Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 119

Tuesday, March 16 2004

• Re: havdalah after megillah
• Re: ikkarim of dwarves
• Re: Ikarim of dwarves
• re: ikkarim of dwarves
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves
• Zemanim (was: ikkarim of dwarves)
• Re: Forward article re R M Shapiro's book
• Re: Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves
• Re: Marc Shapiro's New Book

Eli Turkel wrote:
> In our community almost all the shuls said megillah 45 minutes to an
> hour after shabbat with people going home in between.
> One of the local rabbis paskened that in that case they should say
> havdalah immediately at home with the family before even the first
> megilah layning. i.e. havdalah after megillah makes sense only if the
> megillah is read immediately after maariv. But if there is a considerable
> break then there is no purpose to delaying havdalah until late at night.

As it happened, a friend asked R' Fuerst here in chicago about this
situation.  He was told that if there was going to be a delay anyway, one
should make havdala prior to megilla for the family, as you mention a local
rav near you paskened.  And indeed, that is what we did!

k't
elly

--
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
<EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com>

Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
> I find the statement below to be highly problematic.
> "... Rabbi Akiva may have had a fuller and
> deeper understanding of Torah than Moshe Rabbenu, but no one in recent
> centuries can measure up to the Geonim or Rishonim, can they?"
...
> There is no implication that R' Akiva had a
> better understanding of the Torah than he who brought it down to man.

> The other statements about the alleged post-talmudic inability to
> originate halacha, or the alleged inferiority of any later authority to
> the Rishonim is contradicted by the facts. The inferiority of later
> generations has to do with the lack of true semicha and universal
> acceptance by all the scattered communities of Jews. It is a question
> of authority more than scholarship.....

>  Yet, the Vilna Gaon (also
> Harav Shneur Zalman of Liadi) disagreed vehemently with the pesak in the
> Shulchan Aruch and had sufficient influence over the future generations
> that their view and arguments are now normative (except in some Hassidic
> circles). Does people really believe that those two latter luminaries
> or R' Chaim were really inferior in knowledge and understanding of Torah
> to all those who are considered rishonim? 

The issues of the decline of the generations and progressive revelation
and progressive knowledge are not so easy to summarize . In particular
was the decline in intellect, knowledge, spirituality, or clarity
of Torah? Are we superior in knowledge because of the progessive
clarification of previous generations and the revelations which result
form being closer to Moshiach?

Let me bring some of the relevant texts - there is obviously much more.

Shabbos(112b): If the early generations are comparable to angels -
then we are comparable to men. If the early generations are comparable
to men then we are comparable to donkeys. Not like the donkeys of R'
Chanina ben Dosa and R' Pinchas ben Ya'ir - but like normal donkeys

Rashi(Makkos 24a): In the beginning they were righteous and everyone was
able to accept the yoke of the 613 mitzvos. However the later generations
were not so righteous and if they tried to observe all the mitzvos no
would have succeeded. Therefore David HaMelech reduced them so that
they should be righteous with only these eleven mitzvos. And thus as
the generations declined the number of mitzvos was reduced."

Berachos(20a): R' Papa asked Abaye: Why did miracles happen for the
earlier generations and not for us? It didn't rain for Rav Yehuda because
he was superior to us in his Torah learning. We in fact are superior
to that earlier generation in Torah learning. In the generation of Rav
Yehuda they only learned the single section of Nezikin while we learn
all six sections of the Oral Law. Furthermore Rav Yehuda had difficulty
with Uktzin while we have 13 schools to teach the subject. In spite of
Rav Yehudah's inferiority in Torah knowledge, when he removed one of
his shoes prior to praying - it started raining. We, on the other hand,
even when we pray the whole day we are ignored. Abaye answered: The
early generations were ready to sacrifice themselves to sanctify G-d's
name while we are not. An example of their readiness for self sacrifice
concerned R' Adda bar Ahava. He saw a certain non Jewish woman wearing
an immodest red scarf. He mistakenly thought she was Jewish and ripped
it off. It turned out that she wasn't Jewish and he was fined 400 zuz
for his behavior...

Berachos(35b): Later generations differed significantly from the early
generations. The early generations made Torah study the foundation
of their existence while their work was only transient and they were
successful at both. In contrast the later generations made their work
the foundation of their existence while Torah study was only transient
and they failed at both. Furthermore the early generation went out of
their way to create an obligation to take ma'aser from their produce.
In contrast the later generations went out of their way to find exemption
for taking ma'aser.

Taanis(24a-b): Rabbah once decreed a fast but it did not rain - despite
his prayers. The people asked why it had rained in the past when Rav
Yehuda had decreed a fast? He replied: What can I do? It didn't rain
for Rav Yehuda because he was superior to us in his Torah learning. We
in fact are superior to that earlier generation in Torah learning. In
the generation of Rav Yehuda they only learned the single section of
Nezikin while we learn all six sections of the Oral Law. Furthermore Rav
Yehuda had difficulty with Uktzin while we have 13 schools to teach the
subject. In spite of Rav Yehudah's inferiority in Torah knowledge, when
he removed one of his shoes prior to praying - it started raining. We on
the other hand, even when we pray the whole day we are ignored. If our
failure is due to some particular deed, whoever knows about it should
speak. What can the leaders of the generation do when the generation
does not find favor in G-d's eyes?

Temurah(15b): With the deaths of Yossi Ben Yoezer and Yossi ben Yochanon
the quality of eshkol - the all encompassing scholarship which also
included piety and good deeds ceased. Shmuel said that only those with
the quality of eshkol - learned Torah like Moshe Rabbeinu. But didn't
Shmuel say that 3000 halachos were forgotten during the mourning period
for Moshe - so how could subsequent scholars learn like Moshe? Those that
were forgotten were forgotten but those that were learned were learned
like Moshe Rabbeinu. But it was taught that after Moshe died that halacha
had to be determined by majority rule since they had doubts about what
was correct? Their intellect was diminished and what was forgotten they
decided by majority vote since they could not reconstruct it - but what
they had not forgotten they learned like Moshe.

Sanhedrin (88b): R' Yossi said: Originally there were not many disputes
because the Sanhedrin of 71 was located in the Temple and there two lessor
courts of 23 at the entrances to the Temple. There were also courts of
23 located in all the cities. When a question arose it went through the
court system - until the highest court if needed.... However with the
increase in the students of Hillel and Shamai who had not served their
teachers adequately - unresolved disputes increased and the Torah became
like two Toros.

Rashi(Sanhedrin 20a): The generation of Moshe and Yehoshua - studied
a lot of Torah. However the generation of Chezkiyahu studied even
more...Sanhedrin (94b): says that they studied so much that they could
not find any ignorant people even as far away as Be'er Shevah

Chofetz Chaim (Biography by R' Yosher): ...The Chofetz Chaim said
that the spiritual level diminishes from generation to generation. The
spiritual leader of the generation serves primarily to slow down that
deterioration. However there are some generations that the pressure for
descent is so severe that a normal leader would not be able to resist
it. For such generations, the Divine Providence sends a spiritual giant
who is representative of the spirituality of a much earlier time who can
slow down the deterioration. Such was the purpose of the Vilna Gaon who
had the spirituality of one of the Rishonim.

Radvaz(4:94 #1165): The Jews in Egypt are on a much higher level of
Torah education now than they were 200 years ago in the time of the
Rambam. This is the result of a more comprehensive educational system
than existed in the time of the Rambam.

Maharal(Derech Chaim Introduction): Moshe received the Torah from Sinai.
The term "received" means that he got only according to his ability
but did not get everything that was offered. Thus Moshe did not in fact
receive the entire Torah. When the mishna says that Moshe "gave over"
to Yeshoshua, it means that he gave all that he had received from Sinai.
Yeshoshua is also described as giving over to the Elders all that he had
received from Moshe. Similarly the Elders gave over all they had received
to the Prophets and the Prophets gave over everything they received to
the Great Assembly. This was only possible because the recipients were
on a very high level. However from the time of the Great Assembly the
generations started to deteriorate. That is why the mishna says that
Antignos "received" from Shimon ben Shetach because Antignos did not
have the ability to obtain all that Shimon ben Shetach offered...

Ramchal(Mesilas Yeshorim Chapter 22): We see that a person should not
view that his accomplishments are his own and surely not display pride
because of them. However that concern applies only to those who are the
level of Avraham, Moshe, Aaron and Dovid and the other pious people that
we have mentioned. We, however, who are totally bereft of merit and have
many faults, do not need this approach to humility. Our lowliness is
quite obvious so it doesn't require any serious investigation see this
fact. Our wisdom is nothing because the greatest scholar amongst us has
achieved no more than the lowliest student in previous generations. We
simply need to fully realize this reality in order not to have improper
pride. We should recognize that our thoughts are transient and our minds
extremely weak. Stupidity is rife amongst us and error dominates. That
which we in fact know is insignificant. Given all this, pride is simply
inappropriate and we should be self conscious in our shame and lowliness.

Chazon Ish(Letters 2:24): The truth is that the generation after the
Mishna witnessed a decline in stature relative to the Tannaim. The new
generation knew for certain that the truth was always with the Tannaim.
Once they knew the truth of the matter that it was impossible for them to
comprehend something that had not been understood by one of the Tannaim -
it was no longer possible to disagree directly with the Tannaim on their
own authority. Therefore they only taught what they understood to be the
teachings of the Tannaim. Similarly with the close of the Talmud the words
of an amora - who was unaware of the teaching on that matter of a tanna -
were not null. The only exception being Rav who because of his greatness
his words were not null. All their conclusions were reached with Divine
guidance and ruach hakodesh which manifested itself. Their rulings were in
agreement with G-d as it says in Bava Metzia 86a - Rebbe and Rav Nachman
were the end of the Mishna. And thus it was at the conclusion of the
Talmud as it says that Ravina and Rav Ashi were the end of hora'ah. This
that Rav Yosef Karo says that the authority came because the Jewish
people accepted them as authoritative (Kesef Mishna Hilchos Mamrim) -
he did not do us any kindness or good with the sages. The fact is that
their authority is because they had the truth. Because how could we do
according to our opinion if we know that our understanding is limited and
we don't have the truth? How could we go against the sages? But in fact
the entire Torah was given at Sinai - even that a student would "create"
in the future. The Tanaim recovered that which had been forgotten and
up to the time of Rebbe not everything had been revealed. However at the
end of the mishna everything that was appropriate to reveal was revealed
and henceforth nothing new was revealed. In fact everything was hinted at
in the words of one of the Tannaim. And thus it was revealed the mishna
from the first generation of the Amoraim until the last generation of
the Amoraim. Our portion is only what is mentioned in the words of the
Amoraim. And this was a tradition that they had as it says in the gemora
Bava Metzia and Avoda Zara 9a - there were a period of 2000 years of Torah
- this alludes to the Tannaim because this period ended shortly after them

Rav Tzadok(Dover Tzedek): The later generations are superior to the
earlier generations because they have the ability to know all that which
the early generations knew... In contrast the early generations didn't
have the knowledge of the later generations and that is why the halacha
goes with the later generation...

Rav Tzadok(Resisei Layla): It is well know that everything which has
been clarified then the light of this wisdom and its gate is open for the
whole world. This cumulative increase in light and understanding is true
even though the generations are diminishing. Because once the light has
been revealed it doesn't get concealed and hidden again. Therefore even
though the later generations are inferior but they have the advantage
of a dwarf sitting on a giant....

Rav Tzadok(Pri Tzadik 5: 39b): I heard from our holy teacher in the
name of Rav Simcha Bunim of Pashischa that even though intellectual
capabilities decline with each generation - the point of life which is in
the heart constantly expands and becomes increasingly purified through
exile....and our holy teacher said that this was a new idea when he
heard it in Pashischa but afterwards found this idea explicitly stated
in a number of places. He did not specify what these places were but we
have said the basis for this principle...

Rambam(Introduction to Zeraim): Concerning the agadic portions of the
Talmud, it is incorrect to consider this material to be inferior and
superfluous. In fact these sections were composed with great insight and
are full of profound and astounding mysteries. When they are examined
intelligently their incomparable true goodness becomes apparent and
Divine secrets become revealed. The fact is our sages deliberately
concealed this information by making it appear to be nonsense. This
concealment served two opposing purposes. It made it more enticing to
the scholar and shielded it from the eyes of the fool so they would
not pay attention to it. If the material radiated its true light then
fools lacking appropriate understanding would become interested in it...
Therefore since the material was deliberately concealed by making it
appear foolish, it is incorrect to attribute irrationality to them but
we should realize the problem lies with our inferior intellect. ... When
we find something which appears incomprehensible instead of discarding
it we should work harder to understand it... We need to always remember
that these sages - even though they had great desire to acquire wisdom,
and possessed great and brilliant minds, were exceeding pious and did
not pursue worldly pleasures - would assume that they were inferior to
their predecessors.... So how much more this caution applies to us - who
are lacking wisdom... We all have four characteristics: Our intellect is
weak, we have strong lusts for worldly pleasure, we are lazy in pursuing
wisdom and are diligent only in obtaining material things. How can such
inferior beings such as ourselves not attribute the lack of understanding
to ourselves when we compare ourselves to them?

Bamidbar Rabbah (19:6): THAT THEY BRING THEE A RED HEIFER (XIX, 2). R.
Jose b. Hanina expounded: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses:
'To thee I shall disclose the reason for the Heifer, but to anybody
else it is a statute.' For R. Huna said: It is written, When I take the
appointed time,2 I Myself will judge with equity (Ps. LXXV, 3),3 and
it is also written, And it shall come to pass in that day, that there
shall not be light, but heavy clouds and thick--wekippa'on (Zech. XIV,
6). The written form is 'yekippa'on',4 as much as to say: The things that
are concealed from you in this world,5 you will sees in the World to Come,
like a blind man who regains his sight; as it is written, And I will bring
the blind by a way that they knew not... I will make darkness light before
them (Isa. XLII, 16), and it is written, These things, I have done7 them,
and I have not left them undone (ib.). It is not written ' I will do '
but 'I have done them', as much as to say: I have already done them,
namely, to R. Akiba and his colleagues.8 Matters that had not been
disclosed to Moses were disclosed to R. Akiba and his colleagues. And
his eye seeth every precious thing (Job XXVIII, 10) applies to R. Akiba
and his colleagues. R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: He hinted1: All other
heifers will one day disappear, but yours will endure.

Shaloh(Parshas Chukas Torah Ohr 2): Bamidbar Rabbah(19:6)...Those
things which were not revealed to Moshe were revealed to R' Akiva and
his colleagues... This is astounding because Devarim(34:10) says: There
will be no one else like Moshe?... The explanation is that it doesn't
say that more was revealed to R' Akiva than was revealed to Moshe -
which would mean that he was on a higher level...What it means is that
those things which Moshe Rabbeinu received were more revealed to R'
Akiva than to Moshe.

Rav Tzadok(Likutei Amarim 16): ...Things which were not revealed to
Moshe were revealed to R' Akiva and his colleagues. That is because
Moshe was totally free of all lusts and therefore he was the source of
the Written Torah which is G-d's Torah and was joined together so that it
is called Toras Moshe.... His perception was the highest degree possible
for a human being in this world according to feeling of the heart.... In
contrast the sight of the eye of chochma was revealed to R' Akiva and
his colleagues which is the foundation of the Oral Law (Sanhedrin 86a)...

Rav Tzadok(Takanas Hashavim #6): The Men of the Great Assembly started
the foundation of the Oral Law after the destruction of the First
Temple. Also in the Second Temple when the Shechina did not rest - the
Oral Law spread more than in the First Temple... After the destruction of
the Second Temple it expanded even more in the generation of the Tannaim
and Amoraim until our Sages (Bamidbar Rabbah 19:6) say: The eyes of R'
Akiva and his colleagues saw that which the eyes of Moshe Rabbeinu did
not see. R' Akiva was the foundation - both in general and particular -
of the Oral Torah...

Rav Tzadok(Pri Tzadik Kedushas Shabbos #7): In according with Bava Basra
(12a) that a sage is superior to a prophet. This is referring to the
perception of the ruach hakodesh of the sage whose prophecy was not taken
from them as it states in the gemora and in the Ramban. It is much lower
level than pure prophecy but nevertheless it is superior. That is because
it is possible to comprehend through the ruach hakodesh of the sage to a
higher level than prophecy. This can be seen from Bamidbar Rabbah (19:6)
that R' Akiva and his colleagues saw things that were not revealed to
Moshe. That is because to the degree that the perception is lower in
quallity it is greater in quantity. In darkeness it is possible to see
things that one can not see in bright light...

Daniel Eidensohn

> In other words, these deroshot used by R'
> Akiva were clever mnemonic devices to remember halachot whose source was
> an oral tradition. The halachot were not new, they had already been
> taught by Moshe Rabbenu. There is no implication that R' Akiva had a
> better understanding of the Torah than he who brought it down to man.

Could you reconcile the above with the often stated idea that Moshe
Rabbeiu recieved the tools, albeit not every generation's ultimate
decisions? How does your understanding of this Aggadic passage square
with the fact that we have development of halachos on a Biblical and a
Rabbinic level throughout the generations?

[Email #2. -mi]

> Rambam in PhM, Rambam in MT, Ani Maamin, or Yigdal?

Let's try this approach. The Moreh was designed and written in mind to the
Aristotelian challenge of the Rambam's time. Although many Gdolim since
then have mined the Moreh for its contributions, it was not intended
for a mass audience. I think that this statement stands even in light
of the Rogatchover's well known attempt to find references in the Moreh
within Shas, as opposed to other influences. The PhM was intended as a
mass work to enable study of the Mishna. However, as the final word and
codex for all of Torah ShBaal Peh, one can say that the MT clearly should
carry more weight and significance than the PhM, especially where there
are conflicts and in light of when each was written by the Rambam.The
Introduction of the Rambam to the MT explicitly states that the MT is
the final word. Comments?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

I feel that this discussion is in great danger of losing focus. We
need to be extremely careful to be precise in our words. For example,
we need to be very clear in what *is* Torah, and what is *not* Torah.

R' Yitzchok Zlochower wrote <<< What Moshe, according to the aggada,
did not understand was the basis for R' Akiva's seeming derivation of
halachot from the shape of letters and their crowns. He was then put at
ease by the explanation that these halachot are really based on an oral
tradition stemming from Moshe. In other words, these deroshot used by
R' Akiva were clever mnemonic devices to remember halachot whose source
was an oral tradition. The halachot were not new, they had already been
taught by Moshe Rabbenu. There is no implication that R' Akiva had a
better understanding of the Torah than he who brought it down to man. >>>

According to this, the halachos which R' Akiva was teaching were Torah,
and were already familiar to Moshe Rabenu.

However, the drashos which R' Akiva was teaching, i.e., the clever
mnemonic devices which were unfamiliar to Moshe Rabenu, and which R'
Akiva offered to his talmidim so that they'd be better able to remember
those halachos -- they were *not* Torah.

I don't have a problem defining Torah along those lines; I just want to
make sure that I'm understanding RYZ's use of the term accurately.

RYZ continued: <<< The inferiority of later generations ... is a question
of authority more than scholarship. The most graphic illustration of
the occasional ability to reverse the usual heirarchy of authority,
is the question of bein ha'shemoshot. The Rabbenu Tam overturned
the understanding of the prior authorities (including the Geonim)
on the definition of sunset. His authority was sufficient to ... have
his opinion stated as the halacha by Harav Yosef Karo. Yet, the Vilna
Gaon (also Harav Shneur Zalman of Liadi) disagreed vehemently with the
pesak in the Shulchan Aruch and had sufficient influence over the future
generations that their view and arguments are now normative ... Do people
really believe that those two latter luminaries of R' Chaim were really
inferior in knowledge and understanding of Torah to all those who are
considered rishonim?>>>

Well, what's the alternative? If those two luminaries had *more*
knowledge and understanding of Torah than Rabenu Tam, where did the
excess come from? (I find it difficult to accept even that they had
an equal amount as Rabenu Tam, because of the great difficulty of a
generation giving *all* of its learning to the next generation. There
must be some minor details that get missed. We're only human. Even in
the days of the Sanhedrin, people *did* miss details here and there,
but the system was able to keep a tight rein on it, and fix it in court.)

Okay, let's use the example of Bein HaShmashos. My presumption (if I'm
wrong, please enlighten me) has always been that these great authorities
did *not* simply use their authority to bully anyone into accepting their
views. Rather, they took existing texts and traditions, and pointed out
that various inconsistencies will appear if those texts and traditions
are read from one perspective, but that those texts and traditions make
more sense if viewed from the other perspective.

I can accept that many people may have been uneasy about accepting
a new definition of Bein HaShmashos, but they accepted the new view
anyway. That doesn't contradict my point in the previous paragraph about
"bullying". The people had trust in the rav, and so they followed his view
(a la Rav Moshe's explanation of how one gets to be a posek). The critical
point for our discussion is the *method* which they used to overturn the
old view had nothing to do with having greater Torah knowledge than the
previous generation. They simply learned the seforim available to them,
they came to different conclusions than the previous generation, and
were able to present those new views in a manner which caused the people
to accept them. Let's not forget how many innovations they proposed
which their followers did *not* accept. Some arguments were stronger,
and some were not so widely accepted.

Akiva Miller

> I haven't seen the discussion so far, but I have read the book.  He's
> collected raw material without drawing any conclusions.  He just lists all
> the rishonim/aharonim he can find who disagree with any of the 13 Ikkarim,
> without trying to make a coherent argument of any type.

Isn't that the whole point of his argument? That the 13 aren't universally
agreed upon and that there are many opinions/rishonim/aharonim that
don't go by them, thereby proving that they aren't as fundamental as
commonly believed?

Avi Burstein

Steve Brizel wrote:
>>One question-without having read the book in question, how does
>>R Shapiro deal with the inclusion of the ikarim as halachos in Sefer
>>Mada and Sefer Melachim by the Rambam?

RGS 
> He doesn't. Bizarrely,
> he brings proof that the Rambam didn't really hold from the 13 Ikkarim
> because he did not mention them in the Mishneh Torah. This is, of
> course, incorrect and neglects Abarbanel's analysis in Rosh Amanah,
> ch. 19.

1) The rambam mentions certain of the 13 ikkarim explicitly in the
mishne torah - it is not clear that they are all present - a matter of
some machloket. The question of whether the rambam himself believed in
the 13 ikkarim versus being a necessary belief is a well known machloket
(not just among academics) - I brought down a while back the following.

to go back to an old thread, I have recently come across by an interesting
article by rav shlomo goren zt"l in machanaim (tishre 5727) where he
makes the following observation: The 13 ikkarim as formulated in the
perush hamishna do not occur in that form in the mishne tora (something
others have observed)

three of the ikkarim (existence of hashem, unity of hashem, and lack of
corporeality) do occur in sefer hamadda in very similar form.

Of the other 10, 9 appear, but in a negative form - there is no hiyyuv to
believe (or know) them, but rather there is a problem in denying them -
and this has very different implications.

One, schar vaonesh, does not explicitly appear in either positive or
negative form, although the concept of schar vaonesh clearly appears.

Rav Goren therefore argues that the concept of the thirteen ikkarim as
formulated in the perush hamishna (and as commonly understood) was not
given halachic force even by the rambam.

I would add that the fact that the abarbanel finds them all in the
mishne tora tells us about the abarbanel - it doesn't prove what the
rambam thought . One thing does seem clear - even if one agrees with
the abarbanel that one can find them, they do not play the same central
role in the mishne torah that they do in perush hamishnayot as defining
a body of beliefs. If we did not have the perush hamishnayot, but solely
the mishne torah, what set of ikkarim would one formulate?

Meir Shinnar

> the question of bein ha'shemoshot. The Rabbenu Tam overturned
> the understanding of the prior authorities (including the Geonim)
> on the definition of sunset. His authority was sufficient to induce
> the subsequent Rishonim to follow his definition and have his opinion
> stated as the halacha by Harav Yosef Karo. Yet, the Vilna Gaon (also
> Harav Shneur Zalman of Liadi) disagreed vehemently with the pesak in the
> Shulchan Aruch and had sufficient influence over the future generations
> that their view and arguments are now normative (except in some Hassidic
> circles). 

This is not *quite* accurate, since the Mechaber himself changed his mind
in Hilchot Milah.  RShZ cited this change in the Mechaber's opinion as
authority for his own change of mind.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

I think the underlying question is: Can Dogma be created after the fact or
must it have been universally accepted from Har Sinai?

On Areivim, I wrote:
>Don't think of it as apikorsus. No one is claiming that a rishon
>was an apikorus. The only claim is that the rishon had an
>eccentric view on a particular issue that is no longer acceptable.
>There were rishonim who had eccentric views on many different
>topics that are no longer acceptable.

Joel Rich wrote in response:
>I think the underlying question is: Can Dogma be created after
>the fact or must it have been universally accepted from Har Sinai?

It is not a matter of creating dogma but of trying to determine what
the dogma is. My entire thesis is based on an understanding that halacha
develops and evolves over time.

Eli Turkel wrote:
>When R. Hillel in the gemara says that Moshiach already came
>is that eccentric or apikorsus?

At the time, eccentric. "And on this, too, the halacha is not like
him. One who says 'There is no mashiach' and holds like Rabbi Hillel is a
kofer on the entire Torah that includes 'acharei rabim le-hatos'. Since
the sages of Israel were more than he and disagreed with him, a person
is not able to follow him. Similarly (al derech mashal), in the place
of R' Eliezer they would chop wood [on Shabbos] to make logs in order
to forge iron for the needs of a circumcision. After the halacha was
determined by many of the sages of Israel against him, one who does so
on Shabbos with witnesses and warning is to be stoned and cannot say
"I hold like R' Eliezer.'" (Shu"t Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deah 356).

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

From: "Avi Burstein" <avi@tenagurot.com>
> Isn't that the whole point of his argument? That the 13 aren't universally
> agreed upon and that there are many opinions/rishonim/aharonim that
> don't go by them, thereby proving that they aren't as fundamental as
> commonly believed?

IHis point is that they don't draw a red line (i.e., in fact we revere
many people who disagreed with them). Leading to two questions:

1.  What do the Ikkarim do?

2. What, if anything, distinguishes those who we do and don't revere?

He tried to answer neither of those questions, but his book at least
collects enough raw material to begin thinking about them.

David Riceman

Steve Brzil: <<WIthout having read RM Shapiro's books, don't his comments
render him vulnerable to. assertion that he is advocating Orthorpraxy, >>

R.Micha <<He is unabashedly advocating that position. That's where he
wants to be.>>, also <<"Dr. Shapiro wants a Judaism defined as "halakhah
and the minimal set of beliefs necessary to support it".">>

R. Gil Student: <<Don't think of it as apikorsus. No one is claiming
that a rishon was an apikorus. The only claim is that the rishon had an
eccentric view... >>

RZSero<<. and if someone today did like Beit Shammai we would condemn him.
Before the halacha was decided, it was possible for someone to behave
or believe in a way that we understand to be wrong, without being either
a rasha or an apikores..>>

And from Zeliglaw@aol.com <<He just wants a (much) wider pluralism than
the 13 Ikkarim offer,.. IMO, that's a position that is so philosophically
broad that one could drive a Mack truck thu it. What does R Shapiro do
with Ikarim 7 and 8 ( Nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu and the fact that the Torah
that we observe is the same Torah that was given to Moshe Rabbeinu)? IMO,
one can seriously pose the following query? -- Does pluralism as defined
by R Shapiro...>>

Guys, guys -- get a grip here. perhaps the fact that I seem to be one
of the few who actually read this thing ought to carry some weight in
the face of various imaginary straw men being earnestly debated. Thus
you might as well excavate shapiro's chulent recipe for clues to his
views of orthopraxy, because they will not be found in the text. Nor --
again from our respected list owner -- is he "unabashedly advocating
that position. That's where he wants to be". Nor can one find (despite
RMicha's introduction of quotation marks yet) that "Dr. Shapiro wants a
Judaism defined as "halakhah and the minimal set of beliefs necessary to
support it"." But then again, the unusual concentration of psychic talent
amongst areivim lististas has been remarked in previous manifestations and
perhaps the moderator simply reports facts known to him by other means?

As for Zeliglaw@aol.com, There's that telepathic insight again into what
people, who haven't expressed themselves on a subject, "want". look,
there IS nowhere any "pluralism as defined by Shapiro" as the poster
has it. It is instead a scholarly tract which wants to provide both
retrospective and current snapshot of the actual state of beliefs of the
traditional community in light of the simultaneous declared adherence
to the iqqorim. It is hardly an unassailable work and there is much
room to criticize some inferences for their logical coherence (e.g. Ta
Shma's perceptions of rashi's views on corporeality cited by Shapiro,
or speculations about changed outlook between mishne torah and peirush
hammishnayos, while quite interesting are less than logically compelling)
but criticisms levied here have nothing at all to do with the text.

since you mention iqqorim 7&8 it might be instructive to provide examples
of what shapiro actually is doing, rather than what he's not. In 7,
inter alia, Shapiro documents some beliefs held in segments of the frum
community which might imply that moshiach, or the Ari, had a grasp in
some regards superior to moshe. Again he is not promoting a revival
of such beliefs, but asking whether those rabbonim who have declared
that lack of absolute fealty to the letter of iqqorim renders one a
heretic with no cheleq l'olom habboh actually consider these former to
be such heretics. If not, why not? Consider #8. skipping over issues
associated with masoretic history (since that calls on some familiarity
with the medieval MS and printing history with which not everyone here
is familiar), I believe everybody on this list is aware of the fact
that current sefaradi, teimani, and ashkenazi sifrei torah are in
fact not identical. Does that make anyone using a different version
an apikorus? Is r. akiva eger an apikorus for suggesting there is no
present mitzvoh to write a sefer torah because of the sofeq that it is
accurate? Or is the chasam sofer? If not, why not? Do shittos which hold
that the last eight or twelve p'suqim were written by yehoshua make e.g.
rashi an apikorus? And why not, since he seems to be disputing the 8th
iqqor which says the whole torah in our hands was written by moshe? Or
perhaps both R. yaakov kaminetsky and r. yaakov Weinberg, late rosh
yeshiva of ner yisroel, who both acknowledged in writing that perhaps the
sefer torah we had was not identical to moshe's should also be considered
heretics? Since the answer to these rhetorical questions is -- obviously
not -- what is one to conclude but that, despite the declared adherence
to the letter of iqqorim, the reality is there is some give.

As well, R. Bleich's reported criticism in the forward (also without
having read the book) k'ilu Shapiro was attempting to revive discarded
halochic opinions is off the mark. We are not talking about whether
chicken is parve these days or not. (and so RSero's remarks above are
similarly irrelevant) Rather the discussion is framed by assertions,
that the iqqorim have always been accepted. That is an historical
statement, even if made by a respected rav, and thus open to historical
challenge. And the notion -- which Shapiro attempts to document --
that a discordance still exists today between pronouncements of fealty
to iqqorim and actual haskofic norms as held/practiced today (not only
opinions discarded in the past), is surely worthy of critical notice
and clarification -- or perhaps areivimites don't think so? This has
nothing at all to do with the notion of long settled halochoh.

As for RGS's remark that rishonic opinions might be eccentric but
not heretical (which naturally I agree with), this is description but
still not explanation. one asks on what basis are they not heretical if
you simultaneously hold to the inviolability of the iqqorim? Shapiro
has one satisfactory answer (satisfactory in the sense it answers the
question) that the iqqorim in fact have not been considered inviolable
as rendered. But there has been no answer forthcoming from the detractors.

while Tradition did publish my review of his previous work on the
SE (Spring 2001), I have never met shapiro and for all I know this
"pluralistic" agenda attributed to him is accurate (or not -- ver vais
and who cares?). And I can see how one might construct an argument that,
if wiggle room exists even in some of the most fundamental tenets of
the faith, perhaps wiggle room -- or other "pluralistic" approaches are
legitimate in other, halochic, venues. But this is not a logically
compelling train of thought, and is in any event never made by the
author. So deal with what's in front of you -- might even consider reading
a work before reviewing it, though I well understand how radical such a
suggestion sounds to those accustomed to current practice in some jewish
"journals".

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 845-2357
michael.frankel@osd.mil			H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

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


[ 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         ]