Volume 22 Number 89
Produced: Sun Jan 21 22:25:32 1996
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Anachronisms in Halacha? (2)
[Carl Sherer, Avi Feldblum]
Chashmonaim
[Ari Shapiro]
Classical Sources and Contemporary Situations
[Yehuda Gellman]
G-d running the show
[Mordechai Perlman]
Kushner and God's omnipotence
[Alana Suskin]
Midrashic Texts
[Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer]
Omnipotence
[Micha Berger]
Rabbi Yissochar Frand In Print
[Linda Levi]
When Bad Things Happen...
[Max Shenker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <adina@...> (Carl Sherer)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 7:52:14 IST
Subject: Anachronisms in Halacha?
Another poster writes:
> it is important not to be anachronistic regarding halacha. what was
> decided by a rov during a certain period of chazal, may not have been
> the way it was practiced by everyone prior to that. an example is the
> opinion that holds that the currect practices of shofar blowing combine
> a number of different variants that were extant within the land of
> israel at that time.
Although this may not have been the poster's intent, this statement
strikes me as being dangerous because I think it would justify "changing
Halacha to suit the times" as many of our brethren would like to do. To
take the poster's example, the reason the shofar blowing custom combines
several variants is because which variant was the correct one has been
forgotten and therefore all of the variants were adopted to ensure that
at least the correct one will be one of the ones practiced. To go from
that to a statement that we can generally assume that psak varies from
generation to generation strikes me as a step down a slippery slope.
-- Carl Sherer
Adina and Carl Sherer
You can reach us both at:
<adina@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 21:51:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Anachronisms in Halacha?
Carl Sherer writes:
> To take the poster's example, the reason the shofar blowing custom
> combines several variants is because which variant was the correct one
> has been forgotten and therefore all of the variants were adopted to
> ensure that at least the correct one will be one of the ones
> practiced.
While what Carl writes is what is commonly supposed, it is not at all
clear that it correctly describes what happened. While I will leave for
closer to Rosh Hashana a detailed discussion on this (unless others pick
it up and it happens now), Rav Hai Gaon (I think) very strongly
disagrees with Carl's statement, and supports the statement of the
original poster, that all the different ways of blowing the Shofer are
correct, and that there is NO doubt, but rather the custom was modified
to have a uniform shofer blowing custom. There is about a 4-6 page
responsa on this, found in the Otzer HaGeonim (I think) which is just
fascinating reading.
Avi Feldblum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <m-as4153@...> (Ari Shapiro)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 96 10:24:29 EST
Subject: Chashmonaim
<For later generations of Rabbis to come along and rule the other way they
<need to be greater in number and in wisdom, and it is certainly something
<that would require comment when the matter is discussed in the gemorra.
This is not correct. The above only applies to a gezera (a Rabbinic
prohibition). In matters of Torah law later sages can argue on earlier
ones as the Rambam states in Hilchos Mamrim Chapter 2 Halacha 1: 'A Beis
Din Hagadol (high court) that learned out a halacha from one of the 13
midos (the rules that we use to learn out halachos) and paskened the din
and a later beis din came and saw a reason to disagree can overturn the
halacha because it says (in the torah) el hashofet asher yiye baymim
hahem (you should go to the judge who is at that time)'. Also see the
Kesef Mishan why Amoraim didn't argue with Tannaim.
Ari Shapiro
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehuda Gellman <GELLMAN@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 11:00 +0200
Subject: Classical Sources and Contemporary Situations
We all love to talk about how new circumstances have changed the way
halacha is to be applied, and that the classical sources cannot be
applied as is, when all of that is good for us. But when we turn to
judging contemporary phenomena we may not like, such as the haredi
devotion to learning and not working, we trot out the old texts and
pretend that there cannot be a view which maintains that circumstances
have changed and that the classical sources cannot be applied as is. The
real issue is whether a careful analysis of our contemporary situation
warrants departure from classical sources which might give a different
direction. Such a question is deep and complex and begins only after we
have seen all of the classic texts. Yehuda Gellman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai Perlman <aw004@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 06:09:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: G-d running the show
On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, J. & D. Bailey wrote:
> Aryeh has made a series of illogical leaps here and completely ignores
> centuries of philosophic thought, Jewish and otherwise (dare I even
> mention that in this forum?), that accepts God's role as creator, but
> then suggests that he is letting the world run along.
It's very nice to quote from different philosophical works and
bring clever logical arguments for or against Aryeh's reasoning.
However, do we not all say, every morning without fail, the passage in
davening, towards the end of the blessing of Yotzer Ohr, "Ham'chadesh
B'tuvoi B'chol Yoim Tomid Maasey V'reishis" (that He in His goodness
constantly renews each day the work of the beginning). Surely this
declaration forces one to decide in favour of a certain viewpoint,
otherwise one is simply declaring something he does not believe, or
doesn't know the meaning of his prayers.
Mordechai Perlman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alana Suskin <alanacat@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 08:49:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Kushner and God's omnipotence
The discussion of exactly what it means for God to be omnipotent has
gone on for quite some time. The medievals discussed this quite a lot:
how is it possible for God to be omniscient and omnipotent, and still
for humans to have free will? Maimonides himself decided that God had
set up a system in which natural law was the system of "reward" and
"punishment" and it was the results of our actions which caused certain
unvarying results. Kushner is not precisely in line with Rambam,
however, I think it is beyond most of us to say that Maimonides is not
frum enough. On the contrary, I think most would agree that his level of
observance was likely higher than most of ours. Therefore, I don't see
that Kushner can be automatically disqualified as Jewishly knowledgeable
simply on the basis of his argument that God is not responsible for even
such large things as major disasters.
Alana Suskin,
Mitnaggedet Mama
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <sbechhof@...> (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 23:50:17 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Midrashic Texts
> From: <lili1079@...> (David Lilienthal)
> Kushner certainly transgresses the traditional boundaries if our
> understanding of G'd. But I don't think he wrote a book of theology or a
> halachic work. What if you consider it a midrashic text, directed to
> people in a very specific situation? After all, is there not a great
> difference between halacha and aggada, and does his book not belong in
> the second category? And as such, yes it is most helpful and once people
I am much disturbed by the use of "midrash" and "agada" in relation to
modern day writings, and certainly those of a Conservative Rabbi that
are incompatible with Torah true Judaism. Midrash and Agada are terms
that refer exclusively to compilations of Ma'amarei Chazal (albeit the
compilers may be later), and Agada is a corpus of Torah she'be'al Peh
(Oral Law) that is no less definite and defined than the Halachic
portions of the Talmud and Tannaic and Amoraic Midrashei Halacha. There
is no later form of Midrash. There is philosophy, thought, and "drash" -
and a great deal of incorrect material that falls into the latter
category. The use of the term "Midrash", with all the accompanying
authority, is inappropriate.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <aishdas@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 06:37:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Omnipotence
I never understood Deism, the belief that G-d created the world and then
left it alone. Much like a watchmaker, who would wind up a watch, wind
it, and then left it to run on its own.
The reason why I think it is logically flawed is because it assumes that
G-d is subject to time. But since time itself is a creation, this just
isn't true. You can't talk about when Hashem does anything. You could
talk about when we experience the results of his actions, since we are
within time. But we can't talk about when He does anything. In other
words, the phrase "and then left it alone" falls apart at the words "and
then".
When we talk about when a miracle happens, we mean when do we see the
miracle. "When did the Red Sea split?" is a different question than
"When did Hashem split the Red Sea?" The second question has no
meaningful answer, since for Hashem there is no "when".
The Ramban writes that the splitting of the Red Sea, all miracles in
fact, were written into the act of creation. This sounds a lot like an
extension of the Rambam that Jay Bailey quoted, the idea that Hashem set
up nature at the time of creation, and then lets nature run its course.
But there's that nasty "and then", which seems to deny the idea that G-d
created time. So what do the Ramban and Rambam mean?
The Ramban was trying to answer a different question. Wouldn't the
existence of miracles imply that nature is flawed? If Hashem set up
nature it can not be flawed. Yet, miracles are exceptions to the
laws. Why would perfect laws need exceptions? Did Hashem do an imperfect
job at creation?
The Ramban replies that the laws of nature include the miracles. They
were ordained at creation, along with the normal behavior.
All of G-d's interactions with the physical world, therefor, are all
part of the act of creation. This can be viewed as a consequence of the
fact that to Hashem has no time. We can do one thing, and then do
another. But G-d's "actions" are not separated by time. They can all be
lumped into the "act" of creating the universe.
IMHO, this is also the Rambam's intent. He asserts that every action of
G-d, whether we see it as supernatural, or within the course of nature,
is part of creation. There is no "and then". G-d does it all at once.
If we say that time is created, it MUST be that way. We can't talk about
nature just running its course, as Jay read the quote. This would imply
that we could separate the start of nature from its continuation -- even
from Hashem's perspective.
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3255 days!
<AishDas@...> (16-Oct-86 - 5-Oct-95)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://haven.ios.com/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MSGraphics@...> (Linda Levi)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 16:40:10 -0500
Subject: Rabbi Yissochar Frand In Print
In response to requested info:
Rabbi Frand's book is called "Rabbi Yissochar Frand In Print" and was
published by Artscroll in Sept. It's available in all Jewish bookstores.
Rav Frand is a maggid shiur at Ner Yisroel.
His book is NOT specifically about why bad things happen to good people- it's
a synopsis of years of Torah Tapes he's been publishing- and covers many
different topics. It's done incredibly well and has everything from fun
stories to the most serious halachic discussions-- it should be on every
bookshelf IMHO.
Linda Levi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Max Shenker <shenker@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 08:51:12 +0200 (IST)
Subject: When Bad Things Happen...
> <lili1079@...> (David Lilienthal) wrote in MJ22#85
> Kushner certainly transgresses the traditional boundaries if our
> understanding of G'd. But I don't think he wrote a book of theology or a
> halachic work. What if you consider it a midrashic text, directed to
> people in a very specific situation? After all, is there not a great
> difference between halacha and aggada, and does his book not belong in
> the second category?
These types of issues most certainly do not fall into the category of
aggada (besides the question of whether "aggada" can be created
post-Chazal). As Rav Hutner zt'l might say, if what we do is legislated
by halacha, then all the more so what we think is legislated by the
halacha. This is why he called he books works in hilchos deos ve'chovos
halevovos (halacha of thought and obligations of the heart). This is
also why our literatue is filled with diverse and extensive discussion
of every issue -- from the Rambam to the the Ramchal and on into the
present.
Kushner's underlying thesis and many of his individual arguments run
diametrically opposed to the halacha. For example, his argument that
there is an independant force of evil which G-d is powerless to oppose
(G-d forbid), is explicitly described in the Ramchal's Daas Tevunos as
idolotry.
I think there is a great need for a new work written with as much
sensitivity and simplicity as Kushner has which expresses a halachic
view of the issues.
Max Shenker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 22 Issue 89
