Volume 22 Number 16
Produced: Fri Nov 24 0:00:34 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Abarbanel Quoting Christian Sources (digest #8)
[Lawrence Feldman]
Abarbanel Relies on Christian Scholars?
[Chaim Wasserman]
On Rabbinical prohibitions
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Source for Bircas Kohanim Minhag (2)
[Carl Sherer, Avi Feldblum]
Summaries of Chumash Shiurim given by Rav Soloveichik
[Josh Rapps]
Tzelophchad
[Kenneth Posy]
Use of term - The Rebbe, The Rav
[Meyer Rafael]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lawrence Feldman <larryf@...>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 08:51:18 PST
Subject: RE: Abarbanel Quoting Christian Sources (digest #8)
>From: <sbechhof@...> (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
>I just taught tonight Shmuel I 3, where the Abarbanel takes issue with the
>Rambam in the Moreh as to whether prophecy is necessarily an internal
>experience (Rambam) or can also consist of external visions (Abarbanel). The
>Malbim in pasuk 8 quotes & sides with the Abarbanel. In his piece the
>Abarbanel notes, seems to me as evidence for his side, that the Christian
>scholars agree with him! Does he do this often? Perhaps I am naive, or
>ignorant, but it seems kind of shocking!
Along these lines, in his preface to the excellent Maharal Haggadah
(Feldheim Books, Horev Publishers, Jerusalem, 1993), which he edited and
translated, Shlomo Mallin notes that the Maharal waged "a cultural
battle" against "fellow Jews who had become steeped in philosophical
traditional. Outstanding among them was Don Yizhak Abarbanel." Jews like
the Abarbanel, Mallin states, who lived in highly assimilated
communities, mastered "Scripture and Aristotelian philosophy, but not
the Rabbinic writings" and therefore rarely quoted Rabbinic sources, but
instead typically expounded Scripture directly and proceeded to "attempt
to impose his own ideas upon it, in much the same way that Aristotle
tried to impose his own ideas of how motion should behave in the real
world." The Abarbanel often questioned Rabbinic teachings when citing
them, because, Mallin proposes, the Abarbanel's "ideological vantage
point" was essentially Aristotelian.
As such, if the Abarbanel's approach was more "rationalist" than
"traditional", if you will (use of these buzzwords are mine, not
Mallin's) his quoting Chritian scholars should not seem surprising.
Lawrence Feldman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Chaimwass@...> (Chaim Wasserman)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 23:15:19 -0500
Subject: Abarbanel Relies on Christian Scholars?
>From: <sbechhof@...> (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
>I just taught tonight Shmuel I 3, where the Abarbanel takes issue with the
>Rambam in the Moreh as to whether prophecy is necessarily an internal
>experience (Rambam) or can also consist of external visions (Abarbanel). The
>Malbim in pasuk 8 quotes & sides with the Abarbanel. In his piece the
>Abarbanel notes, seems to me as evidence for his side, that the Christian
>scholars agree with him! Does he do this often? Perhaps I am naive, or
>ignorant, but it seems kind of shocking!
A good introduction to the broad thought of Abravanel would be
B. Netanyahu's Don Isaac Abravanel in which he has several references to
the place of the church teachings in Abravanel's thinking.
Why would this be any less shocking than what RaMBaM writes in Hilchos
Kiddush haChodesh 17:24 wherein he indicates that all of the
mathematical calculations which he wrote about in the preceeding
chapters are all imported from the book of Greek philosophers for this
same information was lost in all of the genuinely Jewish traditions.
Clearly, mathematics and theology are two entirely different realms.
Nonetheless, how could a RaMBaM even give credit to the ancient Greeks
in a halachic context?! That is similarly rather shocking.
The notion that authentic Torah thinking is entirely pure of any contact
with or influence of non-Jewish sources is a BIG question that is, IMHO,
worthy of a lot of serious discussion in astute a forum as this is. (I
suspect - and hope - that a more substantive dialogue than the recent
concern over the kashrut of the commonly used melody for Alenu could and
would result.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 23:32:13 -0500
Subject: On Rabbinical prohibitions
Nosson Tuttle in MJ22#12 says:
> The proper statement about Rabbinical prohibitions for which the reason no
>longer applies should read like this:
>"Rabbinical prohibitions for which the reason no longer applies are taken
>out of force only when nullified by a Beit Din equal or greater than the
>Beit Din which originally promulgated the prohibition."
>The stipulation in the last clause is an essential restriction on the
>"principle" mentioned above, which is a huge barrier to its frequent usage.
This is far from being so simple. The best way to articulate the argument is
to bring an example. In Mishnah Kidushin (4:13), followed by the Talmud in
Kidushin (82a), followed by Rambam (TT 2:4), followed by the Shulchan Aruch
(YD 245:21) says that: a woman cannot be a teacher for children.
Several reasons are discussed along the way, but the most important one
is that there is a hashash (=[negative] possibility) that when the male
parents bring their children to her, a yichud (=sexual encounter) might
be developed. But we all know that we do have female teachers today in
just about every school. So how do we explain practice which is against
the Halacha?
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein was asked about this situation. He says (Igrot
Moshe YD, III, Siman 73) in no uncertain terms that he is unhappy with
this outcome. He continues with several reasons, but the main one is
that in old times the schooling was at home, and the yichud was a very
real possibility and that nowadays we use separate schools (not at
home), and the yichud possibility is no longer valid. R. Feinstein does
not mention any decision for the change by a Beit Din greater than
. . . This was a question asked after the fact, not before the action.
If indeed that is the case (i.e., the method of teaching has been
changed) then supposedly only a Beit Din could have made such a
decision. But what Beit Din will qualify to change the Mishnah, Gemara,
Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch? Can we really follow "Rabbinical
prohibitions for which the reason no longer applies are taken out of
force only when nullified by a Beit Din equal or greater than the Beit
Din which originally promulgated the prohibition."? Here, I Believe the
rule was changed properly for "batel ta'am batel din" but it did not
meet the approval of Beit Din. Needless to say that the issue of what is
"Beit Din equal or greater" deserves it own discussion. (cf. Mishnah
Rosh Ha'Shana 2:9)
Here we followed defacto (Aharon Manne language): "if the reason for a
Rabbinic restriction disappears, then the restriction is no longer
enforced." The Halachic process is not monolithic, and for the most
part no single rule covers all possibilities.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <adina@...> (Carl Sherer)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 95 0:28:40 IST
Subject: Source for Bircas Kohanim Minhag
I am wondering if anyone out there is aware of a source for the custom
of children of non-Cohanim standing under their father's tallis during
Bircas Cohanim (the priestly blessing).
-- Carl Sherer
Adina and Carl Sherer
You can reach us both at:
<adina@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 22:55:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Source for Bircas Kohanim Minhag
Carl Sherer writes:
> I am wondering if anyone out there is aware of a source for the custom
> of children of non-Cohanim standing under their father's tallis during
> Bircas Cohanim (the priestly blessing).
I guess I don't quite understand why you would need a source for
that. The first question one asks is why do non-Cohanim put their tallis
over their heads in the first place, and then see if it should be any
different for children. The reason as I understand it is due at least
partially to the old custom that the Cohanim left their hands outside of
the tallis when the performed the Bircas Cohanim. There is then a
medrash that says that during Bircas Cohanim, the Shekhina (presence of
Hashem) rests on the hands of the Cohanim, so one should not look
directly at it. The custom therefore was either to look down at the
floor, or to cover ones eyes with ones tallis. As such, children should
no more look at the Shekhina than adults, so it would be proper to keep
them under the tallis.
Today, we have changed the custom, at least in any place I have been at,
so that the Cohanim put the tallis over their hands, so I guess now we
have "double protection" for the non-Cohanim.
Note 1: The Cohanim are also not allowed to look upon their hands, so
they should either keep their hands above eye level (I think this is
prefered, but hard if you have a shul that does a long tune during
Bircas Cohanim [not relevant to those of you in Israel, or places like
my hashkama minyan where we have abolished that custom]) or you arrange
that your tallis drapes over your eyes before heading out to cover your
hands.
Note 2: Under no circumstance should a non-Cohen turn his/her back
toward the Cohen in order not to look at the Cohen. If you do not have a
tallis, just look towards the ground, but continue facing the Cohen.
Since I already put these two notes in, let me get one more that at
times sort of bugs me. If you have a shul where there are seats forward
of where the Cohanim stand, then you should leave your seat (if you are
in that area) and walk to where you are in front of the Cohanim during
the Blessing. This is not so much an issue for the men in my shul, but
many women stay behind the Cohanim. This is an area worthy of telling
people about.
--
Avi Feldblum
Shamash Facilitator and mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...> or feldblum@cnj.digex.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <jr@...> (Josh Rapps)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:02 EST
Subject: Summaries of Chumash Shiurim given by Rav Soloveichik
Announcement: summaries of Chumash Shiurim given by Rav Soloveichik
A list server/mailing list is in the process of being set up that will
feature a summary of Parshat Hashavua Shiurim given by the Rav. Much of
these summaries will derive from the notes of Rabbi Israel Rivikin,
taken during the weekly Moriah Shiur given by the Rav over many years.
Below is the initial installment on Parshat Toldot. As the list is
organized more details for access/subscription will be made
available. Thanks to Mr. Gershon Dubin for his editing assistance.
===========================================================
"And Yitzchok was forty years old when he married Rivka..." (Bereishis
22:20). Rashi explains that Yitzchok was 37 years old at the time of
the Akeida. At the conclusion of the Akeida the news was received of
the birth of Rivka. He waited until she was three years old and then
married her. Rabbi Soleveitchik explained the reason for this seemingly
long delay in marrying:
Yitzchok was the first of the Avos to be Kodosh M'rechem: holy from the
time of birth (NOTE: The Rav did not offer a specific source for this
statement). This Kedushah was that of an intended Korbon. From the time
of his birth Yitzchok was intended to be a Korbon Olah and this was the
mission which he had to fulfill. Until this mission was completed
Yitzchok could not marry, have children, or engage in any other worldly
pursuit, since to do so would have been Me'ilah Bekodoshim-improper use
of an intended korbon. Just as Yitzchok could not profane himself with
the mundane, likewise Avrohom could not send Eliezer to find Yitzchok a
wife because to take a wife would have been me'ilah bekodoshim. Once
the Akeida was accomplished, Yitzchok acquired the status of a "Dovor
Shena'asis Mitzvoso"-property of Hekdesh whose Mitzva had already been
compeleted. For such property, the prohibition of Me'ila no longer
applies and hence Yitzchok could marry.
____________________________________________________________
(c) Dr. Israel Rivkin and Josh Rapps. Permission to reprint
and distribute, with this notice, is hereby granted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Posy <kenneth.posy@...>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 09:18:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Tzelophchad
> >From: <aaron.g@...> (Aaron D. Gross )
> >wouldn't Tzelaphchad's granddaughter's inherit (subject to marrying
> >within Dan, as did their mothers) portions of Tzelaphchad's portion?
Tzelaphchad was from Menashe, not Dan.
> Two very much related questions are asked by Rashi and the Redak at the
> end of Sefer Yehoshua (which Meylekh and I have recently been zocheh to
> complete -- Chazak Chazak viNischazek). There, Elazar (ben Aharon)
> ...
> and this is the one Rashi mentions -- that Elazar inherited land from
> his wife who had died before him. Such land would also remain in the
> family post Yovel. (The Ralbag references the gemara but I haven't had
> a chance yet to look it up)
I think the Gemara is Bava basra 112a. However, if I remember correctly,
the gemara does not ask about the problem of the cohen owning
land. Rather the gemara's question is how is it possible that Pinchas
owned land that Elazar did not (as it seems from the fact the land was
called in Pinchas's name.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meyer Rafael <mrafael@...>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 22:56:06 -10
Subject: Use of term - The Rebbe, The Rav
> From: <eposen@...> (Esther Posen)
> The Rebbe is not a description of a specific person on a general forum
> like this.
I agree. Private in-group terminalogy such as "The Rebbe" or "The Rov"
are inappropriate in the a general forum. Bestowing kavod to one's
leader is fine but should not done in a way that implicitly negates the
kavod that is owing to other Rebbeim or Rabbonim.
Meyer Rafael
Melbourne, Australia
[If the context is not clear it is highly prefered that you identify
clearly whom you are talking about. If the article is about say, the
Lubavicher Rebbe's opinion about topic X, then if you simply say the
Rebbe during the rest of the article, it seems to be fine to me. The
same would hold for Rav Soloveichick, Rav Shach, the Gerrer Rebbe
etc. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 22 Issue 16
