, etc., power of
>state=sum of individuals rights. I realize these are probably not the correct
>terms but I never took poli. sci. - it was considered too 'soft' a science:-)

I have been meaning to respond to this, but I had to wait until I was
able to check the mekorot.  I will try to be brief and provide mareh
mekomot.  Beli neder in an upcoming post, I will fully address the
question of Dina de-Malkhuta in Eretz Yisrael, an issue that will be
touched upon tangentially below.

Following are the major theories for the basis of Dina de-Malkhuta Dina.

I.  The Ben-Noah Mitzvah of Dinim
Rashi, Gittin 9b, s.v. hutz.

II.  Popular acceptance of the King's laws
Rashbam, Baba Batra 54b, s.v. ve-ha-amar Shemuel; Ri and Ramban, cited
in Ritva, Baba Batra 55a, s.v. hani telat mili; Rashba, Baba Batra 55a,
s.v. im makhru (but in Teshuvot Rashba ha-Meyuhasot la-Ramban, no. 22,
he adopts the royal ownership theory; see below); Meiri, Baba Batra 55a,
s.v. sadeh zeh; Tashbetz I, no. 158;

This was a popular political theory in the Middle Ages.  Royal law
reflected traditional practice and popular acceptance.  The king was the
representative of the popular will.  See Fritz Kern's classic Kingship
and Law in the Middle Ages.

However, some Aharonim have tried to explain this theory on the basis of
tenai she-be-mammon.

II.  Popular Acceptance of the King's Sovereignty
Rambam, Gezelah va-Avedah 5:18; Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mispat 369:2.
This Medieval political theory -- whcih differs slightly from the
preceding one -- predates the divine right of kings, as well as later
social contract theories.

IV.  Royal Ownership of the Land
R. Eliezer of Metz, in Shita Mekubbetzet, Nedarim 28a, s.v. ve-omer;
Ran, Nedarim 28, s.v. be-mokhes ha-omed me-alav; Maharam, Teshuvot,
Cremona no. 6, Lemberg no. 213; Rosh, Piskei ha-Rosh, Nedarim, chap. 3,
no. 11. Maharshal, Yam she Shelomoh, Baba kama, chap. 6, no. 14

Many medieval political theorists, based on feudal theory, believed the
king was the literal owner of all property within his kingdom or that he
enjoyed a kind of super-ownership over his subject's property.

V.  Hefker Bet Din Hefker
Rabbenu Tam, ShuT Ba'alei Tosafot (Agus, ed.), no. 12; R. Yonah, Baba
Batra 55a, s.v. alah be-yadenu

VI.  Minhag
 R. Yonah, Baba Batra 55a, s.v. ve-arisa; R, Ben Zion Uziel, Mishpetei
Uziel III, no. 28:8.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 08:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Respect For Gedolim


--- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> [Eli Clark wrote:]
> Sorry.  Neither I nor anyone on this list defers to a Gadol just
> because
> > he's dead.  In any case, on this issue, we do have another Gadol
> > disagreeing with R. Schwab, namely R. Dessler.
> 
> ===> Then I would suggest that the Poster consult a competent Posek
> about
> Kavod Talmidei Chachamim.  The Gemara in Berachot makes VERY clear
> that
> disrespect to a Talmid Chacham AFTER his Petira is treated VERY
> seriously.
> And, stating that a Gadol like R. Schwab "reacted" based upon a
> "negius"
> rather than upon a crytal-clear attachment to Emes is (to me) an
> extraordinary insult.  R. Dessler NEVER stated that R. Schwab had
> such a
> Negius so I see no basis in citing him as support.  Had the poster
> simply
> stated that he (the poster) felt [based -- perhaps -- upon
> historical
> evidence] that R. Dessler was correct and R. Schwab was incorrect,
> that is
> one thing.  However, to impugn R. Schwab ZT"L by injecting a
> "p'sul" of
> Negius is [to me] unforgiveable.
> 
From the perspective of the Charedi world, an assertion of "negius"
is an insult.  From the perspective of the University world, "negius"
is part of the human condition.  (E.g., when Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik
disagreed in class with [Ta Shema's (?) / Agus' (?)] article
regarding Rabbeinu Tam, Dr. S. still implied that R. Tam was a
product of his time and that R. Tam's "mekil" chiddushim met the
needs of his time.)  People cannot be expected to be "malachei
hashares" and have some sort of nevuah, even if they are great people
who strive with all their might for the truth.  (Otherwise, how can
you explain machloktot of gedolim, let's say between Rav Schach and
the Satmar Rebbe regarding the status of Israel?  If the next Satmar
Rebbe were to come out and say that the State of Israel is a creature
of the "sitra achra," wouldn't it be obvious that that Rebbe was
influence by growing up in a Satmar community and would not have that
opinion if he had grown up in a YU community?)

If we take the University approach to "negius," it is a common sense
conclusion to posit that Rav Schwab would truly believe that his
derech was the best in almost every way.


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:09:00 -0400
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject:
Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar


RYGB suggests:

>I think one must say, l'shittas ha'Rambam, that Chachmei EY are also bound
>by Ravina and Rav Ashi sof horo'oh, and if, as RABM did, they attempt to
>introduce a mode of reckoning that varies (in this case by 642 chalokim)
>from that authorized by the Talmud, they are to be disregarded. Since the
>Rambam holds their Kiddush is tacit, not active, this can then be done
>over their objections.

A fine theory.  But it is not clear to me that the number of halakim by
which the moled zaken should be limited was authoritatively determined
by the Talmud.  To my knowledge, the basic text on the calendar was
Arba'ah She'arim.  Both R. Sa`adia and Ben Meir used it.  Therefore, it
seems safe to assume that it does not take a position on the issue of
the precise measure of the limit on moled zaken.  Consequently, I wonder
whether Ben Meir's innovation can be described as "unauthorized."

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:14:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: More on R. Sa`adia and the calendar


On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> RYGB suggests:
> 
> >I think one must say, l'shittas ha'Rambam, that Chachmei EY are also bound
> >by Ravina and Rav Ashi sof horo'oh, and if, as RABM did, they attempt to
> >introduce a mode of reckoning that varies (in this case by 642 chalokim)
> >from that authorized by the Talmud, they are to be disregarded. Since the
> >Rambam holds their Kiddush is tacit, not active, this can then be done
> >over their objections.
> 
> A fine theory.  But it is not clear to me that the number of halakim by
> which the moled zaken should be limited was authoritatively determined
> by the Talmud.  To my knowledge, the basic text on the calendar was
> Arba'ah She'arim.  Both R. Sa`adia and Ben Meir used it.  Therefore, it
> seems safe to assume that it does not take a position on the issue of
> the precise measure of the limit on moled zaken.  Consequently, I wonder
> whether Ben Meir's innovation can be described as "unauthorized." 
>

Thanks for the compliments. As to the lack of clarity, I dunno. To me the
sugya in RH 20 seems pretty much open and shut as to Chatzos as the
cut-off point. 

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: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:18:40 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Producing Gedolim


In a message dated 4/29/99 10:11:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< I think it interesting that the community that places the greatest premium
 on gedolim produces the most gedolim. After all, it's the Yeshiva community
 that stresses da'as Torah as a means of leadership, and emphasis an authority
 hierarchy topped by gedolim.
 
 I can think of two reasons for this "coincidence":
 
 1- Because of the value placed on gedolim, the Yeshiva community is more 
likely
 to pay the price required to produce them.
 
 2- Within the Yeshiva community, because gedolim are more needed, potential
 gedolim are more likely to be placed where they can obtain the title. When 
one
 community actively seeks a teshuvah to give a final say on a subject and
 another is less likely to, the former is the one more likely to produce 
authors
 of teshuvos.
 
 -mi
 
  >>
Another hypothesis to test(and I have no idea if it's valid) would be that a 
community that needs a gadol "makes" a gadol (ie to some extent you become a 
gadol when enough people say you are one, if a community "needs" a gadol for 
sociological reasons....)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:22:28 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Respect For Gedolim


In a message dated 4/29/99 10:31:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, weissz@idt.net 
writes:

<<   As for R. Eider SHLIT"A, how much of his
 gadlus was "delayed" simply BECAUSE he went to YU??
  >>
explain please

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:44:18 EDT
From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Respect For Gedolim


In a message dated 4/29/99 10:31:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, weissz@idt.net 
writes:

<< No it does not.  The point is that unlike the "Dessler Derekh" where
 EVERYONE was "supposed" to go to Yeshiva (and which is why R. Dessler
 opposed the set-up of a Frum Seminary in B'nei B'rak!), the Frankfurt
 Derekh was that MOST people did not "need" to continue to YEshiva and a
 "few" would "further" thier education as needed.  This is hardly support
 for " all must sit and learn".  As for R. Eider SHLIT"A, how much of his
 gadlus was "delayed" simply BECAUSE he went to YU?? >>


As a paranthetical point, I wish to point out that bringing up R. Eider in 
this context is not the best way to prove the point, but it does allow the 
more right wing elements on this list to take gratuitous shots at YU. For 
that, I cite the above quoted post. R. Eider's emergence as a Posek is 
problematic at best. While he is certainly very knowledgeable, and his books 
are useful guides, I would not say that all agree with his definitions of 
halachik terms, nor certainly with his highly opiniated Psak in some of his 
guides. As far as him being a posek, for many years the Posek at Lakewood was 
someone else entirely, a renowned Talmid Chacham, even after Eider acheived 
some fame as the author of his Halacha Guides. I think that bringing in this  
controversial figure to make the point that YU held back the education of a 
Gadol,not unlike the experience of the Gedolim of Frankfort, who had to learn 
in Eastern Europe to give them the proper Torah education, is nothing short 
of silly.

Jordan Hirsch  


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >