tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-92679232024-03-07T00:04:32.443-08:00ThanBookthanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.comBlogger325125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-70933445446981164402013-07-30T06:49:00.000-07:002013-07-30T08:22:35.195-07:00Rabbi Zev Farber's "Crime" and religious hypocrisy<br />
There are a lot of issues that need addressing, but moderation won't allow some of them to be addressed in the proper forum.<br />
<br />
1) I see lots of people throwing around technical terms like "apikorus" "heretic" etc., but not actually defining them. <a href="http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/rambam.html">Rambam in the 3rd chapter of Hilchot Teshuvah</a> defines them.<br />
<br />
a. Min = heretic. i. no God, ii. no Divine Providence, iii. multiple gods; iv. corporealism; v. worships a created object as a god or as an intermediary to God.<br />
<br />
Nope, don't see R' Farber falling into any of those. OTOH, one major division of contemporary Orthodoxy does fall afoul of the fifth definition. Which division of contemporary Jews talk about a "ממוצע המחבר"?<br />
<br />
b. Apikorus: i. no prophecy or other Divine communication with Man; ii. refutes the prophecy of Moses (ding ding! - if Moshe didn't exist, he was no prophet); iii. God does not pay attention to the actions of man (that's another contemporary rav's view).<br />
<br />
c. Denier of Torah: i. says that one word or letter was written by Man without direction from God; ii. one who denies the Oral Torah like Tzadok and Boethius; iii. one who claims God has overturned any mitzvah.<br />
<br />
So, R' Farber seems to fall afoul of being an apikoros by definition ii. I don't see him actually falling afoul of c.i - even the prophets were guided by God's "wave". Certainly not c.ii - the Oral Torah is valid, whatever its origin. The Sadducees denied the whole Oral Torah, process as well as details, preferring nevuah as a source of psak<br />
<br />
2. Disavowing: this is a broader issue. YCT via R' Helfgot and R' Katz speaking in the name of the school, disavows the ideas, but does not disavow the person. Which is probably wise, and follows precedent. Has anyone ever lost their smicha from RIETS for changes in personal ideology? Has the RCA ever cast anyone out for it? There was an attempt 20+ years ago to revoke R' Avi Weiss' membership in the RCA. Ironically, given his later IRF/YCT leadership, R' Angel was head of the RCA trying to expel him, and they couldn't find it in their hearts (or the RCA constitution) to do so.<br />
<br />
R' Gordimer, by the same token, doesn't have a leg to stand on. He belongs to the RCA, which has not cast out Chabad. Why is that relevant? The situations are analogous. Many in Chabad hold a view that the Rambam describes as heretical. The central organization won't cast them out, because it would break up families including their own. And the RCA won't condemn them and declare them a heretical movement for a) having them as members, b) tolerating them. This is RD David Berger's "scandal of Orthodox indifference" all over again. If the RCA won't reject Chabad (and really, for institutional reasons, they can't - it would traumatize the kashrus inspection business), why would R Gordimer think that YCT must be rejected for tolerating R' Farber? <br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">3. <span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: justify;">R Gordimer and RYA go overboard in their criticisms.</span></span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">a. I don’t see RZF denying the Oral Law one bit. Not even its divine origin – that remains, even though the Written Law’s origin is demoted to the same prophetic level.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">b) RYA quotes a Gemara and Rashi saying that denying that resurrection is from the Torah makes one a kofer – but I don’t see RZF denying either resurrection or its origin. And I don’t think even the Mishnah requires that one see it as coming from the Torah. I’ve never understood this need for it to be sourced in the Torah, which Rashi and (for political reasons) Rambam demand – it’s not a mitzvah, which would have to be present in the Torah, it’s a prediction of future events, which the Neviim are full of. So what’s wrong with it being sourced in the Neviim, where it’s explicit?</span></div>
<br />thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-51772319179951853532013-07-28T07:00:00.000-07:002013-07-28T07:10:34.226-07:00Rabbi Zev Farber's Choice<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://morethodoxy.org/2013/07/25/the-torah-thetorah-com-and-the-recent-tumult-in-context-by-rabbi-zev-farber/">Rabbi Zev Farber</a> has caused quite the online tumult. It remains to be seen whether this will remain a tempest in an online teapot, or spread to the larger Jewish world of press releases.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After rereading the long essay, and some of the attacks and defenses, and discussing this with others, I'm left feeling rather sad about the whole business. Namely, that R' Farber has real concerns, but that he may not have been the person to express them, or that this may not have been the time to do so.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As it is, most of us laypersons are being presented with a choice as to what should be an Orthodox approach to the textual problems of Torah.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1) Tradition, including the principles of Maimonides, based on 2000 years of biblical interpretation, most of which we don't actually know (how many of us have studied 20 supercommentaries on Rashi, as is included in one collection from the publisher of the big red modern Mikraot Gedolot?), but which we take on faith to have dealt somehow with the apparent inconsistences; or</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2) Modern Biblical Scholarship, as presented by R' Farber, which includes:</div>
<br />
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify;">treating all of the narrative in the Torah as allegorical/legendary;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">treating at least some of the legal material in the Torah as affected by then-common social mores;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">eliminating Divine Providence "if the stories are nothing but history, then the details are nothing more than the random accidents of history" - do we eliminate Divine Providence, or do we make the Torah into legends? Either way, a massive part of tradition is cut away.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">as a result, several of Maimonides' principles become no longer tenable. The Wave Theory undoes the Seventh Principle (the primacy of Moses, who never existed anyway), and the Eighth Principle (which is today widely tempered by the knowledge of a few spelling differences between known Torahs), and even impinges on the Ninth Principle by partially abrogating the Law. </li>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify;">And the Wave Theory itself is based on solid texts in Jeremiah - where the people go to Chuldah to get a more merciful prophecy, rather than Jeremiah, because while she taps into the same flow of Divine will, women are more merciful. R' Farber loses me when he applies the Wave Theory to hypothetical pseudo-Mosaic prophets.</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, a choice of authorities as to who gets to define one's view of Judaism. Since most of us haven't spent the years it takes to master either approach, let alone both, we are left choosing who to believe has the correct interpretation of revelation and transmission of Torah.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And that is really no choice. Do we go with the weight of 2000 years of tradition, hundreds or thousands of expert interpreters, communal acceptance of the model, and a mostly-consistent axiomatic system? Or do we go with a model that is less than 200 years old, which was promoted largely by 19th-century antisemitten and Wissenschaftliche Reformers who deliberately wanted to undermine traditional Judaism? A model which, by R' Farber's own admission, necessarily undermines practice and faith?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Others have proposed "heretical" ideas in the past 50 years, but generally from a position of a long history of building up the community, both institutionally and intellectually. </div>
<br />
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">R' Yitz Greenberg has some odd ideas about theology, but he keeps them in his academic writing, not his popular writing and speaking; meanwhile, he has built a life as a pillar of Modern Orthodoxy, developing institutions, writing, advocating. Most people don't even know about his odd theology, and he & they are quite happy keeping it that way.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">R' Rackman z"l proposed and built a court for freeing agunot based on questionable psychological premises; while the idea was rejected, nobody was going to reject the whole person, because he had spent 80 years building up Modern Orthodoxy in the US and Israel, at Bar-Ilan and YU, in his shuls, in his capacity as an officer-chaplain in the US military for over a decade, helping Soviet Jews, etc.</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
R' Farber, on the other hand, is at the start of what looks like a promising career. He doesn't have the broad communal record on which to maintain his reputation. Reading the comments to the attacks, he seems to be mostly known for writing a series of increasingly radical articles on Judaism. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So whose opinion should we take on authority as a dogmatic model for Judaism? Hundreds of writers over thousands of years, ratified by communal acceptance, or a young (well, not that young, after earning a PhD, many years in several yeshivas, and working in day schools, he has to be past 40) upstart, who proposes a theory of Revelation almost indistinguishable from those put forth by Conservative and Reform thinkers, except for a repeated claim of fealty to halacha? <br />
<br />
Having struggled for years to convince myself that (a minimalist form of) the traditional view is plausible hence believable, I know where I'm putting my money.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-59748870880217003602013-03-16T21:53:00.002-07:002013-03-16T21:53:24.443-07:00Spiritual Blemishes<br />
Dvar Torah: Lv 1:2 - one may bring offerings from the cattle, from the herds, and from the flocks. <br />
<br />
Why three froms? Rashi (from B. Tem. 28a-b, Toras Kohanim)- exclusions: not from animals that were used for bestiality, nor used or even just set aside for idolatry, nor a goring ox - but all of these are only for cases without sufficient evidence for conviction and execution.<br />
<br />
What's the commonality? They are all metaphysical/spiritual flaws in the animal. I.e., not just physical blemishes can disqualify offerings, but also use of the animal for anti-holiness (big-3 prohibited behavior).<br />
<br />
What's the takeaway? Just as animals used for anti-holiness but not convicted are still disqualified, so too when we do the wrong thing, it has consequences beyond simple reward/punishment. Which is why we pray to the Investigator of Failures and Hearts (bochein k'layot valeiv) for forgiveness. Let's remember the spiritual meaning of chametz (leavened food) qua bad behavior, and remember to clean up our behavior while we're cleaning our houses of chametz. Repentance/forgiveness are not just for the High Holidays, they're for every day, as we pray thrice.<br />
thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-71160655413180213672012-11-26T12:04:00.000-08:002012-11-26T12:04:32.540-08:00First they came for the ImahotA <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorshei_Derekh">Reconstructionist minyan</a> in Germantown is considering adding Bilhah and Zilpah to the text of the Amidah. Of course, this comes after adding the usual Fore Mothers (Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel, and Leah). They have a <a href="http://www.minyandorsheiderekh.org/2012/11/on-possible-inclusio-of-bilhah-and.html">lengthy post</a> with discussion both pro and con.<br />
<br />
I have some problems with this proposal, aside from simple Orthodox "my way or the highway."<br />
<br />
1. <b>Slippery slope</b> (this seems to have been intentional in many congregants' thinking). You start adding and there's no end to adding. The same is said for adding praises of Hashem - start adding and there's no end to adding, which is how we have the list of praises in Yishtabach - these are praises explicitly said by Moshe. It's also said in the Talmud at the beginning of Tr. Yoma, that one doesn't appoint a substitute wife for the Kohen Gadol, because the first might die and he needs a living wife to do the service - the mishna explicitly says if you do, "there is no end" to the substitutes you'd have to appoint. <br />
<br />2. <b>National consensus</b>. There has been a lot of regional variation in the texts of the Amidah, some still remains, but everybody (from the Talmud until the 1980s) has followed the consensus text of the first three paragraphs, which are laid out in the Talmud.<br /><br />3. <b>Theology (I-Thou)</b>. It seems to me that we include the Avot because the Torah gives us some clue about their varying relationships to God. What clue do we have about the varying relationships between the Imahot, let alone Z&B who are barely mentioned as brood mares, and God? Sarah & Rivka related to God as arbiter of disputes between themselves and their husbands over preferential treatment of the children. Rachel & Leah's relationships to God only come out of Midrash.<br />
<br />
4. <b>Textual</b>. Well, really, we include the Avot because most of the Amidah is made up from verses or phrases from verses. Is there a verse "elokei Sarah, elokei Rivkah, elokei Rachel Leah Bilhah uZilpah"? Or even of each phrase separately?<br /><br />Shoehorning the Imahot into the Amidah feels about as awkward as the love interests shoehorned into "The Hunt for Red October" (Clancy's publisher forced him into it) or the movie version of "Fantastic Voyage" (Asimov's novelization has no love interest, but I did learn a lot about biology from it).<br /><br /><u>Full disclosure</u>: I've been teaching a series on the brachot of Shmoneh Esreh for the past year and a half, intermittently, when the rabbi is not present at seudah shlishit, at the <a href="http://www.yavnehminyan.org/">Yavneh Minyan of Flatbush</a>. I cover both interpretation (phrase by phrase and structural, via Baer, Gra, Netiv Binah, RY Emden, and others) and textual history (via Fleischer, and Luger's book on the Genizah texts of the Shmone Esreh). We're in the middle of the Blessing of the Righteous, and I plan to cover Al Hanisim during Chanukah. If you're in the area, come on by - mincha at 4 pm Saturdays for the next 3-4 weeks.thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-11261601595298323082012-07-19T14:37:00.003-07:002012-07-25T12:50:07.411-07:00Halachic Eras<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">Addressed to someone who seems to think that the Rishonim
are “a movement”:</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">> there must have been something brewing prior to that
time that eventually compelled them... not as individuals but
as a movement. After all... isn't that how we think of them... as a
movement? Otherwise we</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">No, why would you think that? We refer to the Dark Ages as a historical period,
not as a movement. There wasn't a
pan-European revival of obscurantism as
a positive value. But philosophical and
scientific discovery were repressed by
historical factors beyond their own fields of endeavour - overcrowding which
made it harder to earn a living, followed by plagues which, by emptying out
land, made it easier to acquire land and live off of that, but by the same
token, it was hard to till all that land
oneself, feudalism didn't lend itself to a society of patronage of the arts and
sciences, etc.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">> would not refer to them in a group like that. We
would refer to them as individuals such as when we refer to the Vilna Gaon
vs the Baal Shem Tov and their respective followers.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">We do refer to them as
individuals. But as a group, they're a
historical era, like the Dark Ages or The Renaissance.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">(warning, history lecture coming
on: )</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">Do you really not know how we
divide halachic eras? We have an
overarching principle of "yeridat hadorot" - that the farther we get
from the Sinaitic Revelation, the less access we have to authentic Oral Law
tradition. Sometimes, throughout history, there are
catastrophic events that wipe out most of a generation's intellectual leaders;
the next generations, not having had the
time to absorb everything from the earlier generations, are then classed as a
lesser era. Alternatively, during an era
of general hardship, a work may be composed which gains universal acclaim,
which too can mark the end of an era.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">Within a given era, people are
assumed to have roughly the same level of halachic authority. Some individuals may be greater than others,
but not sufficiently as to say this individual's word is final within the era.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">So the general halachic eras are,
as far as I know, </span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">1) <b>Tannaim </b>(from the era of
political-intellectual parties during the Hellenistic period until the
codification of the Mishnah in 200)</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">I don't know what historical event
might have made 200 a dividing line, I suspect it was simply the universal
acceptance of the Mishnah as the starting point for all future rabbinic
discussions, giving a structure to legal
thought.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">2) <b>Amoraim </b>(from the close of the
Mishnah to the close of the Gemara, c. 200-500 CE - interesting how that
era-closer coincides with the rise of Islam)
characterized by textual criticism, intellectual rigor and halachic creativity,
story-telling, etc. - the period of creation of most of our fundamental texts,
the Gemara, most of the Midrashim, etc.
The usual method here seems to be a) establish the correct text of the
Mishnah, b) establish that the rule known from Tradition is correct, by
comparing it with lots of hypothetical alternatives that make less sense.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">3a) <b>Geonim </b>(500-1000), a period of
traditionalism, their teshuvot are characterized by laconic answers, without
much reasoning. Their legal texts are
likewise summaries of the Talmud, e.g. the Halachot Gedolot, c. 800.
Many believe that these brief responses reflect the Geonim having the
last known traces of authentic Sinaitic traditions, so they could say
"this is the answer" without having to prove it from a bunch of
alternative ideas.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">The next cataclysm, the Crusades, seems
to have marked the boundary between the
Geonim and Rishonim. E.g. the H"G
and the Rif are both summaries of the Talmud, but the Rif
inserts more interpretive material,
which marks him as the beginning of the Rishonim. [<i><b>N.B.</b>: there isn't really a difference in halachic authority between Geonim and Rishonim, nor is there an authoritative code that demarcates a boundary. However, there is the historic dislocation and a shift in interpretive style. So the next period should be <b>3b</b>, not <b>4. </b>See comments for discussion.</i>]</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">3b) <b>Rishonim </b>(1000-1550): again a
period of creativity and explanation of
earlier ideas. Lots of different
rishonim had different agendas, e.g. the Tosfos' agenda, according to RRW and
his teachers such as Agus and Grinstein at YU, was to promote the Bavli as the
primary study text - while the Yerushalmi and oral tradition were more relevant
as psak texts for daily life among the Jews of Christendom. So Tosfos (as a movement with an agenda)
demonstrated time and again how Ashkenazic practice, while differing from the
Bavli's ideal, fulfills the same underlying
goals. E.g., covering the challah on
Shabbat/Yom Tov reflecting the change in foodways between Greco-Roman Judaea
and Franco- German Europe, in Ch. Arvei Pesachim. Or the worldwide change in parchment production
of the early Middle Ages, being justified against the Bavli in Megillah. Meanwhile, the Rashba was making stabs at probability theory, in trying to understand
and explain the rules of sfek sfeka - when do we add probabilities, when do we
multiply them, how does rov quantify as probabilistic, etc. The early 19th C. author of Shev Shmaitsa
also gropes in that direction, shortly before Bayes systematized probability
theory.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">We talk about them collectively,
because they collectively explain the Gemara,
the main text of Jewish law. They
collectively are the major commentators on Tanach and Talmud, so their ideas on
understanding the texts have to be our starting point in understanding them.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">4) <b>Acharonim </b>(1550-present?) I'd guess the global upheavals affected this
transition, but it is mostly marked by the publication of the Beis Yosef and
the Shulchan Aruch (with Mapah). If
there was a transition era, it might run from the Tur (late 1300s) through the
Mapah (1560s). Well, what upheavals? The
Black Death of 1348-1350, which killed 1/3 of Europe. The Renaissance of the 1400s-1500s, with new
wealth generated by fewer people working the same land of Europe,
and the shift from feudalism to
patronage. The end of Byzantine Rome and
the rise of the Ottomans in 1455.
Printing in 1450. Availability of
printed Talmuds and printed Rabbinic Bibles starting c. 1521. And, of course, the end of Jewish Spain - the
expulsions, the conversos, the Christianos Nuevos, the re-converted back to real
Judaism, the exile all over the Mediterranean basin, the Inquisition (what a
show).</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">The Shulchan Aruch (1565,1578),
the Zohar (1558), and the teaching of the
Ari in the early 1570s all happened within a decade or two. As a marker of a shift in Jewish intellectual
history, it's hard to beat that period.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">And the Acharonim largely explain
the Rishonim, and try to reconcile them to find a final psak, or compare their
ideas one to another to decided which is more convincing, or introduce Kabbalah
into the</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">Read the books of R' Zechariah Fendel for discussions of
the various eras and major figures in each era.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">> The point is... why are we referring to them in such
a large grouping? We must recognize that they were doing something
different than the previous grouping and different yet again from our
current grouping.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">Yes, they had a lesser level of connection to Sinai than
the Geonim, and a greater one than the
Acharonim.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">> On a side note: I think our own era is not well defined
as yet because how can we be the last (Acharonim)? Is someone
suggesting that the Messiah is in the offing? Then when he arrives, if it
is not in my lifetime, won't those folks that come after me be the
last?</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt;">Some have proposed a 5th era, tentatively called the
<b>Tachtonim </b>(those underneath), marked by the dislocations and death of 1870-1960
- a unified Germany that led to Nazism,
the Shoah itself, the mass migration to America between 1880 and 1924, the
expulsions of the Jewish communities in almost all the Muslim countries, the
founding and continued existence of the State of Israel, etc. Certainly death and dislocation have caused a
rupture in the Tradition. I don't see a
singular text yet that is accepted by klal Yisrael - maybe a combined edition
of Igros Moshe and Yabia Omer? This
postwar era certainly is characterized by indexing and codification, as well as a
revival of Kabbalah among the Ashkenazim,
who had largely suppressed it after 1820 to undermine the Sabbatean movement.</span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-80509612654013402172012-06-18T08:19:00.000-07:002012-06-18T08:19:18.272-07:00Transliteration or TranslationIn reading the bibliography of Zvi Mark's recent "Mysticism and Madness," on R' Nachman of Bratslav, I had to wonder - why the strange spellings? Between Prof. Mark and two stages of translation, somehow a number of names, transliterated from Hebrew to English, were done by someone who didn't know that some of the authors already spell their names a certain way in English (or German, etc.).<br />
<br />
E.g., מ' פכטר, which you would think is Mordechai Pachter, becomes Fechter.<br />
Moshe Hallamish is rendered Chalamish.<br />
Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer becomes Schatz-Oppenheimer.<br />
Chabad bibliographer and historian Yehoshua Mondshine becomes Mundstein. Since there's no Tet or Tav in מונדשיין, that's just careless.<br />
Mendel פייקאז', usually rendered Piekarz from Polish, is now Feikazh. Which is probably how the Polish name is pronounced.<br />
<br />
And when he cites European non-Jewish authors, whose Hebrew names are already transliterations, we enter the world of Invisible Insanity.<br />
<br />
Johan Huizinga's Homo Ludens becomes Hoyzinga, האדם המשחק.<br />
And who is Poko, author of <i>Toldot haShigaon</i>? None other than Michel Foucault, author of <i>History of Madness</i>.<br />
<br />
Evidently, Prof. Mark is more comfortable reading in Hebrew than other languages, which is understandable, so he listed his sources as he read them in Hebrew translation, as much as possible. But somewhere along the line, someone didn't realize that these authors, writing for a wider academic world, had spellings that they used for their own names in Roman alphabets.<br />
<br />
I've seen this before, in that R' Yuval Cherlow is often advertised as R' Sherlo, transliterating from Hebrew. But he prefers that English audiences see his name as it should be spelled, not just as a transliteration from Hebrew. And then there are names that are just confusing, like Dr. Shlomo Pines.thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-79995301226305032142012-05-02T12:08:00.001-07:002012-05-02T12:08:32.464-07:00Angel namesMetatron, Sandalphon, Akatriel - these are the names of high-level angels. Metatron is the Prince of the Countenance, God's right-hand man and scribe. Sandalphon stands behind the Divine Throne, taking our prayers and weaving them into crowns, to be passed to the Divine. Akatriel sounds like Sandalphon's function (I will crown God), but is also taken as a God-name.<br />
<br />
What differentiates the first two from the last name? The first two sound Greek, while the last is clearly Jewish. The most common name-form for angels in Hebrew mythology is a Hebrew word or expression suffixed with -el or -iel. E.g. Michael -who is like El? Gabriel- strength of El. Etc., where El is a God-name.<br />
<br />
Metatron is one of the more interesting myths. Enoch, who lived between Adam and Noah, is not listed as dying in the Begats list. Rather, he "walked with God". This anomaly is the basis of the Enoch myth, where Enoch is taken up bodily into Heaven, much like Elijah was centuries later, and is transformed into the chief angel, Metatron.<br />
<br />
However, in early apocalyptic literature, Metatron is known under different names, more like the standard theophoric angel names: Yahoel (a combination of the God-names Yaho and El), or Hashem Katan, the small God. By the time of the Tannaim, though, he is known as Metatron (which sounds like a Japanese robot name, like Voltron; or a 1950s computer, like Datatron). Sandalphon (which sounds like the late-antiquity version of the Sports Illustrated Sneakerphone[TM]) only appears in the Tannaitic period.<br />
<br />
Which leaves me wondering, why the sudden shift to Greek names for the highest-level angels? Had the names become so holy that they needed kinnuyim (euphemisms)? Even today, many religious Jews won't even pronounce the Greek angel names, preferring an abbreviation such as "the angel Mitat" for Metatron. Did a new growth in metaphysical speculation engender a shift to exotic foreign cognomens?<br />
<br />
Further, what do the names mean? The articles below offer a variety of suggested etymologies for Metat and Sandal, but generally leave them as "we don't really know". I checked out Metatron (with a couple of possible spellings) on Google Translate, and they translate the word as "conversion" or "converted". I wonder if it could be that simple - Enoch was converted into Jahoel/Metatron - so his name could be "the converted one".<br />
<br />
Sources:<br />
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13172-sandalfon<br />
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10736-metatron<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron<br />
Gershom Scholem, "Jewish Gnosticism and Merkabah Mysticism", JTSA 1965.<br />
<br />thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-8785843840225662052012-04-02T15:28:00.000-07:002012-04-02T15:30:27.070-07:00Reverse Seder<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />R Moshe Sokol, our LOR, In his Shabbos Hagodol drasha suggested that the modern Seder is the reverse of the pre-Hurban seder. We say maggid then eat. In Temple times, if you read the Mishna, and even in the post-Hurban Tannaitic era, it seems that they ate first, then said Maggid, and benched. <br /><br />Which fits<br /></div><ol style="text-align: justify;"><li>Mah Nishtanah - the child asks about the oddness of the meal he has *just eaten*. </li><li>the Sages sitting up at Benny Baruch telling of the Exodus - after the meal. </li><li>eating the Korban Pesach hot off the spit, rather than 3 hours later.</li></ol><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Ha Lachma Anya then is seen as a later addition, introducing Maggid, when we haven't eaten yet. It reminds us we're in practice mode, in a broken world, waiting for the Final Redemption when we can do it properly.</div>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-16032584011948516252011-09-23T14:14:00.000-07:002011-09-23T14:17:28.207-07:00Shofar Blessings<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><strong><strong><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">MUSICAL NOTE by Cantor Sherwood Goffin</span></strong></strong></span></div><p style="font-family: Georgia,Palatino; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: center;"><strong><br /></strong></p><p style="font-family: Georgia,Palatino; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: center;"><strong>The Blessings of the Shofar</strong></p><p style="font-family:Georgia,Palatino;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);text-align:left;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0px"> </p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=";font-family:";" ><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >Although, as your cantor, I am very much engrossed with the proper interpretation of the </span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" ><em>Yomim Noraim </em></span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >liturgy</span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >, there is no question that the moment that captures </span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >the attention</span><span style=";font-family:";" > of every worshipper is when the shofar is sounded.</span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" ><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" > </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >The blowing of the shofar is the oldest ritual that is still heard in synagogues all over the world. It is interesting to note that it was used to proclaim the Jubilee Year in biblical times, as seen in Lev. 25:9-10: "to proclaim liberty throughout the land," the same verse engraved on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia! The shofar's purpose is to proclaim G-d's Kingship, and at the same time, to summon the Jewish People to repent. As the Baal Tokeah</span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >for at least one day of R"H,</span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" > I will recite two blessings in a traditional melody which is also used for the Megillah on Purim, and which some also utilize for the </span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" ><em>Shehecheyanu </em></span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >on Yom Kippur Eve. My teacher, Cantor </span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >Macy </span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >Nulman, theorizes that "the same melodic theme was intended for all three occasions in order to direct the worshipper's attention to the same sentiment. On Rosh Hashana the shofar reminds us of the Day of </span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >Judgment,</span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" > on Yom Kippur each person's lot is determined, and on Purim Haman cast lots to determine the </span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >most favorable</span><span style=";font-family:";" > month and day ... to exterminate the Jews of Persia."</span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" ><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" > </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >May the sound of the shofar awaken our hearts and encourage us to </span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >repent. But,</span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" > may it also be the harbinger of the day when all of the world will recognize G-d's kingship and usher in an era when </span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >humankind </span><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" >will live together in peace and harmony. </span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";" > </span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: center;"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: center;"><span style="Georgia","serif"font-family:";font-size:12pt;" >Shana Tova! Daven well and sing along!</span></p><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0)font-family:Georgia,Palatino;"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></p><p style="text-align: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Georgia,Palatino;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span><strong><br /></strong></p><p face="Georgia,Palatino" size="12pt" style="text-align: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong>DAVEN WELL, DON'T TALK, AND SING ALONG!</strong></p><p style="text-align:left;font-size:12pt;font-family:Georgia,Palatino;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0)" align="left"><strong><br /></strong></p><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">© 2011 LSS and Sherwood Goffin</span></span>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-21317163866450142032011-07-07T07:02:00.000-07:002011-07-07T07:06:38.365-07:00Musical Mnemonics<div style="text-align: justify;">I have a bunch of musical mnemonics I picked up from Mom, who I think got them in elementary school. Do other people know them, or know similar things? Where did you pick them up?<br /></div><br />E.g.<br /><br />Have you heard, of Beethoven's Third?<br /><br />Morning is dawning and Peer Gynt is yawning da dee da da dee da de dah<br />and: In the hall of the mountain king, the mountain king, the mountain king. In the hall of the mountain king: the Peer Gynt Suite by Grieg<br /><br />This is, the symphony, that Schubert wrote and never...<br /><br />___<br />So, I don't have to be profound all the time.thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-2903935194317725842011-06-28T13:51:00.000-07:002011-06-29T08:35:23.563-07:00Siyum Seder Taharos - Dad's Yahrzeit.<br />This is a very long one. It's the speech I gave at our shul's siyum mishnayos, somewhat elaborated for a wider audience.<br /><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Siyum Seder Tohoros, Shabbat afternoon 25 June 2011<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Yavneh Minyan of Flatbush,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Siyum of the community mishnah study program, the first year we were able to cover all six sedarim of Mishnah<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Two days before the yahrzeit of Dad, Sydney Baker, hareini kaparat mishcavo<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="font-family:Georgia;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">I want to talk about the Pharisees and Sadducees, or Prushim and Tzdukim, or Chazal and the Kohanim.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">What's the most common characterization of the Tzdukim in the Talmud?<span style=""> </span>That they don't accept the Oral Torah.<span style=""> </span>That's true as far as it goes, but doesn't explain their total difference with Chazal over biblical legal and narrative interpretation.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Who are the Sadducees?<span style=""> </span>Yechezkel designates the family of Tzadok Hakohen to be the future Kohanim.<span style=""> </span>As for their legal positions vis-à-vis the Pharisees, we turn to Josephus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Antiquties XIII:10.6: What I would now explain is this, that the <u>Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers</u>, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that <u>the Sadducees reject them, and say that</u> <u>we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers</u>. And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Aharon Shemesh (Halakhah in the Making, 2009) notes that where the Pharisees derived law through the drasha process, including explicating verses through the Thirteen Hermeneutical Principles of Rabbi Ishmael, from the opening of Midrash Sifra, the halakhic midrash to Leviticus, the Sadducees derive law through continuing revelation.<span style=""> </span>That is, they study and meditate on the literal text, and the get ideas about interpretation which they attribute to Divine revelation.<span style=""> </span>This can, of course, lead to chaos, as Korach wanted to do because of his personal interpretations of Scripture, so the system of development based on a defined process is probably better as far as uniform understanding of the law goes.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Lawrence</span></st1:city></st1:place><span style="font-family:Georgia;"> Schiffman – "From Text to Tradition" 1994 notes that some have suggested that they have their own exegetical methods, which are not simply literalism, and which are non-rabbinic.<span style=""> </span>He believes, and there seems to be growing acceptance of the idea, that the Qumran people were a kind of super-Sadducees – they had the Sadducee calendar, they had multiple copies of a document called MMT (Miqsat Maaseh Torah, or the Halakhic Letter, a catalogue of legal issues wherein they differ with the Pharisees and the Pharisee-dominated Sadducees who were running the Temple) indicating its importance, and, most important, MMT (only released in 1990) parallels known Pharisee/Sadducee arguments in the mishnah.<span style=""> </span>So passages in the mishnah and in the <st1:stockticker st="on">DSS</st1:stockticker> can shed light on Sadducee exegesis and their legal assumptions.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">We can see that through a few cases drawn from the mishnayot in Seder Tohorot<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="width: 98.24%; border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="98%"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="width: 71.1pt; border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="95"> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 123.85pt; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: solid solid solid none;" valign="top" width="165"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><b><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Mishnah text</span></b><b><span dir="RTL" style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" ><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="width: 242.45pt; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: solid solid solid none;" valign="top" width="323"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><b><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >English mishnah translation<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="width: 132.05pt; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: solid solid solid none;" valign="top" width="176"> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 3pt 0.15in; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.15in;" align="center"><b><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >4QMMT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 71.1pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="95"> <p class="MsoNormal">Parah 3:7</p> </td> <td style="width: 123.85pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none;" valign="top" width="165"> <p class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="text-align: right; direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >ג</span></b><b><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >,</span></b><b><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >ו</span></b><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-size:10pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> ]</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >ז</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-size:10pt;">]</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" > לא הייתה פרה רוצה לצאת</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >--</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >אין מוציאין עימה שחורה</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >, </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >שלא</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" lang="HE" style="font-size:10pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >יאמרו שחורה שחטו</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >; </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >ולא אדומה</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >, </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >שלא יאמרו שתיים שחטו</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >. </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >רבי יוסי אומר</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >, </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >לא</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" lang="HE" style="font-size:10pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >משום זה</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >; </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >אלא משום שנאמר </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >"</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >והוציא אותה</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >" (</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >במדבר יט</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >,</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >ג</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >), </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >לבדה</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >. </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >זקני ישראל</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" lang="HE" style="font-size:10pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >היו מקדימין ברגליהם להר המשחה</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >, </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >ובית טבילה היה שם</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >. </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >ומטמאין היו את הכוהן</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" lang="HE" style="font-size:10pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >השורף את הפרה</span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="AR-SA" >, </span><span style=";font-family:Narkisim;font-size:10pt;" lang="HE" >מפני הצדוקיין שלא יהו אומרין במעורבי שמש הייתה נעשית</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-size:10pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="width: 242.45pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none;" valign="top" width="323"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL USED TO PRECEDE THEM ON <st1:stockticker st="on">FOOT</st1:stockticker> TO THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, WHERE THERE WAS A PLACE OF IMMER-SION.</span><sup><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >44 </span></sup><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >THE PRIEST THAT WAS TO BURN THE COW WAS (DELIBERATELY] MADE UNCLEAN ON ACCOUNT OF THE SEDDUCEES: IN ORDER THAT THEY SHOULD NOT <st1:stockticker st="on">SAY</st1:stockticker>,</span><sup><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >45 </span></sup><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >‘ONLY BY THOSE ON WHOM THE <st1:stockticker st="on">SUN</st1:stockticker> <st1:stockticker st="on">HAS</st1:stockticker> SET</span><sup><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >46 </span></sup><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >MUST IT BE PREPARED’.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >(44) </span></b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >Also built, like the causeway, over a hollow as a protection against a corpse uncleanness in the depths.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >(45) </span></b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >Var. lec., ‘because they used to say’.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >(46) </span></b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >Sc. those only who are in all respects clean.</span><span style="font-family:Garamond;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="width: 132.05pt; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: none solid solid none;" valign="top" width="176"> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 3pt 6.65pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -6pt;"><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >And also in what pertains to the purity of the red heifer in the sin offering:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 3pt 0.15in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.15in;"><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" ><span style=""> </span>17 that whoever slaughters it and whoever burns it and whoever collects the ash and whoever sprinkles the [water of]<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 3pt 0.15in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.15in;"><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" ><span style=""> </span>18 purification, all these ought to be pure at sunset,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 3pt 0.15in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.15in;"><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" ><span style=""> </span>19 so that whoever is pure sprinkles the impure. For the sons of<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" ><span style=""> </span>20 [Aaron] ought [to be…]</span><span style="font-size:10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">First idea: Parah – it's rabbinic <u>legislation</u> how we deal with a tevul yom (one who has gone to the mikvah to be purified from some tumah, but the next sunset has not yet passed – many know this from the first mishnah in Brochot, that the evening Shema is said "from the hour when the Kohanim go in to eat their trumah", that is, when the sun has set after they had gone to mikvah) vis-à-vis burning the parah.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">The text in the Torah is not entirely clear – the kohen who burns the parah is not a tevul yom until <b>after</b> burning the parah, as we just leined now (Shabbat afternoon).<span style=""> </span>Which implies that it's not relevant before the burning.<span style=""> </span>But the Sadducees <u>don't accept rabbinic legislation</u>.<span style=""> </span>The clear situation for many types of purification is that one's purification doesn't end until sunset after going to the mikvah, and the kohanim have to be pure to do divine service, so they have to be fully pure to burn the Parah. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">But the Rabbis legislated that it was OK for a Tevul Yom to burn the Parah.<span style=""> </span>The Sadducees didn't accept rabbinic legislation, and would object, so the Rabbis deliberately did this to prove "We're not Tzdukim."<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="width: 98.7%; border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="98%"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="width: 54.85pt; border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="73"> <p class="MsoNormal">Yadayim 4:7</p> </td> <td style="width: 82.6pt; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: solid solid solid none;" valign="top" width="110"> <p class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="text-align: right; direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">ד</span></b><b><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">,</span></b><b><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">ז</span></b><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style=""><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">אומרין צדוקיין</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">, </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">קובלין אנו עליכם פרושים</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">: </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">שאתם מטהרין את</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">הניצוק</span><span dir="LTR" style=""><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="width: 281.95pt; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: solid solid solid none;" valign="top" width="376"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >THE SADDUCEES <st1:stockticker st="on">SAY</st1:stockticker>: WE COMPLAIN AGAINST YOU, O YE PHARISEES, THAT YOU DECLARE AN UNINTERRUPTED <st1:stockticker st="on">FLOW</st1:stockticker> OF A LIQUID TO BE CLEAN.</span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >42 </span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >THE PHARISEES <st1:stockticker st="on">SAY</st1:stockticker>: [DO] WE COMPLAIN AGAINST YOU, O YE SADDUCEES, THAT YOU DECLARE A STREAM OF WATER WHICH FLOWS FROM THE BURIAL-GROUND TO BE CLEAN?</span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >43 <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" ><span style=""> </span>(42) </span></b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >Cf. Maksh. V, 9. If a liquid is poured from a clean vessel into an unclean vessel, the liquid remaining in the former vessel remains clean, as the uninterrupted flow does not form a connective.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >(43) </span></b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >Cf. Mik. I. 4. The Sadducees agreed that this was the case. On this controversy v. Finkelstein, The Pharisees II, p. 638.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Garamond;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="width: 124.25pt; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: solid solid solid none;" valign="top" width="166"> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 3pt 0.15in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.15in;"><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >And also concerning flowing liquids: we say that in these there is no<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 3pt 0.15in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.15in;"><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" ><span style=""> </span>59 purity. Even flowing liquids cannot separate unclean<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 3pt 0.15in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.15in;"><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" ><span style=""> </span>60 from clean because the moisture of flowing liquids and their containers is<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 3pt 0.15in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.15in;"><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" ><span style=""> </span>61 the same moisture. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Similarly in the case of poured liquids (irui, nitzok) – we have a case of conflicting legislation in an unclear case.<span style=""> </span>In our case, we rely on the rule of "heat rises", or "tata'ei gavar", which may be familiar from one's study of the rules of meat & milk.<span style=""> </span>Only when the stream springs back up on disconnection, like thick honey, does it physically carry the tumah to the upper container.<span style=""> </span>They evidently don't have that rule, so any connection connects tumah.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="width: 98.24%; border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="98%"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="width: 70pt; border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="93"> <p class="MsoNormal">Yadayim 4:7 continued</p> </td> <td style="width: 118.95pt; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: solid solid solid none;" valign="top" width="159"> <p class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="text-align: right; direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">ד</span></b><b><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">,</span></b><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;"> </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">אומרין צדוקיין</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">, </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">קובלין אנו עליכם פרושים</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">: </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">מה אם</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">שורי וחמורי שאיני חייב בהן מצוות</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">, </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">הריני חייב בנזקן</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">; </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">עבדי ואמתי שאני חייב</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">בהן מצוות</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">, </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">אינו דין שאהא חייב בנזקן</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">. </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">אמרו להם</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">, </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">לא</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">, </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">אם אמרתם בשורי</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">וחמורי</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">, </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">שאין בהן דעת</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">--</span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">תאמרו בעבדי ואמתי</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">, </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">שיש בהן דעת</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">, </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">שאם אקניטנו</span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">, </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">ילך</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family:Narkisim;">וידליק גדישו של אחר ואהא חייב לשלם</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style=""><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="width: 352.15pt; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; border-style: solid solid solid none;" valign="top" width="470"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >THE SADDUCEES <st1:stockticker st="on">SAY</st1:stockticker>: WE COMPLAIN AGAINST YOU, O YE PHARISEES, IN THAT YOU <st1:stockticker st="on">SAY</st1:stockticker>, MY OX OR ASS WHICH <st1:stockticker st="on">HAS</st1:stockticker> DONE INJURY IS LIABLE,</span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >44 </span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >YET MY MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT WHO <st1:stockticker st="on">HAS</st1:stockticker> DONE INJURY IS NOT LIABLE’.</span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >45 </span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >NOW IF IN THE CASE OF MY OX OR MY ASS’ FOR WHICH I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE IF THEY DO NOT FULFIL RELIGIOUS DUTIES,</span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >46 </span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >YET I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DAMAGE, IN THE CASE OF MY MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT FOR WHOM I AM RESPONSIBLE TO <st1:stockticker st="on">SEE</st1:stockticker> THAT THEY FULFIL RELIGIOUS DUTIES,</span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >47 </span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >HOW MUCH MORE SO THAT I SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DAMAGE? THEY SAID TO THEM: NO, IF YOU ARGUE ABOUT MY OX OR MY ASS’ WHICH HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING, CAN YOU DEDUCE ANYTHING THEREFROM CONCERNING MY MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT WHO HAVE UNDERSTANDING? SO THAT IF I WERE TO ANGER EITHER OF THEM THEY WOULD GO <st1:stockticker st="on">AND</st1:stockticker> BURN ANOTHER PERSON'S STACK <st1:stockticker st="on">AND</st1:stockticker> I SHOULD BE LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION?</span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >48</span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >(44) </span></b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >I.e., I am responsible for the damage they do. Cf. Ex. XXI, 35. The Sadducees did not dispute this, as it is expressly stated in the Torah.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >(45) </span></b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >Cf. B.K. VIII, 4. Not being expressly ‘stated in the Torah, the Sadducees did not accept this.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >(46) </span></b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >Since the Torah does not enjoin religious duties on animals. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >(47) </span></b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >E.g., to see that they do not work on the Sabbath.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >(48) </span></b><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:9pt;" >Hence the law provides that I should not be liable for the damage they do. On this controversy v. Finkelstein L. op. cit. II, p. 684</span><span style=";font-family:Garamond;font-size:10pt;" >.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Second idea – <u>drasha</u>.<span style=""> </span>We mentioned the 13 Exegetical Principles at the beginning of the Sifra – since it's midrash, it's a foundational document of rabbinic exegesis.<span style=""> </span>Further, its inclusion in the priestly midrash (Toras Kohanim) seems indicative, that even in the <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">Temple</st1:city></st1:place> the rabbinic writ extends, despite the Sadducees.<span style=""> </span>Look at the liability case.<span style=""> </span>The Sadducees use kal vachomer, the first of the 13 Principles, the only one that is purely logical, not requiring a tradition about some part of the argument.<span style=""> </span>Thus, it's the one principle that doesn't require a mesorah (tradition).<span style=""> </span>Shemesh notes a few other places where the Sadducees use kal vechomer, but that's the only one of the principles they use.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">So they have their own exegetical methods, perhaps based on logic, but not on mesorah.<span style=""> </span>Aviram Ravitzky, in his recent book on the relationship between the 13 Principles and Aristotelian logic, notes that even kal vachomer isn't quite the Aristotelian syllogism of the Prior Analytics.<span style=""> </span>Kal vechomer the other ideas, such as combinations of generals and particulars, or the gezerah shavah – the similar language idea that REQUIRES a tradition.<span style=""> </span>So, looking at the elaboration of the Main Categories of Damages in the first few pages of Tractate Bava Kamma, we see a rabbinic elaboration, that looks like what I think of as the uncertain origin of drash.<span style=""> </span>That is, whether it's rabbinic exegesis or Mosaic tradition, it's treated as part of Torah law.<span style=""> </span>The Sadducees don't have that, so they rely on syllogism alone, kal vechomer.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Let me elaborate on what I mean by uncertainty, and share some of my personal journey.<span style=""> </span>It took me a long while to convince myself to be Orthodox, and my main sticking point was the Divine origin of the Oral Law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">I had read a book by Rabbi Elliott Dorff on the varieties of Conservative Judaism.<span style=""> </span>All of them shared one idea that distinguished them from Orthodox Judaism – none of them accepted a Divine origin of the Oral Law.<span style=""> </span>To Conservatives, the Oral Law, while necessary to understand the Torah, is a completely human construct.<span style=""> </span>And that makes a lot of sense – if the laws weren't written down until the Mishnah or after, how can we know that they were reliably transmitted from Sinai?<span style=""> </span>How do we know that the laws as we have them aren't the result of a 1500-year game of telephone, distorted by time and transmission?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Then I spent a few weeks learning the Rambam’s introduction to the commentary on the Mishnah.<span style=""> </span>He classifies the laws into different categories.<span style=""> </span>One is the “halacha lemoshe misinai”, a tradition that is a) universally accepted, b) not argued with, and c) not derivable from Scripture.<span style=""> </span>Examples include the requirements that tefillin be square and black.<span style=""> </span>There’s no way to get that from “totafot” etc., but everyone agrees, and the archeological evidence shows that it was the case all the way back, at least in the last 2000 years.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Then there are the regular laws, which are details of the mitzvoth which are known through drasha, and argumentation, etc.<span style=""> </span>What relation do these bear to a possible Sinaitic revelation?<span style=""> </span>I read somewhere, I don’t remember where, that basically, it doesn’t matter whether these laws are known by drasha or by tradition.<span style=""> </span>The laws generated by drasha, since drash is part of the system, are equivalent to laws known by tradition.<span style=""> </span>We generally hold, or at least in the time of the Tannaim they held, that a law known by tradition, from one’s teacher and one’s teacher’s teacher, is not to be argued with, it’s “hilcheta gemiri lah”, learned law from ancient tradition.<span style=""> </span>This is generally held in higher esteem than laws known by logic, which are in turn considered stronger than laws derived from a verse.<span style=""> </span>But they’re all d’oraita laws, Torah-originated laws.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">That was another thing, I had to understand that d’oraita vs. d’rabbanan, as against written law and oral law, were different spectra of legal origin.<span style=""> </span>Rabbinic law is legislation.<span style=""> </span>D’oraita law is law derived from the Sinaitic revelation.<span style=""> </span>And I realized, <u>it doesn’t matter</u> whether a given law is known by tradition or by drash.<span style=""> </span>It Doesn’t Matter.<span style=""> </span>They’re all considered d’oraita.<span style=""> </span>Because laws reconstructed (yes, reconstructed, we know that legal matter was lost over the generations – there’s a tradition that 3000 laws were lost at the death of Moshe, and the continuing pattern of exile and death continues to erode our capacity for oral legal transmission) through the drash process, through the 13 Principles of Exegesis, or the 32 Principles of Midrashic Interpretation, etc., since the interpretive rules are themselves part of the system of law – derived law is the same Torah-originated law as traditional law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">So imagine my pleasure at finding the Mishnah in Yadayim 4:3 which validates this whole outlook.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Here it is: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify; direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">ד,ג</span></b><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style=""><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">בו ביום אמרו, עמון ומואב מה הם בשביעית. גזר רבי טרפון, מעשר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">עני; וגזר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, מעשר שני. אמר רבי ישמעאל, אלעזר בן</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">עזריה, עליך ראיה ללמד, שאתה מחמיר--שכל המחמיר, עליו הראיה ללמד. אמר לו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, ישמעאל אחי, אני לא שניתי מסדר השנים; טרפון אחי שינה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style=""><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">ועליו ראיה ללמד. השיב רבי טרפון, מצריים חוצה לארץ, ועמון ומואב חוצה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">לארץ--מה מצריים מעשר עני בשביעית, אף עמון ומואב מעשר עני בשביעית. השיב</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, בבל חוצה לארץ, ועמון ומואב חוצה לארץ--מה בבל מעשר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">שני בשביעית, אף עמון ומואב מעשר שני בשביעית. אמר רבי טרפון, מצריים מפני</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">שהיא קרובה, עשאוה מעשר עני, שיהו עניי ישראל נסמכין עליה בשביעית--אף</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">עמון ומואב שהן קרובין, נעשים מעשר עני, שיהו עניי ישראל נסמכין עליהן</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">בשביעית. אמר לו רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, הרי אתה כמהנן ממון, ואין אתה אלא</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">כמפסיד נפשות: קובע אתה את השמיים מלהוריד טל ומטר, שנאמר "היקבע אדם</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">אלוהים, כי אתם קובעים אותי, ואמרתם, במה קבענוך; המעשר, והתרומה" (מלאכי</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">ג,ח). השיב רבי טרפון. אמר רבי יהושוע, הריני כמשיב על דברי טרפון אחי</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style=""><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">אבל לא לעניין דבריו: מצריים מעשה חדש ובבל מעשה ישן, והנידון שלפנינו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">מעשה חדש; יידון מעשה חדש ממעשה חדש, ואל יידון מעשה חדש ממעשה ישן</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style=""><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>. </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">מצריים מעשה זקנים, ובבל מעשה נביאים, והנידון שלפנינו מעשה זקנים; יידון</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">מעשה זקנים ממעשה זקנים, ואל יידון מעשה זקנים ממעשה נביאים. נמנו וגמרו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style=""><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">עמון ומואב מעשר עני בשביעית. וכשבא רבי יוסי בן דורמסקית אצל רבי אליעזר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">ללוד, אמר לו, מה חידוש היה לכם בבית המדרש היום. אמר לו, נמנו וגמרו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style=""><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">עמון ומואב מעשר עני בשביעית. בכה רבי אליעזר ואמר "סוד ה', ליראיו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style=""><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>; </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">ובריתו, להודיעם" (תהילים כה,יד); צא והודיעם ואמור להם, אל תחושו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">למניינכם--מקובל אני מרבן יוחנן בן זכאי, ששמע מרבו, ורבו מרבו הלכה למשה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style="" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family:Narkisim;">מסיניי, שעמון ומואב מעשר עני בשביעית</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR" style=""><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.</span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family:Georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">As you can see, it’s very long.<span style=""> </span>I’m not going to translate the whole thing.<span style=""> </span>To summarize:<span style=""> </span>It’s a story of a dispute held on the day that R’ Elazar b. Azariah became the head of the academy.<span style=""> </span>You all know about that, he was “like a man of seventy years” because his hair miraculously turned white, to give him gravitas when made Rosh Yeshivah at age 18.<span style=""> </span>Anyway, they’re arguing a question.<span style=""> </span>Various people argue with R Elazar, he gives counterarguments, then they vote, and R’ Elazar loses.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Now the crucial bit:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">WHEN R. JOSE B. DURMASKITH</span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:8pt;" >22 </span><span style="font-family:Georgia;">VISITED R. ELIEZER</span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:8pt;" >23 </span><span style="font-family:Georgia;">IN LYDDA HE SAID TO HIM: WHAT NEW THING DID YOU HAVE IN THE HOUSE OF STUDY TO-DAY? HE SAID TO HIM: THEIR VOTES WERE COUNTED AND THEY DECIDED THAT [X_idea]. R. ELIEZER WEPT AND SAID: THE COUNSEL OF THE LORD IS WITH THEM THAT FEAR HIM: AND HIS COVENANT, TO MAKE THEM KNOW IT.</span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:8pt;" >24 </span><span style="font-family:Georgia;">GO AND TELL THEM: DO NOT HAVE ANY APPREHENSION ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR VOTING. I RECEIVED A TRADITION FROM R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI WHO HEARD IT FROM HIS TEACHER, AND HIS TEACHER FROM HIS TEACHER, AND SO BACK TO AN HALACHAH GIVEN TO MOSES FROM SINAI,</span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:8pt;" >25 </span><span style="font-family:Georgia;">THAT [X_idea is true].<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">And there you have it.<span style=""> </span>By arguing and voting, by following the reconstructive process, they came to the correct conclusion, the correct halacha, which was validated by the tradition received by R’ Eliezer.<span style=""> </span>So IT DOESN’T MATTER that laws are lost and we can’t say for certain whether a given law comes from tradition or from reconstruction – they’re the SAME THING.<span style=""> </span>They’re all d’Oraita laws, originated at Sinai, even if the transmission path isn’t direct and reliable.<span style=""> </span>We have error-correcting codes built in.</span><span style="font-family:Georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">But I had to work all this out from first (or second) principles.<span style=""> </span>It was never enough to just take on faith ideas that sounded ridiculous, like “the Oral Torah came from Sinai, just as we have it.”<span style=""> </span>I had to dig, to understand that while true, it was a ridiculous oversimplification.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">* * * <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">My father also took a spiritual journey, although his went through emotions and behavior rather than intellect.<span style=""> </span>Started out atheist, knew Yiddish and a bit of Hebrew.<span style=""> </span>As we went to school, and switched to R Riskin's O shul, he taught himself Hebrew.<span style=""> </span>He later took R Cohen's intro Talmud class, and learned more biblical exegesis following Mom's example.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">Because he could sing and read/understand Hebrew, he learned to lein and daven, because the summer C-nagogue needed people, following my example (I learned to lead High Holidays shacharit/mincha so that they could hold services without having to pay someone).<span style=""> </span>At 68, he was the "kid" in their davening/leining crew.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">After some years, I asked if he was still an atheist. He told me that after davening for all this time, he thought that maybe there might be something there. By the end, in the nursing home, he was insisting on kosher (icky frozen meals) rather than fresh kosher-style food, and wore a yarmulke all day. Now, I don't know about his theological state at the time, communication was difficult with his lost hearing aid, but I have to figure that the insistence on behavioral correctness reflected a change in internal belief. Atheist – agnostic – by the end, I think a believer, to some extent, although I may be fooling myself.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;">At any rate, at Michael's (Michael Klein, organizer of the community Mishna study program) urging, I undertook to learn all of Seder Taharot in Dad's memory, so that we could, as a shul, complete all six orders of Mishnah for the first time.<span style=""> </span>I want to thank him for his organizing efforts, I want to thank all of you for your efforts in this program. I want to thank Debbie for her support this year, forgoing a public honor because I was insecure during shloshim, and I want to thank Dad (and Mom too, of course), for support during his life, for sending us to Ramaz despite a lack of belief in God, although he always believed in the value of tradition and Jewish peoplehood, for being proud of his children whether or not they followed his own path.<span style=""> </span>Yehi zichro baruch.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-18438541701034724632011-05-05T13:10:00.000-07:002011-05-05T13:11:48.137-07:00Variations in the Siddur - Cantor Goffin<div style="text-align: center;"><span><strong> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">MUSICAL NOTE by Cantor Sherwood Goffin</p></strong></span><br /><span><strong> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:11pt;" ><b>Variations in the Siddur</b></span></p></strong></span></div><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;font-size:12pt;"><span><strong><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:11pt;" ><b><br /></b></span></p> </strong> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></p> </span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><span style="font-size:12pt;">I have often been asked why one siddur uses one form of a word, and another siddur uses another form of the same word. For instance, <strong>we</strong> pronounce the phrase <span style="font-style: italic;"><strong><i>sho-ato hu</i></strong></span>, which is found in <span style="font-style: italic;"><i>Modim </i></span>and the paragraph after <span style="font-style: italic;"><i>Sh'ma</i></span>, whereas it is pronounced <span style="font-style: italic;"><strong><i>She-ato hu</i></strong></span> in a Nusach Sfard siddur. This often causes a <span style="font-style: italic;"><i>Baal tefilla</i></span> to pronounce the word incorrectly in our Nusach Ashkenaz services. Here, the difference is simply a matter of difference between the text of Sfard versus Ashkenaz. It makes no grammatical difference. However, one leading the services at LSS should use the version found in our siddur, so that the congregation will not think that he has made a mistake. Sometimes, within Ashkenaz siddurim, there are differences, such as the word <span style="font-style: italic;"><strong><i>Na-avo </i></strong></span>at the end of <span style="font-style: italic;"><i>Mizmor Shir/Hashem Moloch</i></span> in our De Sola Pool RCA siddur. The Artscroll siddur, however, writes the word as <span style="font-style: italic;"><strong><i>No-avo</i></strong></span>. Again, I counsel those leading the services to read it according to the way our siddur writes it. One of the most startling changes is that in the <span style="font-style: italic;"><i>Adon Olam </i></span>of the Chabad siddur, which writes the words <span style="font-style: italic;"><i>Ye-<strong>tsur</strong> Nivra, </i></span>instead of <span style="font-style: italic;"><i>Ye-<strong>tsir</strong> Nivra</i></span> which we know well. Sometimes the changes are because we follow the Vilna Gaon's customs, such as <span style="font-style: italic;"><strong><i>Yisga-dale </i></strong></span>instead of <span style="font-style: italic;"><strong><i>Yisgadal</i></strong></span>, etc. The best rule, generally, is to always read the version that is found in our siddur.</span></p></span></div><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;font-size:12pt;"><span><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"><br /></span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> </p> </span></p><div style="text-align: right;"><span><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong>Daven Well, Don't Talk, and Sing Along!</strong></span></p></span></div><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;font-size:12pt;"><span><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:78%;" >© 2011 Lincoln Square Synagogue & Sherwood Goffin</span><br /></strong></span></p> </span></p>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-84697250903954725472011-03-28T16:22:00.000-07:002011-03-28T16:39:39.342-07:00Can you tell a Bible by its cover?<div style="text-align: justify;">Well, maybe not. I was in a local bookstore this afternoon, and saw a display of JPS English and Hebrew-English pocket-sized Bibles. They had a black covered Hebrew-English, a pink-covered all-English (I guess for girls), the <a href="http://www.jewishpub.org/product.php/?id=134">website has other colors</a> such as black, white, and green - nice and neutral. The translation is the usual New JPS - terrific translation, been using it for over 30 years. Where it says "b--b meaning of Heb. uncertain", it's a sure sign to go check out the meforshim (commentaries, mostly medieval).<br /><br />But the one that caught my eye was the one printed in "Denim". A back-pocket, to be precise, mirrored on the back of the book. IOW, the cover of this Bible was a tuchus. I don't know what their cover-designer was thinking, probably trying to be "hip" or whatever, but what comes across is "the Tanakh is compared to a tuchus." Or maybe, the product of the backside? Really not the message I'd think a Jewish publisher would want to project about their flagship product.<br /><br />Hm, thinking about denim-jeans images - I had a passbook bank account when I was in Jr High and High School. The original passbook was the same design as my parents' - a photo of a local park. I lost it at one point, and had to get a replacement, so they gave me a "kids'" model - with a drawing of a pair of jeans. I felt rather condescended to. Maybe designers of kid-versions of adult objects should consult with real children of the age they're targeting.<br /><br />BTW, "tuchus" may sound Yiddish, but it's really direct from Hebrew - tuchus is an Ashkenazic pronunciation of "tachat", which means "underneath".<br /></div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;font-size:78%;" >(image copyright Jewish Publication Society, used without permission qua fair use - quotation in a review)</span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE3kqIir157ViDYrjGY4IjI4DSgHbuwFLSiQY60gcR3TtxSH6UFuL_5pZXDV90vGxcPeoPSXZJQ5ljyiCCv8knqWF3QJzxSED5UYitvHFkxAhDurwjz7j4Tw4iLGtccIC6bE0h_A/s1600/JPS+Denim.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 180px; height: 270px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE3kqIir157ViDYrjGY4IjI4DSgHbuwFLSiQY60gcR3TtxSH6UFuL_5pZXDV90vGxcPeoPSXZJQ5ljyiCCv8knqWF3QJzxSED5UYitvHFkxAhDurwjz7j4Tw4iLGtccIC6bE0h_A/s320/JPS+Denim.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5589277903058807458" border="0" /></a>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-90656955415299017172011-03-23T13:35:00.000-07:002011-03-23T14:16:58.118-07:00Changes in Jewish publishing - response<div style="text-align: justify;">Gil Student wrote an <a href="http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/article/the_future_of_the_sefer">article in</a> <a href="http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/">Jewish Action</a>, the <a href="http://www.ou.org/">OU</a> magazine, on the changes in Jewish and mainstream publishing. He avoided the one big question looming on the horizon of Jewish publishing, as it is beginning to make inroads into mainstream publishing: the e-book.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />He addresses the information-chunking and short-attention-span issues pretty well.<br /><br />But there need to be heterim found for e-book readers on Shabbos, if we're not to have people dropped from Orthodoxy for "<a href="http://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/half-shabbos/">half-shabbos</a>", esp. as more and more seforim are online in PDF and etext, if they wish to learn Torah stored in an ebook reader. Do you really learn all those seforim in your shrank, bought when a kid in yeshiva, or are they mostly for show, and occasional reference?<br /><br />I carry around a good-sized library in my e-book reader, whether Torah or fiction, academic or popular material. Until people start using iPads or Kindle DX's widely, things like Gemara pages will still be difficult, although who knows - maybe the <a href="http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2009/03/small-format-gemaras.html">small-format Gemara</a> may yet make a comeback. I have, for instance, a scanned PDF of Bava Kamma from the Lemberg half-page edition on the ebook-reader. Legible, but barely, on the 3x4" screen. But if I can get e-texts of Rishonim from Bar-Ilan, in pieces (how many blatt gemara does an in-depth once-a-week shiur cover, after all), that makes it more accessible to be on the Palm or the EZ-Reader.<br /><br />The standard Gemara page was defined by Bomberg in the 1520s, because he issued the first full set of Shas. It made sense to keep using the same pagination for standard reference. Why did he use that page size (folio pages)? Ultimately, because of <a href="http://www.gotmedieval.com/2010/08/why-are-books-so-big-google-penance.html">the size of sheep</a>. Sheep are a certain size, so their skins are a certain size, which governs the dimensions of parchment pages made from those skins.<br /><br />Technology has changed. We need no longer be governed by the sizes of medieval sheep. It is certainly possible to maintain indicators to standard pagination in text of other configurations (just look at, e.g., a two-volume two-column Zohar of the 17th century which has indicators of the pagination of the by-then standard three-volume single-column Zohar, so you can find page references easily.<br /><br />So too here - as e-readers and pad computers improve, we should be able to use them with cross-linked etexts of the Talmud, Tanach, Midrashim Rishonim and Acharonim. Must we continue to spend hundreds of dollars on dead trees for use on Shabbos alone? Perhaps rabbis should work with electrical engineers to design an e-book reader that will not violate Shabbos, as <a href="http://www.zomet.org.il/">Tzomet</a> has done for doctors and the handicapped. Perhaps we should resurrect the arguments used by RSZA, and only not implemented out of respect for the Chazon Ish, and find ways to use solid-state technology lehagdil Torah uleha'adirah. After all, we don't slavishly follow the Chazon Ish, at least not in Galut, where we don't eat normal gelatin (which the CI approved).<br /><br />If we don't find ways to adapt to such changing technology, then we, and our dead-tree obsession, will be left in the dustbin of history, along with our decaying paper.<br /><br /></div>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-33364653570425457042011-03-23T11:22:00.000-07:002011-03-23T11:44:10.563-07:00Zohar maybe not from Rashbi<div style="text-align: justify;">I was reading the Zohar in the Berg-ite translation, and came across the following passage:<br /><br /></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 4pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;">30. There are questions that are the garments of the Ha-lachah, NAMELY THE GARMENTS OF MALCHUT, of which it says "inwrought with gold" - as it is written: "The King's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is in-wrought with gold" (Tehilim 45:14). You, AMORAIM, cut THE GARMENT INWROUGHT WITH GOLD into several le-gal sentences and later fix and explain them away using various arguments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 4pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;">31. If one chapter of the Mishnah is missing, and it has been maintained that something is missing from the Mishnah, you fix it. FOR EXAMPLE, IN PLACES WHERE IT IS STATED IN THE GEMARA: "A CLAUSE HAS BEEN OMITTED, FOR THIS IS THE WAY WE HAVE LEARNED IT...," such is wanting that can be numbered. If a sim-pleton comes and spreads an evil report of the craftsman that cuts the garments, saying: The Torah is lacking - STATING THAT IN THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE MISHNAH, A CLAUSE HAS BEEN OMITTED. Yet, it is written: "The Torah of Hashem is perfect," (Tehilim 19:8) perfect in all the members of the body, the 248 positive precepts, as written: "You are all fair, my love; there is no blemish in you," (Shir Hashirim 4:7), and perfect in her garments. How can anything be lacking in the Mishnah?<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 4pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;">32. HE ANSWERS: Say to him - look carefully and find the MISSING piece. You may find it mixed with other verses and Mishnahyot, MEANING, IT IS THE CUSTOM OF THE TORAH TO BE LACKING IN ONE PLACE AND RICH IN ANOTHER. For it is the way of the craftsman to cut garments into several pieces, AND THAT WHICH IS MISSING IN ONE PLACE IS FILLED UP IN ANOTHER. The students, inexperienced in connecting the Halachah to those pieces THAT ARE IN ANOTHER PLACE, confuse the sentences and questions, and cannot explain the dilem-mas until the craftsman comes and explains all the doubts they have. At that time, Halachah the daughter, NAMELY MALCHUT, rises before the King, perfect in eve-rything, in body, garments and jewelry. And in it the verse comes true: "And I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting Covenant" (Beresheet 9:16). Sometimes the craftsman has an experienced student whom he sends to correct them, NAMELY ELIJAH, AS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 4pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p><span style="font-family: georgia;font-size:100%;" >Note that this passage, in addressing the students of the Amoraim, is clearly set after the time of R' Shimon bar Yochai. It seems to start out criticizing the Amoraim for "cutting up the golden garment" of the Mishnah, but winds up praising them for bringing the disparate parts of the Mishnah together in a coherent whole. They do this by looking for what is missing, perhaps it can be found in another mishnah or in a midrash or Tosefta, and splice it in. Or perhaps they extrapolate what was missing, as in <span style="font-style: italic;">chasurei mechsera vehachi katani</span> - "this is how the lacuna should be read". <br /></span></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;">In any case, this is clearly the textual criticism that makes up much of the Gemara's discussion of Mishnayot. This story praises the early Amoraim for their textual activity (the early Amoraim feeling freer to emend the text of the Mishnah).<br /><br />If Rashb"i lived in the late Tannaitic period (according to the JE article on Simeon ben Yohai, citing Graetz, he fled to the cave c. 161), it had to have 50-100 years after his time that this story took place. Thus, this part of the Zohar necessarily postdates Rashb"i.<br /></div>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-80561897184537942652011-02-13T04:08:00.000-08:002011-02-13T04:09:49.504-08:00THE LITTLE BIRDAnother Musical Note from Cantor Goffin of Lincoln Square Synagogue<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><strong> <strong>MUSICAL NOTE by Cantor Sherwood Goffin</strong></strong><br /><strong><strong>THE LITTLE BIRD</strong></strong><br /><br /><strong></strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is a response I gave to a questioner last month:<br /><br />"I have been very closely associated with this song ever since I began my former folk-singing concert career back in 1962. I taught it at NCSY, Yeshiva U Seminars and everywhere I went. In 1970 I recorded a "Russian Jewry" version of the Little Bird for the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, on an album that featured SSSJ rally songs and Rabbi Riskin interviewing famous refuseniks.<br /><br /><em>The Little Bird</em> was written by a 17 yr. old Bais Yaakov Camp Jr. Counselor, Millie Steinberg. She used the tune of an old Russian folk melody that was converted in 1948 to the beautiful "<em>B'arvot Hanegev</em>'; words by Menashe Baharav, who was also the accompanist to Shoshana Damari. Millie married Mr. Sachs and moved to Israel in the 1970's. I had asked her if she had other songs, which she did send to me, but I never sang them. I changed some of the words for public concert use, to make it scan better. On my hit album <em>Neshomo</em> (1972) we merely copied the above-mentioned version in the activist style of those years that spoke to the idea of peace and freedom. Many years later, on my 1996 album "<em>Ish Echad,</em>" I recorded the original words for the first time." Now you know!<br /></div><strong><br /></strong><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: right;"><strong><strong>DAVEN WELL, DON'T TALK, & SING ALONG!</strong><br /></strong></p>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-9577234815849562502011-02-12T17:16:00.000-08:002011-02-12T17:24:41.060-08:00Let's pray to the Moon - not<div style="text-align: justify;">Tonight was Kiddush Levanah, the monthly sanctification of the New Moon, as much as we can without a central court to actually establish the new moon. Lacking that, we have had the fixed calendar since about 325 CE, and we say prayers in honor of the lunar cycle each month. <br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">My problem with the prayer is that there are one or two lines that seem (no matter how much apologists try to defend them, or say they're referring to God) to be directed to the Moon as if it were a separate (if subsidiary) Power. There certainly are midrashim that portray the Sun and Moon as self-willed entities, and since they're in the heavens, it would seem that that implies that they are powers subservient to God.<br /></div><br />Which inspired the following:<br /><br />Oh Selene, with your rays so white<br />Reflecting Helios' starry light.<br />God created you, to rule the night<br />Along with the stars, to whom we don't pray "Starlight, star bright."<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">which more or less reflects what saying the prayer feels like.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">"Just as I dance towards you but cannot reach you, so may my enemies be unable to touch me." - a line from the prayer, carefully enwrapped with other lines talking about God and Israel.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Oh, well, it's an excuse to say an extra kaddish, which I'm sure Dad's soul could use during his up to eleven months in Gehinnom.<br /></div><br /></div>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-90354062736551848912011-02-07T15:04:00.000-08:002011-02-07T15:06:41.395-08:00Turnabout is Fair Play<div style="text-align: justify;">As I have been rebroadcasting Cantor Goffin's "Musical Note" columns, this week he took my posting of last week's column, with my speculations about Nusach Sfard vs. Nusach Ashkenaz, and turned it into <a href="http://www.lss.org/content.php?pg=shabbat_echod&ID=226">this week's Musical Note column</a>.<br /></div><br />Any Nusach Sfard people over the age of 45 out there who want to chime in?thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-51943236421970909672011-01-30T17:12:00.001-08:002011-01-31T06:37:55.659-08:00La-ad Kayamet after Shma: Musical Note<div style="text-align: center;"><strong>MUSICAL NOTE by Cantor Sherwood Goffin</strong><br /><strong><em>L'DOR VADOR HU KAYAM...</em></strong><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I want to point out an essential difference between the Artscroll Hebrew-English Siddur and the subsequent All- Hebrew version, the Yitzchak Yair Siddur. For those who are functioning as the chazzan, whether on weekdays or Shabbat, one has to be informed that the English Artscroll is incorrect as to where the chazzan is to recite immediately after the reading of the <em>Sh'ma.</em> As far as most of us can remember, after the recitation of Shma in Shacharit, the chazzan always continued at the words <em>"L'dor vador Hu Kayom Ush'mo kayom"</em> - NOT at <em>"Al Avoseinu."</em> The special indicator for the chazzan is incorrect in the English version. However, in the all-hebrew version, the indicator has been corrected to indicate that one begins at <em>"L'dor Vador..."</em> This is the correct choice because, in actuality, a NEW "topic" begins at <em>"Ud'varav Chayim."</em> I surmise that the original Artscroll editors for the English version were mislead because some anonymous printer more than a century ago arbitrarily made a new paragraph at <em>"Al Horishonim." </em> Despite that, it is well documented that baalei tefilla for centuries have always ended the first topic at <em>"L'dor Vador."</em> I would ask all those who lead the Shacharit services to please follow this guideline. Thank you!<br /></div><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: right;">Daven Well, Don't Talk, and Sing Along!</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: left;" align="left"><br /></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: left;font-family:arial;" align="left"><span style="font-size:78%;">The preceding copyright (c) Lincoln Square Synagogue and Sherwood Goffin</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: left;" align="left"><br /></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;">Well. That clears up something I've long suspected. Listening to people lead davening, those who say aloud "Ledor vador ... la'ad kayamet" seem to be people who learned to daven Before Artscroll, while those who say "Al Avoteinu..." were those who learned from Artscroll. This confirms it - the Chaz says outright it is an error in the English Artscroll.<br /></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><br /></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;">Contra the Chaz, I wonder if it's a Nusach Sfard thing. In the all-Hebrew Nusach Sfard Artscroll, at least the chazan-sized one that I've been using for the past 6 months by the `amud in a local shtibl, I think they do begin at Al Avoseinu.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><br /></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;">I checked - yes, the Artscroll NS siddur has the chazan start at Al Avoseinu. Further, I checked with the gabbai, who, like me, grew up Before Artscroll, and asked what he grew up with. As far as he knows, he always started from Al Avoseinu. So now we know - rather than being an error of the siddur printers, it was a Nusach Sfard custom, that leaked into the Artscroll Nusach Ashkenaz, probably because whoever edited that section grew up with Nusach Sfard. Not that <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/acharei.pdf">siddur printers </a>are innocent of introducing changes in the davening.<br /></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><br /></p>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-15751460838385137672011-01-28T06:21:00.001-08:002011-01-28T06:22:40.387-08:00Response to RYGB and the HoS view<div style="text-align: justify;">RYGB: your attempt [in the comments to the previous post] to disavow the anecdotes you brought to support your position looks disingenuous. You certainly wrote to give the impression that you support the position RAS took, given that it was brought as support for your dismissal of RNS as "flippant", There was also the story of RYBS' dismissal of the Meiri. As well, you brought R Kamelhar as evidence that Chazal didn't take the aggadita literally, when there's absolutely no reason to believe that, v. infra.<br /><br />"most courteous manner possible" - repudiation? hope that he recant, like Galileo Eretico? calling him flippant where you simply call others wrong? Ad hominems are courteous? They're Internetty, sure, but I thought you were trying for something better.<br /><br />Although, reading Micha's quote above, I think RNS could have expressed the same idea without being quite so, well, abrasive. "Chazal were mistaken"? Really. "Chazal ruled in accordance with the science of their time, we have no evidence that they should have known current science through ruach hakodesh, therefore, when our poskim rule in accordance with the science of our time, they are following in the footsteps of our Sages."<br /><br />The sociological characterizations, stipulated. The vehemence and flippancy of your disassociation essay, led me to think that you had actually supported his earlier positions, rather than supporting him personally. Sorry not to have remembered your actual position.<br /><br />I'm not dismissing Kamelhar on the basis of his obscurity, but on the basis of the irrelevance of a modern reading for understanding how Chazal thought. As RNS said, there was a different metzius then, that Chazal thought Aristotle was right on physiology. To take a post-Harvey metaphorical reading is anachronistic and does not explain anything, except to make the aggadita more palatable to us, so that we don't have to reject it as "wrong" in a Maimonidean sense.<br /><br />I wrote a paper on Galileo and the Church in HS for a history class. For a year afterwards, I would not say the Shir shel yom on Fridays, Ps. 93, "the world is set firm, it does not move." Until I read a metaphorical explanation by RSRH. Now, sure, that's not necessarily what Dovid Hamelech was thinking, but it allowed me to have a true idea in mind when reading the posuk. So too here. Kamelhar allows us to accept the aggadita without having to say Chazal were wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that Chazal thought they were right. It's just not an idea based on mesorah, hence independent of physical truth.<br /><br />And that's the different metzi'us - not an actual change in teva (although that too may allow us to rationalize the change in rabbinic positions), but a change in scientific worldview between their day and ours. The metzius includes their mental state, the possibility of their having knowledge through non-supernatural means. Since they didn't espouse a position that was clearly not compatible with their medicine, that of brain-death, we have no evidence that they knew what we know about brain-stem death and rejected it in the face of supernatural knowledge.<br /><br />I for one have no trouble accepting that they perceived phenomena that they interpreted as bas kol, or appearances of dead people - such stories continue on to today. How can a believing Jew deny the possibility of the supernatural? But there is no evidence of their having supernatural knowledge here, only natural knowledge. Which places them soundly within normal intellectual history - they ruled in accordance with reality as they knew it to be, but we understand reality differently. Shifts in psak due to the influence of the Zohar and the Ari are the same - rabbinic perceptions of reality changed, so psak changed. Supernarual or natural changes are still changes in reality. Only God is the Knower, the knowledge and the known - for us, they are different things.<br /><br />Maybe I'm being an apologist for RNS because the HoS perspective resonates with me. Ainochenami, it's a different perspective than has yet been expressed in this debate, one which might help bring some resolution to the two "sides" that may not really be so far apart.<br /><br /></div>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-86307290763373785012011-01-27T11:29:00.000-08:002011-01-27T13:15:56.589-08:00Brain Death and Arguments at Cross Purposes<div style="text-align: justify;">Reading the extensive debates on the brain death vs. heart death issue, I begin to discern positions, and understand to some extent where various parties are coming from. And I am coming to the conclusion that the one who best pursues Emes in this case is R' Slifkin (RNS), while other parties seem to sometimes argue disingenuously.<br /><br />R' Moshe Feinstein, and <span style="font-style: italic;">yblcht"a</span> R' Moshe Tendler, <a href="http://www.hods.org/pdf/Halachic%20Death%20Means%20Brain%20Death.pdf">agree</a> on brain-death as equalling death, based on close readings of a mishna in Ohalot, a Rashi in B. Yoma 86a, and other sources. Never mind that those who support heart-death read the same things another way. R' Tendler doesn't approach the scientific basis of Chazal and the Rishonim in understanding this, he seems to treat the whole thing as an empirical exercise. His primary motivation seems to be to allow heart, lung and liver transplants, which cannot take place from a donor whose heartbeat has stopped. Therefore, read the halacha, take what you can, and who cares what the science was underlying their opinions?<br /><br />R' Slifkin, taking off from there, <a href="http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/01/summary-of-lifedeath-issue.html">looks at what Chazal thought</a> about science, based on an aggadita in B. Ber. 61a. Seeing that it doesn't agree with modern science, but does agree with Aristotelian ideas about the functions of the various organs, he says that "<span style="font-weight: bold;">Chazal were mistaken in this regard"</span>, and then goes on to say that the modern understanding of brain-death vs. cerebral death vs. heart death is based on that flawed understanding of science. Now that we know the true function of most organs, we can follow those who say brain death is death.<br /><br />R' YGB (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer), in a <a href="http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2011/01/brain-death-and-chazal.html">fit of political pique</a>, finds a 19th-century source (R Kamelhar is a good writer, I have his capsule biographies of 18th and 19th century rabbis "<span style="font-style: italic;">Dor Deah</span>", but do people really take him more seriously outside his field than, say, the Torah Temimah?) that understands R' Slifkin's aggadita metaphorically, and uses that to say R' Slifkin was wrong, and further heretical to believe that Chazal were wrong. RYGB's post and comments seem based on a desire to disassociate himself from RNS, whom he had supported in the earlier banning of R' Slifkin's books.<br /><br />Note that R' Slifkin is not disagreeing with Chazal, he's not saying they're wrong in any metaphysical sense, just that they had outdated science, and ruled <span style="font-style: italic;">in accordance with that</span>.<br /><br />Note further that RYGB also says that contemporary poskim should rule in accord with modern science, in some cases. Where to draw the line? Apparently, where it crosses a line. What line? The line drawn in the sand by loud "gedolim" and their handlers. (in quotes because one never knows what's really from a godol and what from the handler - e.g. the RYSE-Crocs controversy). <br /><br />RYGB paints himself into a contradictory position: poskim can/should depend on science/secular knowledge, AND poskim who rely on science/secular knowledge where that knowledge is true yet different from that of Chazal, are heretics.<br /><br />RYGB tries to portay his position as one of respect for Gedolim, using the story of his s<a href="http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/01/popular-misconceptions-and-my-mistake.html?showComment=1295369505040#c3530462384417719628">micha farher</a>, but even that fails, in that he embraces positions of ziluzul chachomim, like that of RASolo who would have put R' Yitzchak Lampronti into cherem. <br /><br />RNS demonstrates clearly that the Acharonim had no problem embracing science and its changes since the days of Chazal, or even in their own times, e.g. R' Yonasan Eibeschutz ruling in accord with post-Harvey understandings of the heart and circulation as against the Chacham Tzvi who extensively supported Chazal's understandings of organ function as literally true. He doesn't even <a href="http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/01/popular-misconceptions-and-my-mistake.html?showComment=1295374597463#c5934941380234709238">seem to have a problem <span style="font-style: italic;">himself</span></a> with using modern understandings of biology to change psak (not just explain changes in psak, but actually change it).<br /><br />I think RYGB really gives away the game in comments such as "[the Chasam Sofer used Conservative reasoning in ruling that karpas is celery based on Arabic language] Certainly not! He was using secular wisdom to <span style="font-weight: bold;">understand</span> chazal, not to <span style="font-weight: bold;">override</span> them," and "[if you have no proper fear of Chazal] you have no business in the world of psak." Either RYGB is completely misreading RNS intentionally, and thus fighting tooth and nail against a strawman for political purposes, or he is truly misunderstanding RNS beyond his evidently superficial reading, which seems unlikely.<br /><br />RNS' whole purpose appears to be understanding Chazal, rather than overriding them. Others have already long since overridden Chazal on matters dependent on changing understandings of science - R Tendler, the Chasam Sofer, etc. They just don't make it explicit that they're disagreeing with the science of Chazal. They just ignore the history of science, and run roughshod over precedent. That seems to be the position of R' Tendler and, by extension, his late father-in-law. As is psak. RNS is not paskening, he's using evidence of change in our Rabbis' understandings of science, based on the changes in the ongoing history of science, to understand the shifts in their thinking and psak. So RYGB's arguments are not really aimed at RNS, but at a strawman. I don't think RYGB would actually disagree with RNS if he were to take the time to understand him.<br /><br />Really, most people don't think all that much about history of science. Good history of science writing is often based on the idea of "<a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ehos/Mahoney/articles/miscellany/whatmakeshist.html">we would know what they thought when they did it.</a>" (Richard Hamming, 1980) The discipline of the history of science has long been developed by amateurs. E.g. Galileo studies, my late aunt's field, was largely developed by <a href="http://www.galileo1610.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/stillman-drake-isis-article.pdf">Stillman Drake</a>, who started out with several decades as a financial consultant, teaching himself about Galileo. He never took a PhD. Her advisor, a prominent figure in the history of mathematics, did her PhD is in math, albeit a historical survey of modern abstract algebra. (Full disclosure, I minored in Science in Human Affairs, and wrote my bachelor's thesis on "The IBM 650, A Computer in Context", advised by the late Prof. Michael S. Mahoney).<br /><br />This may be a problem for RNS in being accepted by those who want to be seen supporting Yeshivish positions. He is engaging in intellectual history, and the history of Halakhah is often seen as a Maskilic undertaking (about it, not it.) But who better to write history of halachah than one who has spent his life within its daled amos, and who has been forced by circumstances to take the long view in understanding intellectual shifts? <br /><br />By raising the issue of "they could say this but we cannot", his banners created a consciousness of shifts in intellectual trends within the Torah world over the millenia of its development. I get the feeling RNS started out writing his animal books in the spirit of "ignore what they used to think, here's a way to think about them for kiruv," much as R' Tendler's approach to brain-death ignores history in accommodating contemporary needs. But in the course of the dispute, he seems to have gained a sense of history. Is it any wonder that he now applies that sense to other disputes in contemporary Orthodoxy? It was not he who started the brain-death dispute, it was an RCA committee report.<br /><br />To sum up then, from what I can see, R' Tendler (and the other poskim who rule for brain-death rather than heart death) ignore Chazal's history of science, and simply rule in accordance with changes in science and technology, motivated by the need for organ transplantation and Jews not being portrayed as takers but not givers. RYGB pretends that there is no history of science, and that RNS is being disrespectful of his betters by saying they were wrong and paskening against them. On that basis, he disassociates himself from an effigy of RNS. And RNS honestly undertakes an investigation of the history of rabbinic science, explaining the shift in psak, not paskening for anyone.<br /><br /><br /></div>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-46886675966375096782010-12-21T13:30:00.000-08:002010-12-21T14:25:55.499-08:00My Amidah Ia<div style="text-align: justify;">The first paragraph of the Amidah, or Shmoneh Esreh, is the most important. Chazal tell us that if we don't have proper kavvanah, intent, while saying this paragraph, the rest of the Amidah is ruined for us. At its least, kavvanah means intending the words and knowing their meanings. So I thought I'd share with you what I've been thinking about while reciting the first paragraph of the Shmoneh Esreh lately. Note, your mileage may vary. And I expect that as I continue to grow and learn more about it, my understanding will change, as will yours. Still, this is where I am at this moment in time (age 47, 2010).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Baruch </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Blessed</span>, or (R' Schwab) we join together with:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Atah</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">You </span>- which establishes our relationship to God as an I-Thou, relating to the Other as a person, implying a certain intimacy, relatability, etc. But:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Adonoy</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">O God</span>, the Tetragrammaton, the unreachable transcendent God. How does that relate to Atah? There is a dialectic tension set up here, only partially synthesized by:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Eloheinu</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Our God</span>, the aspect of God through which we relate, perhaps the immanent God, as the Kabbalists would say, the Ohr Pnimi, the Internal Light, the Divinity that permeates reality. The two, the Transcendent and Immanent God, are of course One, and our relation to Him is through this dialectic tension.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">V'elohei Avoteinu</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">And God of our Fathers</span>. We don't only relate to Him directly, but because of, and in part mediated by, the experiences of our ancestors, particularly the Three Fathers (and fore mothers? not specified, except in certain heterodox rituals, but surely implied).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Elohei Avraham</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Elohei Yitzchak</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">V'elohei Yaakov</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob.</span> Why repeat Elohei for each? The commentators suggest it's that each acknowledged God as individuals, not just as an inheritance from their father. I would go further, noting that each Father had a different experience of God, yet they all related to the One God.<br /><br />Avraham discovered God, through an "intellective" process, and inspired by that, spread God's word and goodness to all around him, eventually converting 318 of his soldiers/retainers.<br /><br />Yitzchak experienced God through being the sacrificial victim, saved at the last minute by that God - so he experienced the fear of God innately, both physical fear of death in a Godly act, and the spiritual "yirah me'ahavah", the fear of God knowing that on Him hangs one's life, and one then loves God who sustains and saves his life (viz. R. Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev on Vayosha').<br /><br />Yaakov was the wanderer. Perhaps his essence was to be a "simple man, a dweller in tents", but he was forced by circumstance to wander, spending 22 years with Lavan, and decades more in Egypt at the end of his life, praying to God at each cusp of his life to help him deal with all difficulties. Yaakov's God is perhaps closest to most of us, as we are in exile, and need the aid of the Deus Absconditus, not knowing if we deserve it or even can get it at all.<br /><br />(continued later)<br /><br /></div>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-52459860182114234072010-12-21T11:26:00.000-08:002010-12-21T11:32:42.618-08:00The Failure of the Contemporary Yeshivot<div style="text-align: justify;"><span jsid="text"><div id="id_4d10ff2a635995527690327" class="text_exposed_root text_exposed">The contemporary yeshiva structure, with its thousands of young men sitting and learning for years, is a tremendous thing. It has massively increased the number of men learning seriously, and the amount of Torah studied overall. Since Torah is the heart and soul of Judaism, this is all to the good. But what was the goal of such mass learning, unprecedented in Jewish history?<br /><br />It should be clear by now that R' Dessler's advice, which is the foundation of the modern movement for everyone to sit & learn all day, was empirically wrong. He advised, to replace the gedolim lost in the War, that we throw a thousand int<span class="text_exposed_hide"></span><span class="text_exposed_show">o the mill of the yeshiva, in hopes of producing one godol, and if we lose a few along the way, the price is worth it.</span></div></span><br /><span jsid="text"><div id="id_4d10ff2a635995527690327" class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"><span class="text_exposed_show">The problem is, gedolim are not trained by mass yeshiva learning. That may be how to start out, but the potential of true gedolim is generally recognized at an early age, and they are pulled out of the yeshiva and given private tutelage, to maximize their potential.</span></div></span><br /><span jsid="text"><div id="id_4d10ff2a635995527690327" class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"><span class="text_exposed_show">We see this today. We have no gedolim like the prewar Gedolim, no real Yiftach in our generation as it were. Not in any school of thought. We have ideologues, we have partisans, we have all kinds of hacks, but no real Gedolim who are looked to by all branches of Orthodoxy.</span></div></span><br /><span jsid="text"><div id="id_4d10ff2a635995527690327" class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"><span class="text_exposed_show">It sounds like R' Aharon Kotler, in calling Lakewood a "sh'at hadechak", a temporary measure, understood that R' Dessler's advice was meant to be temporary, an experiment, to remedy a one-time loss. But by now, too many interests are entrenched for the Charedim to find a better, more productive way in both Torah and communal life. Also, the desire to avoid army service and its corrupting social influence, for many Chareidim, means that they *have* to take the exemptions for lerners. <br /><br />It will take massive social changes to undo this system, find a way for more than a few Chareidim to serve in the IDF or National Service, return Chareidim to the workforce (which is what Chasidism was meant to help - the working Jew, the hoi polloi - while learning is a goal, all-day learning is not necessarily for everyone) so that they can support the next generation of Chareidim in better than abject poverty, and recognize true genius and support it to create the next generation of gedolim.<br /><br /></span></div></span></div>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-32888754434970883052010-12-20T13:10:00.000-08:002010-12-20T13:29:15.557-08:00The Rambam in Yedid Nefesh<div style="text-align: justify;">Something occurred to me during Frinite davening. We say, in Yedid Nefesh, <span style="font-style: italic;">az titchazek vetitrapei</span>, then she will be strengthened and healed. So, Healing suggests Doctors, which suggests the Doctor (no, not that Doctor), Rambam, the most famous Jewish doctor before My Son the Doctor. But is it really referencing the prime Rationalist in a Kabbalistic poem?<br /><br />Well, the words certainly suggest it. <span style="font-style: italic;">Titchazek</span>, suggests the Yad ha Chazakah, the Rambam's primary legal opus, so called in part because the gematria of Yad matches the 14 books of the work. 14, of course, is the Rambam's magic number. Many of his works contain 14s: the aforementioned legal code, 14 chapters in the Work of Logic, 14 categories of commands in the Guide for the Perplexed, etc. The most likely reason for this is that Rambam was born on 14 Nissan, Erev Pesach, much like my wife's chavrusa, who thus never had birthday parties, but I digress.<br /><br />But we need some stronger proof. So take the other word, <span style="font-style: italic;">Vetit'rapei</span>, And she shall be healed. The gematria of Vetitrapei is 1087. Count it up, you'll see. Now, the Bach's BWV 1087 is a brief set of short pieces, written highly encoded on one sheet of paper, called the <a href="http://xoomer.virgilio.it/alessandro_corti/images/Bwv%201087%20Verschiedene%20Canones.PNG">Vierzehn Kanon</a>, or 14 Canons, a Canon being a contrapuntal work of less complexity than a Fugue. The canons are based on the theme of the Goldberg Variations - you know, Dum dum dum dum dum da dum dum. So, now we see it all. 14 canons, which is Rambam's magic number, based on a theme with one of the most stereotypical Jewish names, Goldberg, whose Bach-Werke Verseichnis number is the gematria of a medical word, tells us clearly that R' Azikri, the author of the Sefer Chareidim, and the author of the Yedid Nefesh, wanted us to think about the Rambam at that point, perhaps that his mind should be strengthened to the point where he could accept the mystical tradition which was invented a hundred years later.<br /><br /></div>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-10191793331609125422010-11-24T13:08:00.000-08:002010-12-09T13:53:44.553-08:00Lubavitcher Taqiyya?<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">I’ve had <a href="http://js-kit.com/api/static/pop_comments?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fhaemtza.blogspot.com%2F&title=%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%09%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%09%20Judaism%2C%20Achdus%2C%20and%20Lubavitch%0A%09%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&path=%2F4741548031558847945&standalone=no&scoring=yes&backwards=no&sort=date&thread=yes&permalink=http%3A%2F%2Fjs-kit.com%2Fapi%2Fstatic%2Fpop_comments%3Fref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhaemtza.blogspot.com%252F%26path%3D%252F4741548031558847945&skin=echo&smiles=no&editable=yes&thread-title=Echo&popup-title=Echo&page-title=%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%09%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%09%20Judaism%2C%20Achdus%2C%20and%20Lubavitch%0A%09%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20">this exchange</a> recently on <a href="http://haemtza.blogspot.com/">Harry Maryles’ blog</a>.<span style=""> </span><b>thanbo</b> is me, <span style="font-weight: bold;">Lubavitcher</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold;">Chareidi</span> are handles chosen by the respective posters.<span style=""> </span>I’ve suspected for years that some Lubavitchers felt free to dissemble about their faith in the Rebbe as Moshiach, and the extent of that faith, because of the consistent difference in perception between insiders, who say the Moshiach problem isn’t that widespread, and outsiders, who observe that most Lubavitchers they meet seem to be Messianists.<span style=""> </span>I hadn’t actually encountered a concrete example of this disconnect between claim and reality until now, when a self-proclaimed Lubavitcher lied to my screen about a concept that is, while unfamiliar to many outside of Chabad, strongly rooted in Chabad and traditional [Chazal’s] texts.<span style=""> </span>This concept, as we see below, is central to the concept of Rebbe as Moshiach of the generation, and has several counterintuitive implications for Jewish thought.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><b>Lubavitcher:<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">Chareidi,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">That is unfortuantely an absolute lie. Who would dare compare the Rebbe to the Baal Shem Tov or chas vchalila Moshe Rabbeinu himself? No one in their right mind would make that absurd jump. Naturally we feel the most intense closeness to <i>Nasi Doreinu</i> but again not to such an insane degree. We don't compare leaders. Period.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">And later:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">No Jew in their right mind would compare the Rebbe to either the Baal Shem Tov or Moshe Rabbeinu. Such a comparison has no basis in Torah. Period. We do not compare leaders. The Rebbe is the Nasi, with all the current implications of that word. No more and no less.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><br /></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b>thanbo:<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">Of course you don't compare leaders. Because the Rebbe is the greatest leader that ever lived. [<i>where most Orthodox Jews would hold that Moshe Rabbeinu was the greatest leader that ever lived, under the concept of Yeridas haDoros, “descent of the generations.” -jjb</i>] It is not a lie to say that Chabad believes in an ascent of generations where everyone else in Orthodoxy believes in a descent of generations, because Chabad has this concept of "<i>yechida klollis</i>".<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">Yechida is the highest component of a human soul (<i>narancha"i</i>), and is possessed by great leaders. The nosi hador, the prince of the generation, has what is called a "yechida klollis", a collective soul, which encompasses the souls of every Jew in their generation. Moshe Rabbenu was the yechida klollis of the dor hamidbar. [<i>generation of the Desert –</i>jjb] Yehoshua was the next yechida klollis, and since he was alive when Moshe was alive, his soul encompassed Moshe's soul, and therefore was greater than Moshe's soul. This continued down the generations, such that the Mezritcher Maggid's soul encompassed the Baal Shem Tov's soul, etc., down to the last L. Rebbe, whose soul encompassed every Jew in our generation, as well as the souls of all the leaders who came before him.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">So the Rebbe is the greatest single soul who ever lived. And in calling this "an absolute lie", you're if not actually lying yourself, at least engaging in the standard Chabad tactic of diverting attention from the issue at hand, by refuting a side question.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">It's also sometimes called neshomo klolis, e.g </span><br /><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><a href="http://www.chabad.info/chabadpedia/index.php?title=%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%95%22%D7%A8">http://www.chabad.info/chabadpedia/index.php?ti<wbr>tle=%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9E%D<wbr>7%95%22%D7%A8</a> </span><br /><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">See also the L Rebbe's sicha of Vayera 5752 </span><br /><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">A similar idea is present at Zohar II 47a, if not the actual term and its implications.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><br /></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b>Lubavitcher:<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">On the off chance that you were actually being sincere, I followed up on the sicha you cited. Unsurprisingly there's no mention at all of any of this.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">Why did I suspect you were being insincere, aside from your condescending tone? Because I've heard bfairush the exact opposite in shiurim on the history of the Rebbeim. We absolutely believe in yeridas hadoros.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">I can't and am not interested in looking at Zohar. And if you're posting here, I would posit that neither can you. And I didn't bother looking at Chabad.info because frankly I don't care much for their opinion.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><br /><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b>thanbo:<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">>Why did I suspect you were being insincere...?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">Because if I were sincere, which I was, I would be pointing out a central idea in Lubavitch which is embarrassing to state in front of regular Orthodox Jews, inasmuch as it contradicts the standard idea of Yeridas haDoros. Which in fact I did.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">But eppur si muove, [<i>Galileo’s alleged last words – “and yet it moves”, referring to the Earth’s orbit around the Sun rather than vice versa –jjb</i>] buddy boy, much as some Lubavitcher liars may like to distract us with falsehoods.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">See section 14, footnote 127, in the sicha [<i>Chassidic talk, less mystical/deep than a maamar –</i>jjb] of Vayera 5752.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><a href="http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15971&st=&pgnum=103">http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15971&st=&pgnum=103</a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">What's most impressive is how you can blatantly lie about the sichos of your own Rebbe, in order to deny principles of your own movement's belief system.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">PS, I have two copies of the Zohar, one contemporary, one antique. And do read it on occasion. Not that I understand it all that well yet.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">See here for an insider's view of neshomo klolis and its importance, with sources in the Zohar and Midrashim:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><a href="http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n098.shtml#16">http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n098.shtml#16</a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">Here's the Zohar in question:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify; direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span lang="AR-SA">ויאמר</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">משה אל העם אל תיראו התיצבו וראו את ישועת יהו"ה, אמר רבי</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">שמעון</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, </span><span lang="AR-SA">זכאה חולקיהון</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">דישראל</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">דהא</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">רעיא כמשה אזיל בגווייהו, כתיב (שם סג</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">יא</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>) </span><span lang="AR-SA">ויזכור ימי עולם</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">משה עמו, ויזכור ימי עולם, דא קודשא בריך הוא, משה</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">עמו</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, (</span><span lang="AR-SA">מכאן אוליפנא) שקיל</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">הוה</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">משה</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">ככל ישראל, ואוליפנא מהא, כי</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><b><span lang="AR-SA">רעיא דעמא הוא</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">ממש עמא כלהו, אי איהו</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">זכי</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, </span><span lang="AR-SA">עמא</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">כלהו</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">זכאין</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, </span><span lang="AR-SA">ואי</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">איהו</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">לא זכי, עמא</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">כלהו לא זכאן ואתענשו בגיניה</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, </span><span lang="AR-SA">והא</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">אוקמוה</span></b></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>. </span><span lang="AR-SA">התיצבו וראו, לית לכו לאגחא</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">קרבא, דהא קודשא בריך הוא יגיח</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">קרבא</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">בגיניכון, כמה דאת אמר יהו"ה ילחם לכם</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">ואתם תחרישון, תא חזי, ההוא ליליא</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">כנש קודשא בריך הוא לפמליא דיליה ודאין</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">דינייהו דישראל, ואלמלא דאקדימו</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">אבהן</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">עלייהו</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">דישראל</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, </span><span lang="AR-SA">לא אשתזיבו מן</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">דינא, רבי יהודה אמר, זכותא דיעקב</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">אגין עלייהו</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">דישראל</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, </span><span lang="AR-SA">הדא</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">הוא</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">דכתיב</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> (</span><span lang="AR-SA">תהלים קכד א) לולי יהו"ה שהיה לנו</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="AR-SA">יאמר נא ישראל, ישראל סבא</span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">[<i>bold text: For the shepherd of the nation is necessarily the entirety of the nation, if he is worthy, they are all worthy, and if he is not worthy, the whole nation is not worthy, and will be punished for his sake. -jjb</i>] <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">For a Hebrew translation see here at the bottom:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><a href="http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=3116&st=&pgnum=44">http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=3116&st=&pgnum=44</a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">Now who's the liar and insincere?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><br /><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><b>thanbo</b> (conclusion from another thread): <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">[Harry Maryles wrote:]<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt 9.35pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext"><i>What does all this mean? I think it means that Meshichism is still a problem despite all their protestations to the contrary – no matter what the breakdown is or what the percentages are of each.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">I think you're right. Look at my argument with commenter "Lubavitcher" [above]. "Lubavitcher" apparently felt compelled to falsify the textual record of the Rebbe's own statements, and to dismiss the Zohar as a source, to cover up an idea that is clearly central to the Rebbe's concept of what a Rebbe/Moshiach is (the sichos of 5751/5752, the last year and a half of his compos life, focussed strongly on the idea of Moshiach), an idea which I learned about from a major Rav who is meyuchas to Lubavitch, and which is clearly sourced in the Midrashim and the Zohar.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="js-singlecommenttextjsk-itembodytext">So it would seem, that there is permission, if not an actual mandate, to hide the truth about Lubavitch messianism. IOW, you can't necessarily believe what they tell you about "Oh, I don't believe in that stuff". They may well, but because it's off-putting to other Jews, they may feel compelled to go so far as to lie about it. The Shi'i Muslims have a word for this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya">Taqiyya</a>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.com8