Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 052

Monday, November 11 2002

• Star Wars Disclaimer
• astrology
• RE: Shittas ho'Rambam
• Re: astrology
• Re: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• Re: pasukim that begin and end with the first and last letter of your name
• Re: pasukim that begin and end with the first and last letter of yourname
• Re:am'ru vs. amaru
• Re: zecher/zichron
• Re: zecher/zichron
• Re: zecher/zichron
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• zecher/zichron
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• NAMES THAT HAVE NO PSUKIM
• Kaddish
• Re: Kaddish
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Re: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind

I am sorry if I created the impression that I agreed to RMS's 
characterization of our debate as a MO/RW  thing, and thus inadvertently 
maligned my MO friends and colleagues.

Aderaba, in this respect, having learnt in Mizrachi, PAI and Agudah 
yeshivas, I believe I represent the stance and approach that is taken in 
all of them. We are one.

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

<Lookit, RMS (and RMF), you fellas might disagree with the Rambam
(Hil. AZ 11:9) - l'shitaschem, why not?). BUT HE HOLDS THAT THE GEMARA
IN SANHEDRIN SAYS THAT ASTROLOGY IS BOGUS! Thus, unless you would like
to say that the Rambam was being nefarious and putting his own agenda
into the Gemara, HE HELD CHAZAL DECLARED ASTROLOGY TO BE INVALID. >

no need to shout.
However, at this point I am lost. Rambam and several Geonim are also
against the existence of Shedim and Kishuf and other such other worldly
activities. I would explain this that they rationally could not accept
the existence of sheidim. Hence, given some statements in the Gemara that
"paskened" like those opinions even though many other sugyot show that
many of chazal did accept sheidim, astrology etc. Rashba in his teshuva
quotes many such sources. We also all know that the Gra vehemently
attacked the Rambam as being a philosopher and so not accepting such
issues. I interpret this as the Gra not being as kind to the Rambam as
you. He just about accuses the Rambam of being nefarious.

In summary if many gemaras accept shedim, astrology etc and one gemara
does not - why would a rishon pasken like that one gemara if not that
he had external reasons for such a psak. Why is this different than
Rambam's statement that he would interpret Bereshit as an aggadata if
he was convinced LOGICALLY that the world was eternal

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/10/2002

Rabbotay,

I didn't follow the whole exchange. It is certainly the case that Rambam,
on many significat matters, diverges from the mainstream of Hazal. He
is aware of this. Sometimes he says explicitly that he is following one
strand in Hazal. On other occasions he does not take the literal sense
of Aggada as normative.

For an example of the way the living person most admired in my citcles
confronts such tension, see my Jewish Perspectives on the Experience
of Suffering-- in R. Aharon Lichtenstein's discussion of the question
about whether G-d suffers.

In shiur 35 years RAL freely admitted that "we moderns" follow the
Rambam's distaste for shedim, but figuratively rapped a student on the
knuckles for making a joke of Rashi's "belief in spooks." I imagine that
he would adopt a similar attitude towards astrology.

I did not discuss these specific matters with Maran haRav Soloveitchik
zt"l. But his attitude in parallel areas was similar. Re astrology: the
Rav suggested that it was viewed as science and that the discussions of
astrology in Rishonim might help illuminate deterministic theories in
modern culture.

At 04:34 PM 11/10/02 +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
>In summary if many gemaras accept shedim, astrology etc and one
>gemara does not - why would a rishon pasken like that one gemara if
>not that he had external reasons for such a psak. Why is this
>different than Rambam's statement that he would interpret Bereshit as
>an aggadata if he was convinced LOGICALLY that the world was eternal

Your first paragraph (deleted) consisted of your opinions. While I value
them, they are not inherently normative and need not be specificaaly
refuted. Suffice that my opinions are clearly otherwise.

Your second paragraph is simply incorrect. Look again at the Moreh 2:25.
The Rambam say he cannot interpret Bereishis metaphorically not just
because of his OWN logic, but because that would conflict with the
mesorah as evinced by many pesukim in Nach etc.

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

> I am very sorry that RDE continues to sustain a position that is
> untenable, aside from its inherent contradiction to the very idea
> of mesorah.

At this point we have what I find to be an very unpleasant situation. R'
Bechhofer has been asserting over and over again that only he knows how
to understand the mesorah and that all the other participants in the
discussion don't understand on an elementary level how to read the Rambam
or the gemora and are basically incapable of rational thought. Rather
strange and not very flattering to say the least!

On the off off chance that maybe R' Bechhofer is in fact the only member
of this group who properly understands Yiddishkeit and the rest of us are
"spiritually challenged" - Maybe we have been out of yeshiva for too many
years - I asked my three sons separately (learning at Mir, Ponevish, Rav
Hillel Zaks) and they all replied basically the same way. "Anyone who can
read Hebrew could not hold the view that the Rambam was basing himself on
his understanding of Chazal to reject astrology". I ran the issue past R'
Eliyahu Touger - a Lubatvischer talmid chachom who has done extensive
work with the Rambam. He agreed with my position as a davar pashut.

My brief - non scientific sample - suggests that it is in fact R'
Bechhofer's views that are out of the mainstream of the yeshiva velt. I
then realized that I had ignored a red flag that R' Bechhofer had waved at
the beginning of this exchange. I realized that it is simply impossible
to convince him based on textual evidence because he is incapable of
seeing the text the same way as the rest of us.

>Now, folks, you probably should join us in learning Rav Wolbe, because
>as he makes clear, the way one learns Torah is not to introduce one's
>own biases into the pursuit thereof, but to hear what the Torah says:"Vohs
>shteit!"

Ironically in the yeshiva velt, it is the mussar proponents who are
viewed as the one's most likely to read in their preconceived ideas into
the text rather than discovering what the Torah says.

For example the Chazon Ish severely criticses R' Yitzchok Isaac Sher
for committng this crime by insisting - as baalei mussar will - that
the many chazal talking about the sins of our forefathers are not to
be taken literally. (Letters #207,209). Chazon Ish concludes that R'
Sher simply couldn't read Chazal properly.

Chazon Ish also voices criticism of the baalei mussar in the 2nd chapter
of emunah and bitachon. He criticizes the baalei musar who start with
notions such as that being nice is a foundation principle and then try
to bend the halacha to fit. He notes that instead one starts with what
the Torah says and not what one thinks the Torah should have meant.

As regards the Rambam - besides the famous Gra (YD 179:13) and the Ran
(#11) - which accuse the Rambam of committing this error - there is the
following criticism.

"It is to this great man[Rambam] alone that we owe the preservation of
practical Judaism until the present day. By accomplishng this and yet -
on the other hand - MERELY RECONCILING JUDAISM WITH THE IDEAS FROM WITHOUT
rather than developing it creatively from within, and by the way in which
he effected this reconciliation he gave rise to all the good that followed
- AS WELL AS ALL THE BAD. HIS TREND OF THOUGHT WAS ARAB-GREEK AS WAS HIS
CONCEPT OF LIFE. Approaching Judaism from without, he brought to it views
that he had gained elsewhere, and these he reconciled with Judaism. Thus
to him, too, the highest aim was self perfection through recognition
of the truth; and the practical, concrete deeds became subordinate to
this end. ....Consequently...But surely, before drawing conclusions,
one ought to have asked himself: Moshe ben Maimon, Moshe ben Mendel -
are they in fact Moshe ben Amram?....There is but one road that leads
to salvation; amends must be made precisely where the wrong was done. We
must forget the views and prejeudices that we inherited abut Judaism and
instead turn to the sources of Judaism...Thus Judaism must be studied
and understood out of itself and b e elevated all by itself to a science
of wise living" R. S.R. Hirsch 18th Letter (Rabbi Elias edition).

In sum, I assert that the decided failure of communications concerning
the reading of the Rambam is because R' Bechhofer is taking a decidedly
minority understanding of the Rambam which doesn't follow the pshat but
is based upon a mussar position as to what the Rambam must have meant. I
acknowledge that such a position is possibly normative in the mussar
world but certainly not outside of it. I am presently trying to get hold
of one of Rav Wolbe's talmidim to see if Rav Wolbe in fact agrees with R'
Bechhoffer's views.

                                                    Daniel Eidensohn

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> sbacher@icon.co.za writes:
>> Does anybody have a good source to find the pesukim one recites at the
>> end of Shmoneh Esrei that begin that refer to ones name.

> bar ilan cd

Also available a recently pubished 'Siddur Hazohar'
 (by a R' Meshi Zohov of Yerushalayim)
 which at the back also lists psukim for all combinations.

[That is - for all combinations possible.
There are some names that simply do not have suitable such
psukim - eg Sima (my little grandaughters name) and Klonimus.

So what do these people do?    Mrs Peters??]

SBA

Dear R' Sholem (I seem to recall that that's your name. Am I right?)

As a teenager, I was told to use a pasuk that begins with samech and ends
with heh (although the last letter of my name is aleph) since that's
as close as one can get, in the circumstances. (I assume that even
in Daniel, looking for a better option is pushing it.) The pasuk is:
"Sobu tzion vehakifuha sipru migdaleha." (Psalms 48:13--and the shir
shel yom for yom sheni.) Rather prescient, actually, in light of the
fact that I made aliya at the age of 23 and have been here ever since.
(A long time, b"H, and it gives me pleasure to think that the pasuk fits
so well.) During Elul and the yamim noraim, I add another pasuk that I
once saw in a machzor for Rosh Hashana: "Selach na la'avon ha'am hazeh
kegodel chasdecha veka'asher nasata la'am hazeh mimitzrayim ve'ad hena."

The name Sima has two derivations, apparently. The variant spelled
with a heh is a corruption of the name "Simcha," which is why bnot edot
hamizrach with this name spell it that way. The variant spelled with an
aleph is Aramaic in origin and means "treasure" as in "Savta babayit,
sima babayit..."

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
> R' SBA wrote of two alternative nuschaot that he has seen where the
> pausal form amaru is written rather than am'ru. One is the version
> he says is used also by R' Aharaleh's chasidim and the other is in an
> Ashkenazic Ma'aravit said (or skipped) on yom tov. The Sefaradi siddurim
> I've checked have himlikhu v'am'ru both shaharit and ma'ariv. without
> zeh Eli 'anu. The majority of the Ashkenaz machzorim that I checked
> ended the piyyut with am'ru before mi khamokha and not amaru.

SNIP
 A response from a non-member...

----- Original Message -----
From: klarberg

very interisting discussion! Two points: 1) The name of R' Yaakov
Emden's book refuting Shaarei Tefila of RZ"H should be read with a Shin
Yeminit (see Tehillim 21:3). The name seems to mean "a notice board
of prayer." 2) Although it is true that many siddurim mark the Sheva
Na in accordance with RZ"H's opinion in Zohar HaTeva, this should not be
taken as an instruction as to how to pronounce the Sheva. People seem to
be unaware that in Shaarei Tefila RZ"H says that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE
IN PRONUNCIATON BETWEEN THE TYPES OF SHEVA (see page 217 inYitzchaki's
edition of Luach Eresh and Yitzchaki's comment there)

Shalom
Meshullam Klarberg

>It would seem that zikaron and zeicher can be ideantical. But zecher
>isn't. It aregues for RCVilozhiner's position, that "zeicher" is a
>reminder or memorial, something used to jog a person's memory. That
>would be more similar to the kisharon of memory than a given 
>recollection (zecher) would.

There is no grammatical or etymological reason to regard zeikher and
zekher as having different meanings. I would say that they differ
approximately the way Yisakhar and Yisaskhar differ.

To get back to the original point about the difference between zeikher
and zikaron, zikaron has more than one meaning, and one of these is
identical to the meaning of zeikher.

---------------------------
IRA L. JACOBSON
---------------------------
mailto:laser@ieee.org

On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 10:40:46AM +0200, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
: There is no grammatical or etymological reason to regard zeikher and 
: zekher as having different meanings...

The Gra made just that distinction. His talmidim agree that one means "a
memory / recollection" and one means "a reminder / memorial". But they
are choleiq as to which means which. From whence comes the practice of
saying both when leining parashas Zachor.

I would therefore require some basis for a bald and bold assertion that
is in disagreement with the Vilna Ga'on's diqduq.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

Yesterday I "corrected" R' Ira Jacobson's comment about when we say
zecher vs. zichron in Kiddush.

I was totally wrong. I don't know what I was thinking. More to follow
tomorrow, or sometime soon, I hope...

Akiva Miller

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> RHM is now asking about why more chiyuvim is the subject for berakha.
> Switching to his post:
>> Different situations and attendant advantages or disadvantages doesn't
>> mean that they are automaticlly different but equal. It just menas
> > they are different but not necessarily equal. Don't you see that the
> > above statement confers a higher status (spiritual superiority) upon
> > women? Women are "closer to His ideal"... men have to work toward
> > that ideal?

> Agreed. After all, who made the eigel, and who wasn't tempted to do
> so?

> Although, since men have more chiyuvim, they have more opportunities to
> become greater. It's those opportunities that merit thanks. So, one thanks
> G-d for a starting position, the other for the opportunities to improve
> our position.

IOW, it's kind of like saying one appreciates the reward that one works
for more so than one who is given the identical reward without having
to work for it.

That means that women are denied this level of appreciation since they
already are at this level and don't get to work for it. This is not a
very positive thing for women to be thanking G-d for and according to
your Pshat this is precisely what they are thanking Him for (i.e. they
have a higher starting position).

I remain unconviced of your explanation. Even if I accpeted that your
explanation put men and women in an equivalent position (which I've just
rejected), the fact that Brachos reqiuire Drashos in order to undrstand
them and say them with the proper Kavana is highly suspect to my way
of thinking.


>>            But you also have not explained the nature of the two differing
>> constructs of the Brachos: Men in the negative...thanking G-d for NOT
>> MAKING THEM a woman, and women in the positive... thanking G-d for
>> MAKING THEM more desireable to Him.

> The women's berakhah is far newer. It's not necessarily written in
> parallel, since the sequence of 3 "shelo asani" don't hold. The men's
> berakhah has meaning that derives from context, and parallel language
> that simply doesn't hold in the reverse. 

It is true as you follow the sequence of the Brachos each "Shelo Asani"
increases the level of Mitzva requirement. A Goy has the least amount of
Mitzva Requirement... seven, an Eved has more than a Goy, he has the same
requirements as a woman. Women have additional Mitzvos over slaves in
the Mitzvos that are the exclusive domain of women that wouldn't apply
to slaves.

So, we "ascend" in order of the numbers of Mitzvah requirement thanking
G-d for putting us in the highest level of Mitzvah fulfilment, that of
non-Goy (lowest form), non-Eved and ultimately, even non-female. So
women are the best of the three but not as great as being a man who,
being created in the most imperfect of the four "species"... earns his
"stripes", therefore, making the reward that much sweeter. And this is
what we thank G-d for.

Do you really buy this?

> Perhaps the woman's berakhah
> was codified simply to maintain the total number and the waking-up
> progression.

I have no way of knowing why this Bracha was implemented but isn't it
possible that it was a form of apolgetics as an answer to women who
complained at not having an equivalent Bracha... written by a much later
generation? (Do we even know who wrote it?) Why, after all was it not
written by R. Meir at the time he wrote the original Brachos?

As to your point of maintiaining the number of Brahcos for woman,
wouldn't you think that R. Meir would have thought of this? As for the
"wake up progression"... skipping the Brahca doesn't detract from the
"wake up progression". Besides, what do those three Brachos have to do
with a "wake up progression" anyway? They are actually out of sequence
to the rest which are a "wake up progression" ... No?

HM

I was wondering whether its got to do with smichut.

We say Zichrono LeVrocho but Zecher LeZaddik Livrocho and Zecher
LeChurban etc

Daniel

On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 10:05:15AM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: I remain unconviced of your explanation. Even if I accpeted that your
: explanation put men and women in an equivalent position (which I've just
: rejected), the fact that Brachos reqiuire Drashos in order to undrstand
: them and say them with the proper Kavana is highly suspect to my way
: of thinking.

Then there is nothing left to discuss.

I cited a Tosefta, Berachos 6:23.

It's cute, but still true, that the person who gives the explanation
is R' Yehudah, the talmid muvhaq of R' Meir, the author of the
berakhah.

I can't see this being up to debate. You do. That's where our paths
part. Because I see the Tosefta and rov rishonim to be incontravertible
proof, what remains, not matter how improbable, must be the truth.
(Apologies to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.)

Basic postulate difference.

BTW, anyone else see the booklet in question? I have a copy, and didn't
think much of it -- the words "extremist tract" came to mind even before
I knew the thesis.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

From: "Simi and David Peters" <familyp2@netvision.net.il>
> Dear R' Sholem (I seem to recall that that's your name.  Am I right?)

Close - Shlomo...

> As a teenager, I was told to use a pasuk that begins with samech and ends
> with heh (although the last letter of my name is aleph) since that's as
> close as one can get, in the circumstances.  (I assume that even in
> Daniel, looking for a better option is pushing it.)

Nothing in Daniel either.

>.....During Elul and
> the yamim noraim, I add another pasuk that I once saw in a machzor for
> Rosh Hashana:  "Selach na la'avon ha'am hazeh kegodel chasdecha veka'asher
> nasata  la'am hazeh mimitzrayim ve'ad hena."

Excellent idea.

Meanwhile, I have for the past few months been preparing an
 article on Jewish names (with much of the material taken from
discussions we have had here on Avodah/Areivim),.

Here is the section 'hanoygeya l'inyoneinu'..

>>>>>>>>>

NAMES THAT HAVE NO PSUKIM

The Kitzur Shulchan Oruch (18:15) brings the minhag to say a posuk (or
psukim) from T'nach beginning and ending with the same letters as the
persons name.

Rav Dovid Feldman in his comments on the KSA quotes the Sh'loh that this is
a segula to remember the name 'b'yom hadin'. He also refers to a Rashi in
Michoh (6:9) which gives an even a stronger incentive for us to say 'our'
posuk. Rashi writes: "Vesushiyo Yireh Sh'mecho": "... From here (we learn)
that whoever says (daily) a posuk that begins and ends the same way as his
name, the Torah will save him from Gehinom ("Hatorah matziloy migeihenom")..."

The Taamei Haminhiogim also brings b'shem Siddur hamekubal R' Hirtz zt'l
that a person should say 'his' posuk whenever travelling, trading and even
studying...

I have no doubt that most people would happily go for such an
easy-to-achieve segula and faithfully say their posuk before 'yihyu
lerotzon'.
(Rashi, by the way, does not mention
when and where to say this posuk).

But what about those people who cannot find such a posuk?
There are actually some names which simply cannot be matched.

Eg, the name Klonimus has a problem as there is no posuk that
begins with a kuf and ends with a samech.

Another example -- my little granddaughter -- zol zein gezunt un shtark -- 
is named Sima. Like Klonimus, there is no posuk in the entire
T'nach beginning with a samech and ending in alef.

(There are those who spell the last letter of Sima [and other Yiddish and
Aramaic names] with a 'hei', thus solving the posuk problem. This, however,
is incorrect. Loshon Hakodesh names end with 'hei' whilst Yiddish and
Aramaic 'alef'.)

SNIP

So what's the eitzah?

The siddur Derech Hachaim which also quotes the above Sh'loh adds that if
the name is actually mentioned in the posuk, then there is no need
for the posuk to begin and end with the same letters as the name.
I haven't yet found a posuk with 'Klonimus' in it, but may have a possible
solution for my granddaughter (who at the age of two is not yet davvening...).
And that is, for her (and all Simas) to say a posuk with the word 'Simah'
(albeit spelt differently).
The posuk I am thinking of [which coincidentally was part of the kriah when
I was oleh letorah on the Shabbos that she was named]
(Vayelech 31:19): "V'atoh kisvu lochem es hashiro hazos
velamdoh es bnei Yisroel SIMOH befeehem..."

I look forward to hearing from others who have had this and similar
questions -- and their solutions.

Talking of the name Sima, it is commonly accepted that it is an Aramaic word
meaning 'treasure'. Rashi (Bechukosai 27:7) quotes Chazal (Erchin 19):
"Savta b'veisa sima b'veisa v'simna tovo b'veisa" (an old woman in the
house -- is a treasure in the house and a 'simon tov' in the house...)
See also Targum on Usfunei Temunei Chol (V'zos Habrocho 33:19).

However, I wonder, what are the chances that originally there was a girl
called Simcha who was called (or even 'Cholkreisched' as) Sima with later
generations sticking to that name? <<<<<<<

Shlomo B Abeles

> "Yisgadal veyisqadash" is valid Hebrew or Aramaic. "Yisgadeil
> viyisqadeish" is bedavka Hebrew. In any case, I'm missing your point:
> Are you saying that if one could be a Hebrew paraphrase of a pasuq that
> existed in the original, why not the other?

IIRC the MB says its preferable to say "Yisgadeil"

Daniel

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 12:14:51PM +0200, Daniel M Wells wrote:
:> "Yisgadal veyisqadash" is valid Hebrew or Aramaic. "Yisgadeil
:> viyisqadeish" is bedavka Hebrew...

: IIRC the MB says its preferable to say "Yisgadeil"

You do. We've discussed this on Avodah before, so I'll write beqitzur
and refer you to the search engine for detail.

The Gra writes that one make sure the words are said as in Hebrew,
since they are a paraphrase of a quote from Yechezqel (where the words
are written in first "Person").

The MB understands this to mean using a tzeirei.

However, the original comment is hard to understand, as "yisgadal" is
also valid Hebrew. It just happens to also be valid Aramaic. Neither
are Aramaic to the exclusion of Hebrew.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucious
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I cited a Tosefta, Berachos 6:23.
...
> I can't see this being up to debate. You do. That's where our paths
> part. Because I see the Tosefta and rov rishonim to be incontravertible
> proof, what remains, not matter how improbable, must be the truth.
> (Apologies to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.)

Far be it from me to argue on Chazal. I didn't remember or notice your
quotation of Chazal as the source of your explanation. I didn't see or
don't remember seeing it. I thought you were quoting Rishonim.

But despite Chazal's explanation that Drashos are required to explain
and understand the intent of the Brachos, I am still bothered by the
fact that Brachos were written in a fashion that requires Drashos in
order to understand them properly so as to have the proper intent when
making the Bracha. It seems Shver and against the nature of Brachos for
them to require Drashos. I never said I did not accept the Bracha of
Shelo Asani Isha. I do and have mentioned that I say it every day. This,
however, does not remove the questions I have.

I remain perplexed.

HM

At 09:25 PM 11/10/02 +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> > I am very sorry that RDE continues to sustain a position that is
> > untenable, aside from its inherent contradiction to the very idea
> > of mesorah.

>At this point we have what I find to be an very unpleasant situation. R'
>Bechhofer has been asserting over and over again that only he knows how to
>understand the mesorah and that all the other participants in the discussion
>don't understand on an elementary level how to read the Rambam or the gemora
>and are basically incapable of rational thought. Rather strange and not very
>flattering to say the least!

I apologize for your taking umbrage, but your characterization of
my position is essentially correct. I have general ideas about the
antecedents of this interesting situation, but they will probably be
mistaken as pejorative, so I will not state them, at least not now.

>On the off off chance that maybe R' Bechhofer is in fact the only member of
>this group who properly understands Yiddishkeit and the rest of us are
>"spiritually challenged" - Maybe we have been out of yeshiva for too many
>years  - I asked my three sons separately (learning at Mir, Ponevish, Rav
>Hillel Zaks) and they all replied  basically the same way. "Anyone who can
>read Hebrew could not hold the view that the Rambam was basing himself on
>his understanding of Chazal to reject astrology". I ran the issue past R'
>Eliyahu Touger - a Lubatvischer talmid chachom who has done extensive work
>with the Rambam. He agreed with my position as a davar pashut.

Which texts did you run by them?

Regardless, I am not impressed. If you go to R' Refael Shmuelevitz
and show him Chap. 11 of Hil. AZ and he tells you that the Rambam did
not understand Chazal as dismissing astrology, but made it up himself,
then I will eat my hat.

If you need an expanded list of Roshei Yeshiva and Lamdonim to whom I
will defer, I will provide it upon request.

(deleted)

>Ironically in the yeshiva velt, it is the mussar proponents who are viewed
>as the one's most likely to read in their preconceived ideas into the text
>rather than discovering what the Torah says.

Simply stunning. Remarkable. Frightening.

Who, exactly, in the yeshiva world told you this?!

Those of us who have a shemetz of mussar know very well what a negi'ah
is and how essential it is to avoid it.

I am mocheh on the brazenness of the statement (although flattered by
being thought a Ba'al Mussar!).

>For example the Chazon Ish severely criticses R' Yitzchok Isaac Sher for
>committng this crime by insisting - as baalei mussar will - that the many
>chazal talking about the sins of our forefathers are not to be taken
>literally. (Letters #207,209). Chazon Ish concludes that R' Sher simply
>couldn't read Chazal properly.
>     Chazon Ish also voices criticism of the baalei mussar in the 2nd chapter
>of emunah and bitachon. He criticizes the baalei musar who start with
>notions such as that being nice is a foundation principle and then try to
>bend the halacha to fit. He notes that instead one starts with what the
>Torah says and not what one thinks the Torah should have meant.

And the CI is the last word?

The Slabodker talmidim - those who went in the derech of the Alter -
the giants who have imparted Torah to our generation - they are katlei
kanya b'agma, right?!

Shomu shomayim!

(deleted)

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         ]