Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 036

Tuesday, October 22 2002

• Re: More on Klapping during Selach Lanu
• re: artificial insemination
• re: artificial insemination
• re:artificial insemination
• re daas torah
• Orthodox vs. Torah-true
• RE: Orthodox vs. Torah-true
• RE: Orthodox vs. Torah-true
• am'ru vs. amaru
• Re: Kaddish
• RE: Orthodox vs. Torah-true
• Re: Orthodox vs. Torah-true
• Re: Orthodox vs. Torah-true

MBerger replied:
> IOW, Friday afternoon yes, because it is not a "day without tachanun".

As I noted, I find Rosh Chodesh more of a kashya, more than Fri Minchah
(or Chanukah, or Purim, or Chol HaMoed). Your thoughts?

[Email #2. -mi]

Also see the last M-J V37#32 post (the digest, which I just read [I'm
_way_ behind perusing M-J digests!], should be available on the WWW via
http://www.shamash.org [or something like that]).

-- Michael Poppers via RIM pager

>>>Re the Israeli kohein and his wife who opted for a girl because
"A daughter, they explained, would never go up to read from the Torah;
the community would not know that she was not their biological child;
and they wouldn't have to tell her either," will they make sure that she
marries only a kohein or a leivi? Otherwise, her first child, if male,
would need a pidyon haben and would not be nifdeh because of the mistaken
assumption that the mother is a bas kohein.>>>

Assuming that this girl will know that she is not really a bas kohein by
the time that she gets married, why can't she be podeh her first born male
in a secretive manner (there is no need for a public ceremony)? Unless we
are afraid that this girl will never be told that she is not really a
bas kohein. But, if this is the case, can't the baby's grandparents be
podeh their grandchild without divulging this to their daughter?

KT
Aryeh

On 21 Oct 2002 at 9:24, Stein, Aryeh wrote:
> Assuming that this girl will know that she is not really a bas kohein
> by the time that she gets married, why can't she be podeh her first
> born male in a secretive manner (there is no need for a public
> ceremony)?  

I thought of this as well. She could have her father serve as the
Kohain. No one else needs to know. Everyone else would assume she had
a C-Section or a previous miscarriage.

> Unless we are afraid that this girl will never be told
> that she is not really a bas kohein.  

Unless she has a vaginally born first born son, why would she ever need
to know? Except maybe for genetic diseases R"L.

> But, if this is the case, can't
> the baby's grandparents be podeh their grandchild without divulging
> this to their daughter?

Does the child need to be at the pidyon ha'ben? I suppose if you have to
follow the text he would be because it starts out "zeh bni b'chori." So
my guess is that it's unlikely to be done b'zmano without the daughter
being there.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

In the discussion about the Haaretz article, it seems to have been taken
for granted that the problem of k'hunah is a result of donor sperm,
implying that if it were the father's, the problem would not exist.

This is far from obvious. Just as sperm from someone other than the
husband does not make the child a mamzer, since it requires birth by
act of biah to produce a mamzer (as opposed to b'ambati ibrah), so too
should it not require bias kohain, rather than just a kohain's sperm,
to make the child a kohain?

And if the cases are not comparable, there is a simple solution for the
childless couple's dilemma: find a kohain donor.

Elazar M. Teitz

re divine enlightenment :

1. RYGB wrote:
Reb Chaim would not pasken major questions - he would send them to RYE and
ask him to send back psakim without rationales. Reb chaim understood that
RYE's psak would manifest Ratzon Hashem even though he could invariably
dispute the lomdus. In our generation we witnessed a similar phenomenon
with RMF zt"l.

this implies that r chaim's own psak would not manifest the ratzon
Hashem! the point of this often told story, as i understood it,
is that r chaiim, like all good briskers, preferred not to paskin,
(ie whether because of his gift of seeing the depth of all sides of a
mackhloes, or his inability to prefer a "correct" opinion [or both!],
and therefore left he paskening to others (i don;t beleive it was RYE who
handled the daily Brisk questions, rather r simcha zelig (?)). i am sure
he did have faith in the siyyata dishmaya that every good posek enjoys,
but i never understood that to be the point of the story.

2. a point not yet raised: i certainly always received the message from
rav lichtenstein that chachamin enjoy siyyata dishmaya and, while their
haskafic opinions may not be BINDING, they must be heard. r lichtenstein,
interestingly enough, was apparently deeply disappointed with the mafdal,
in the 80's (not sure exactly when), because they didn;t consult with
rabanim.

however, r lichtenstein often expressed, in smaller crowds, that not
every talmid chachim is a "gadol", and not all chachamin are graced with
"it". he expressed his great revere of RMF, R Hutner, as well as RAS
and RJS, but seemed greatly frustrated after RSZA passed away. the sense
was that there were no longer leaders who pocessed both Torah knowledge
and the insight and depth that other gedolim had. he consulted with rav
elyashiv before he refused to join the neeman commission, but seemed to
have longed for the guidance of RSZA and RAS.

point: not everyone who can say a good shiur, or who has great bekiyus
in shas/poskim, has the Torah depth and insight that we are looking
for. i, personally, find that it is greatly lacking these days, and our
"dor" is sorely suffering because of its absence. may our prayers of
"al hatsadikim veal hachasidim" be answered.

david brofsky

"Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> writes on Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:59:30 
-0400: 
> RYGB 
>> Torah is not medicine nor accounting. Torah is Toras Chaim, and Chacham 
>> adif me'Navi. True, they are not infallible, but they are blessed with 
>> far greater insight, and often with connections to the Heavens. 
> 
>> Let me clarify that this is NOT a Charedi viewpoint. The Chardei viewpoint 
>> may well veer towards infallibility. This is a minimal Torah-true 
>> viewpoint (Prof. Kaplan u'd'imyhu notwithstanding - they have agendas, 
>> and not Torah agendas). 

> The definition of minimal Torah-true viewpoint has been greatly expanded 
> here on avoda and areivim (even beyond the 13 ikarim, about which we have 
> had debates) - something that has happened in the past (I think of issues 
> such as criticism of avot, use of allegory, etc, where, regardless of 
> how one views the particular issue, the notion that it becomes a defining 
> part of a minimal Torah -true viewpoint is quite radical). 

I was waiting eagerly for my good friend RMS to chime in! 

And, I owe you a big yasher koach! 

You have taught me why RSRH preferred Torah-true to Orthodox! 

Orthodoxy implies one accepts the doctrines of Judaism - the 13 Ikkarim. 

(I think, my dear Reb Meir, that on that much we are in agreement, although I 
can never be sure!) 

Torah-true, OTOH, implies that one accepts all the truths expressed in Torah - 
not just the Ikkarim - but all that Torah sheb'Ksav and Torah sheb'Al Peh 
impart. 

Someday, Reb Meir, we must make a comprehensive list of all those areas that 
you and I have clashed about over the years that I hold are the verities and 
truths of Torah and you hold... well, I'm not sure exactly what... 

Those include of course, the stuff you mention above, and let us, of course, 
not forget the illcit publication of private correspondence! 

Now, to take up the cudgels on yet another verity... 

> While daas torah is one viewpoints, and few would deny chachamim 
> insight - the notion of chacham adif minavi as implying connection 
> to the heavens is not simple pshat..(I wonder if RYGB thinks that the 
> rambam would concur) 

You know something, RMS, it is very significant that you chose to
switch the topic from my chosen subject header of "Atzas Gedolim" to
"Daas Torah." DT is of course, a time worn bugbear (if that's the word I
want) which is difficult to define, and, of course, even more difficult
to prove.

But "Atzas Gedolim" is not. It is simply "zil karei Bei Rav." I call your
attention to Avos 6:1 and its commentators (start from Rashi and youll
do fine) on the Lomed Torah lishma from which nehenin Eitzah v'Tushiah.

The Gemara (and Ramban and Ritva et al) in BB are merely an explanation
of Avos 6:1 (why, praytell, is a Ramban not "pshat?").

And, of course the Rambam would agree - you think he disagrees with a
mishna (or baraisa, I won't quibble) mefureshes?

> One could as easily (and as correctly) say that those who criticize Prof 
> Kaplan have agendas (and not Torah agendas..) 

But we would, of course, not say that, as that would be flaming... right? 

A pleasure as always, 
YGB 

"Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> writes on Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:59:30
-0400: 
> RYGB 
>> Torah is not medicine nor accounting. Torah is Toras Chaim, and Chacham 
>> adif me'Navi. True, they are not infallible, but they are blessed with 
>> far greater insight, and often with connections to the Heavens. 

>> Let me clarify that this is NOT a Charedi viewpoint. The Chardei viewpoint 
>> may well veer towards infallibility. This is a minimal Torah-true 
>> viewpoint (Prof. Kaplan u'd'imyhu notwithstanding - they have agendas, 
>> and not Torah agendas). 

> The definition of minimal Torah-true viewpoint has been greatly expanded 
> here on avoda and areivim (even beyond the 13 ikarim, about which we have 
> had debates) - something that has happened in the past (I think of issues 
> such as criticism of avot, use of allegory, etc, where, regardless of 
> how one views the particular issue, the notion that it becomes a defining 
> part of a minimal Torah -true viewpoint is quite radical). 

RYGB replied
> I was waiting eagerly for my good friend RMS to chime in! 
> And, I owe you a big yasher koach! 
> You have taught me why RSRH preferred Torah-true to Orthodox! 
> Orthodoxy implies one accepts the doctrines of Judaism - the 13 Ikkarim.

> (I think, my dear Reb Meir, that on that much we are in agreement,
> although I can never be sure!)

Me
We had a previous discussion about the extent to which the 13 ikkarim
are truly normative - it would be useless to rehash it (RM Schapiro did
a nice job in his Tora umadda article)

RYGB
> Torah-true, OTOH, implies that one accepts all the truths expressed in
> Torah - not just the Ikkarim - but all that Torah sheb'Ksav and Torah
> sheb'Al Peh impart.

Me

The question, of course, is what truths are imparted by the torah
shebeksav and torah sheb'alpe - and this is of course a matter of great
machloket. That is why the ikkarim,to the extent that they are normative,
derive their strength. The other statements may be something that we hold
to be near and dear, and may even be true, but they are not necessarily
imparted by the torah sheb'ksav and torah sheb'alpe. Someone who is
torah true may deny something that you believe to be one of those truths.


RYGB
> Someday, Reb Meir, we must make a comprehensive list of all those areas
> that you and I have clashed about over the years that I hold are the
> verities and truths of Torah and you hold... well, I'm not sure exactly
> what...

Me

My argument with you has not always been on the substance on what I
believe to be true, but whether I believe it to be normative, (and I
think that both semantically and practically, torah true beliefs and
normative beliefs are quite similar)

RYGB
> Those include of course, the stuff you mention above, and let us, of
> course, not forget the illcit publication of private correspondence!

I do not recall any such illicit publication, and if I did it,
I apologize. (please send off line documentation) If not, I expect
an apology. I would also include, of course, attacks on the basis of
positions which you think clearcut but without any documentation that
specifically applies (the zt"l debate, among others, comes to mind)

Now, to take up the cudgels on yet another verity... 

> While daas torah is one viewpoints, and few would deny chachamim 
> insight - the notion of chacham adif minavi as implying connection 
> to the heavens is not simple pshat..(I wonder if RYGB thinks that the 
> rambam would concur) 

You know something, RMS, it is very significant that you chose to
switch the topic from my chosen subject header of "Atzas Gedolim" to
"Daas Torah." DT is of course, a time worn bugbear (if that's the word I
want) which is difficult to define, and, of course, even more difficult
to prove.

But "Atzas Gedolim" is not. It is simply "zil karei Bei Rav." I call your
attention to Avos 6:1 and its commentators (start from Rashi and youll
do fine) on the Lomed Torah lishma from which nehenin Eitzah v'Tushiah.

The Gemara (and Ramban and Ritva et al) in BB are merely an explanation
of Avos 6:1 (why, praytell, is a Ramban not "pshat?").

And, of course the Rambam would agree - you think he disagrees with a mishna
(or baraisa, I won't quibble) mefureshes? 


Me 
> Your phraseology (and I was quite specific to what I was refering to) was 
> far greater insight, and often with connections to the Heavens.

and it is the connection to the Heavens that I questioned (to quote "the
notion of chacham adif minavi as implying connection to the heavens is
not simple pshat..(I wonder if RYGB thinks that the rambam would concur)"
(and I wasn't the only one on the list...), and I highly doubt that the
rambam would agree with this. (I will b"n look up the ramban and ritva on
bb - it has been a while since I learned them, although my recollection
is quite different..)

With regard to the advice from chachamim, and the mishna/braita cited -
this is related to the general issue of how we relate to maamre hazal -
whether we take Rav Sherira Gaon's position that we may dismiss them,
or the Rambam's position that we need to properly interprete, or a more
haredi position. It is paradigmatic of our debates that citing a source
that is clearly aggadic in nature is viewed as decisive - in and of
itself a matter of significant debate (and the source is given as pashut
a particular interpretation not clearly in the original (eg heavenly
support)), and therefore, yes, it is a specifically haredi viewpoint.

Therefore, qith regard to chachamim as giving etzot, per se, I was
quite circumspect - few would deny chachamim insight - however, I am
not willing to put it in the category of minimal torah true belief.
Furthermore, I think that the use of atzas gdolim (as used on this list)
is quite similar and almost (although not quite) identical to the issue
of emunat chachamim - the basis of daas torah - although one could
legitimately limit the use of the term.

As a professional, I would turn (although not blindly) on some
issue(lehavdil etc) to the "gdolim" in my field, and the issue of
the ability to reach good decisions without clearly formulating the
rationale is well known (I dabbled for a while in "expert systems" -
and it is precisely the issue that experts in medical diagnosis do not
follow well defined rules that make computer diagnosis so difficult,
but I digress), and agree with the ability of gdolim to give etzot on
areas where they had adequate information and the etza is related to their
areas of expertise - but this narrows the applicability substantially.

Thus, RYGB was sent to RSZA for career advice as someone considering
rabbanut. This would seem quite the norm (and I wouldn't draw too many
conclusions), as this falls quite within the parameters outlined above.
(lehavdil elef etc, every "gadol" (and even not so gadol..) in every field
is approached by people who are potentially interested in the field).
It is when the advice is in areas outside of areas of expertise, or viewed
as normative or binding that problems arise. Furthermore, the issue of
advice is frequently a matter of moral choice - the different options have
different consequences with different moral values attached. RYBS has
a tape where he specifically says that one should not rely on gdolim to
make moral choices - the gdolim may clarify the moral and halachic issues
involved, but not decide for the individual the right course, suggesting
that my demurral is not quite as hutz lamachane as RYGB supposes.


> One could as easily (and as correctly) say that those who criticize Prof 
> Kaplan have agendas (and not Torah agendas..) 

But we would, of course, not say that, as that would be flaming... right?

Flamimg works both ways, as in the casual imputation to R Kaplan of not
torah agendas - that was the point.

Meir Shinnar

Not too much new ground here, so let's keep it brief!

At 05:54 PM 10/21/02 -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:

>We had a previous discussion about the extent to which the 13 ikkarim are
>truly normative - it would be useless to rehash it (RM Schapiro did a nice
>job in his Tora umadda article)

As we have noted in the past, he certainly did a nice job of proving how 
normative they actually are!!!

>The question, of course, is what truths are imparted by the torah shebeksav
>and torah sheb'alpe -
>and this is of course a matter of great machloket.  That is why the
>ikkarim,to the extent that they are normative, derive their strength.  The
>other statements may be something that we hold to be near and dear, and may
>even be true, but they are not necessarily imparted by the torah sheb'ksav
>and torah sheb'alpe.  Someone who is torah true may deny something that you
>believe to be one of those truths.

Only if it is "my belief."

But here we are talking absolutes :-) .

>I do not recall any such illicit publication, and if I did it, I  apologize.
>(please send off line documentation) If not, I expect an apology.  I would
>also include, of course, attacks on the basis of positions which you think
>clearcut but without any documentation that specifically applies (the zt"l
>debate, among others, comes to mind)

Not you! C"V! Another RMS... whom you defended...

>Your phraseology (and I was quite specific to what I was referring to) was
>far greater insight, and often with connections to the Heavens.
>
>and it is the connection to the Heavens that I  questioned (to quote "the
>notion of chacham adif minavi as implying connection  to the heavens is not
>simple pshat..(I wonder if RYGB thinks that the
>  rambam would concur)" (and I wasn't the only one on the list...), and I
>highly doubt that the rambam would agree with this. (I will b"n look up the
>ramban and ritva on bb - it has been a while since I learned them, although
>my recollection is quite different..)
>
>With regard to the advice from chachamim, and the mishna/braita cited - this
>is related to the general issue of how we relate to maamre hazal - whether
>we take Rav Sherira Gaon's position that we may dismiss them, or the
>Rambam's position that we need to properly interprete, or a more haredi
>position. It is paradigmatic of our debates that citing a source that is
>clearly aggadic in nature is viewed as decisive - in and of itself a matter
>of significant debate (and the source is given as pashut a particular
>interpretation not clearly in the original (eg heavenly support)), and
>therefore, yes, it is a specifically haredi viewpoint.

The baraisa in Avos is not an Aggadata of the sort subject to RSG's 
position. You are confusing different types of Gemaros. His statement 
refers to Aggadtas of the type of RBBC in BB.

Speaking of BB, the Ramban is, methinks, quite normative (Ritva to boot) 
and pashut pshat.

>Therefore, qith regard to chachamim as giving etzot, per se, I was  quite
>circumspect - few would deny chachamim insight - however, I am not  willing
>to put it in the category of minimal torah true belief.  Furthermore, I
>think that the use of atzas gdolim (as used on this list) is quite similar
>and almost (although not quite) identical to the issue of emunat chachamim -
>the basis of daas torah - although one could legitimately limit the use of
>the term.

Wrong. I am bemused that you take the responsibility of imputing to my 
Atzas Gedolim discussion a basis in DT when I deny this!

>As a professional, I would turn (although not blindly) on some
>issue(lehavdil etc) to the "gdolim" in my field, and the issue of the
>ability to reach good decisions without clearly formulating the rationale is
>well known (I dabbled for a while in "expert systems" - and it is precisely
>the issue that experts in medical diagnosis do not follow well defined rules
>that make computer diagnosis so difficult, but I digress), and  agree with
>the ability of gdolim to give etzot on areas where they had adequate
>information and the etza is related to their areas of expertise - but this
>narrows the applicability substantially.

Did someone here say blindly? Did not notice! Again, you are setting up a 
strawman and attacking it. You can attack me instead, I'm quite a large 
target - but don't be fuzzy, then, about where my position begins and ends, 
please!

>Thus, RYGB was sent to RSZA for career advice as someone considering
>rabbanut.  This would seem quite the norm (and I wouldn't draw too many
>conclusions), as this falls quite within the parameters outlined above.
>(lehavdil elef etc, every "gadol" (and even not so gadol..) in every field
>is approached by people who are potentially interested in the field).  It is
>when the advice is in areas outside of areas of expertise, or viewed as
>normative or binding that problems arise.  Furthermore, the issue of advice
>is frequently a matter of moral choice - the different options have
>different consequences with different moral values attached. RYBS has a tape
>where he specifically says that one should not rely on gdolim to make moral
>choices - the gdolim may clarify the moral and halachic issues involved, but
>not decide for the individual the right course, suggesting that my demurral
>is not quite as hutz lamachane as RYGB supposes.

Can you please send me the tape? Or a transcript. Not that I don't
trust you, but I need documentation...

16 Cortland Rd
Monsey NY 10952.

Thanks!

>Flamimg works both ways, as in the casual imputation to R Kaplan of not
>torah agendas - that was the point.

Not casual...

Kol Tuv, Gemar Chasimah Tovah,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

A short time ago, a poster (RYGB, perhaps) noted that some say 'anu
v'amaru before mi khamokha instead of v'am'ru and requested sources.

Obviously, amaru is a pausal form so the question is whether there is
a pause after that word and if so is it enough of a pause to justify
a pausal form. The other question is who decided that there is a pause
sufficient to require a pausal form.

I quote from the words of R' Ya'akov m'Emden in Luach Eres, siman 141.
As is known, this entire book was written to counteract the changes made
in the Siddur by R' Zalman Hakohen Henne (Hanau). So, you can tell what
is coming.


V'am'ru, the mem with sh'va. Not as written in Sha'arei Tefila (of RZ"H)
mem with kamatz at hefsek. This is an error, because although there is a
slight ha'amada it is not a hefsek gamur such as an etnachta or sof pasuk
because the ma'amar has not been completed...What they said (mah am'ru)
cannot be understood until one adds the pasuk H' yimlokh that follows.
What he wrote in Sha'arei Tefila is that a complete sentence follows
(v'amr'u) and there is no hefsek bigger than that. I say, so what if
it is a complete sentence. It (the following complete sentence) is still
attached to the preceding words.

He goes on for a long explanation, but the above is sufficient to get
the point. RZ"H is evidently the source and, as usual, R' Ym'E says he
is wrong.

R' David Yitzhaki (editor of the new edition points out that in the
siddur and later Hebrew in general, the pausal froms were not often used.

Even in Tanakh we find amru at an etnachta with a sh'va rather than
kamatz. V'anu v'am'ru, yadenu lo shaf'khu (devarim 21:7) and Iyyov 28:22

RYm'E continues with an almost vicious attack on Ashkenazi hazanim who
make the word v'am'ru into a fancy drawn out ending like "a lion in the
forest ... a braying donkey ... shaking like a drunkard... rosh of the
meshuga'im...for the enjoyment of the listeners not paying attention to
the prayer" and much more.

Some time back there were postings, probably under the subject title
"diyukim", that pointed out that most ba'alei tefilla say, in ma'ariv:
 zeh Eli 'anu v'amru or zeh Eli, - 'anu v'am'ru. This too is either
omitting the hefsek or putting it in the wrong place. Clearly, it should
be Zeh Eli 'anu, - v'am'ru H' yimlokh, they answered Zeh Eli,-- and
said H' yimlokh.

On the same subject, most hazanim say Moshe uvnei Yisrael l'kha 'anu
shira, -- b'simcha rabba v'am'ru khulam-- followed, of course by mi
khamokha.

If the siddur said, uvsimcha raba am'ru khulam, or b'simcha rabba am'ru
khulam, it would make sense. But, to me, to stop after shira and proclaim
B'simcha rabba V'am'ru... is just not understandable.

It appears clear that the correct way is to say that Moshe & Co. sang
shira with great simcha. And they all said Mi khamokha... In fact most
siddurim have a comma after rabba and not after shira.

'anu shira b'simcha rabba, -- v'am'ru khulam mi khamokha ...

The incorrect hefsek is probably the result of piyyutim that had additions
after the word shira. The stop after v'am'ru came about because H' yimlokh
is written on a separate line and usually in larger ssize letters. In
addition, H' yimlokh is (properly) said by all together in chorus.
As RYmE puts it, the saying in chorus is not an excuse for a hefsek.
He recommends that it is best to say the lines ending v'am'ru with the
hazan and continuing immediately with H' yimlokh

k"t,
David

>> Is anyone aware of a hakpadah that individuals saying kaddish for
>> their own losses not attend a shivah minyan so that everyone answers
>> only for the aveilim of that shiva? If not, should this be preferable?

IIRC, there is a Pre Megadim either in Hilchos Tefila or Aveilus that
states that in a minyan with more than one avel saying Kaddish, there
should be a minyan answering each avel. When RHS was saying Kaddish for
his mother ZL years ago, I learned that this was one reason why he did
not always say Kaddish.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

Trying to keep it brief

>The question, of course, is what truths are imparted by the torah shebeksav
>and torah sheb'alpe -
>and this is of course a matter of great machloket.  That is why the
>ikkarim,to the extent that they are normative, derive their strength.  The
>other statements may be something that we hold to be near and dear, and may
>even be true, but they are not necessarily imparted by the torah sheb'ksav
>and torah sheb'alpe.  Someone who is torah true may deny something that you
>believe to be one of those truths.

Only if it is "my belief."
But here we are talking absolutes :-) .

By what authority do we determine that they are absolutes?? By the
mere fact that they are not ikkarim and therefore have no halachic
significance, on what basis do we determine that they are indeed correct??

RYGB
> The baraisa in Avos is not an Aggadata of the sort subject to RSG's
> position. You are confusing different types of Gemaros. His statement
> refers to Aggadtas of the type of RBBC in BB.

I think that the issue of how far to apply RSG's position (and the
rambam;s position) is one of the key issues - and here we differ.
This disagreement (I would venture that most "centrist", even if they
don't adopt RSG's position, for sure would adopt rambam, but apply it
quite extensively) is a core haredi/centrist fault line (and your claim
was precisely that this interpretation of azat gdolim is independent of
these fault lines)

RYGB
> Speaking of BB, the Ramban is, methinks, quite normative (Ritva to boot)
> and pashut pshat.

The normative interpretation of aggadta is of course the issue at hand...
However, clearly, a connection to the heavens dovetails nicely with
the general hashkafa of the ramban and the ritva, while it is (at the
least) quite problematic for the rambam, so I am not sure why the fact
that the ramban and the ritva agree on this proves anything about the
rambam (especially given his position on aggadta), and I think that many
here also

RYGB
> Wrong. I am bemused that you take the responsibility of imputing to my
> Atzas Gedolim discussion a basis in DT when I deny this!

You may not have meant it, but the general discussion was clearly related
- therefore I stated that one could separate the two (as you did),
but I think that the discussion on avodah was precisely on daas torah
(and the ideological issues that are apparent - the normative nature
of aggadic/hashkafic statements, while not identical, are quite closely
intertwined)

RYGB
> Can you please send me the tape? Or a transcript. Not that I don't trust
> you, but I need documentation...

A friend of mine has it. I will see what I can do. Of course, we
sometimes differ in our understanding of simple pshat (a la vealehu lo
yibol discussion...)

Meir Shinnar

sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu wrote:
> Orthodoxy implies one accepts the doctrines of Judaism - the 13
> Ikkarim. 

> Torah-true, OTOH, implies that one accepts all the truths expressed in Torah -
> not just the Ikkarim - but all that Torah sheb'Ksav and Torah sheb'Al Peh 
> impart.

There is no doubt in my mind that these definitions are correct and
that Torah-true is a better expression of Torah observance than is
the word Orthodoxy. 

However, phraseology which has a certain intrinsic meaning will often
be co-opted by a specific political group and become a code word for
something else. I think this is the case with the expression
"Torah-true". Charedi organizations, such as Agudah, have adopted
this phrase and it is used to express THEIR version of Orthodoxy, to
the exclusion of other Hashkafos, such as possibly TIDE or most
certainly TuM. 

Would you not agree?

HM

At 05:32 PM 10/21/02 -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
>There is no doubt in my mind that these definitions are correct and
>that Torah-true is a better expression of Torah observance than is
>the word Orthodoxy.
>
>However, phraseology which has a certain intrinsic meaning will often
>be co-opted by a specific political group and become a code word for
>something else. I think this is the case with the expression
>"Torah-true". Charedi organizations, such as Agudah, have adopted
>this phrase and it is used to express THEIR version of Orthodoxy, to
>the exclusion of other Hashkafos, such as possibly TIDE or most
>certainly TuM.
>
>Would you not agree?

Resounding NO!

Firstly, as I noted, I believe, TT is Hirschian.

Secondly, more importantly, why allow groups to co-opt terms that should be 
more broadly applicable?!

I think, for example, that every "Dati" should rue the day they allowed 
"Charedi" to be co-opted! Who does not aspire to be a Chared l'dvar Hashem!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

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


[ 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         ]