- This topic has 53 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
As noted in the YWN Rabbi Dr Tendler was nifter on Thursday
Yes, Baruch Hashem we can all read. What is your point?
i dont know qhat either of you are talking about. he was niftar on shmini atzeres which was Tuesday.
Anyone know why YU didn’t give off for the levaya?
is YU back in session yet after yom tov?
This was what I heard from college students that go to YU so I’m assuming it was
notes from a talk by R Moshe Kurtz, a recent talmid:
He asked R Tendler ZT’L how he met his future wife, Shifra. They met at a public library, where he was studying biology, and she asked him a biology question .. Later on, R Feinstein approached R Tendler Senior (they were on the same Beis din), and when father asked the son, he replied that he is already pursuing it .. AAQ: would this be Ms Feinstein approaching R Tendler first and then her Father? Anyone knows more on this?
R Tendler was niftar on Shmini Atzert – not on his birthday, like Moshe, but on his wife’s birthday …
Also asked R Tendler re:R Feinstein allowing halav stam but keeping halav Isroel himself. Was he not sure of his own psak? Stricter with himself? R Tendler said people misunderstood. R Feinstein was concerned that he was holding by halav Isroel before, equivalent to a neder, and quoted a Gemora about someone entering Gan Eden alive due to never needing to annul a neder …
R Tendler’s approach: learn the facts, data before going to halakha. At a Niddah class, he would pass specimen around, asking students to categorize.
When they learned on Zoom, R Kurtz turned to the side to greet his wife entering the house. R Tendler told him that this was not proper – he needs to get up and greet his wife with full attention.
They once had a Gemora shiur together – R Tendler, R Kurtz and his wife. They were making a picture after that. R Tendler instructed the wife to open Gemora back so that people would have no doubt that she was learning.
He asked R Tendler what he thinks of R Feinstein disapproving of women learning Gemorah. He answered that if R Feinstein would have seen how they approach it now, he would be happy that his great-granddaughter is learning. Meaning that at some point this was an issue of feminism, external influence, among other controversial issues. R Tendler is simply seeing women sufficiently educated, committed, and capable of learning and does not think they should miss out on this.
When Covid started, R Tendler was waiting for some time for someone to help him install Zoom. YU, respectably, sent a senior 60-yo Rabbi to help. This did not work until they sent a younger person …Lately, R Tendler was giving his Zoom shiurim from the hospital bed to the point where he was getting tired and could not continue.
AAQ: Thanks so much for sharing these fascinating insights about the Rav, A’H and his relationship with his shver. At a time when our gadolim and poskim are being asked to opine on increasingly complex questions on the intersection of science and halacha, having a Rav so fluent in BOTH was certainly a net positive, although not w/o occasional controversy.
“Anyone knows more on this?”
AAQ: Rabbi Tendler met his future wife in the New York Public Library, as you mentioned. Her father, Rav Moshe, had nothing to do with facilitating, approving or putting the shidduch together in any way.
Gadol, someone else said that we often talk about people comfortable in two realms, but for Rav Tendler, there was no separation.
I realize many will find this unsavory, but this has absolutely nothing to do with rabbi tendler a”h; The statement that rav Moshe would have allowed women to learn gemara is untrue, as rav moshe said that this is not even a question and wondered why the questioner bothered to ask, when it’s something explicitly forbidden by gemara and rishonim. His statements had nothing to do with feminism or any other issue; it was simply because the gemara said not to.
This has nothing to do with the kovod of the niftar; such statements must be responded to, no matter what the context.
I think it was inappropriate for AAQ to quote that story and then put others in a situation where keeping quiet is harmful to readers and calling it out is unsavory.
ujm, indeed, according to the speaker, R Tendler told him that Fathers talked to each other after the kids already met. Baseless suspicion about gedolim edited
Avira, this was a quote from R Tendler by the speaker. Not sure whether he said “he would allow”, maybe “he would agree” or “understand”. find the talk on yutorah for an exact quote. You may disagree and you did it somewhat respectfully indeed, other than presuming that R Tendler did not know or did not understand the Gemorah.
You have a point that I migt be wrong posting something that you might disagree with and have to respond. But I was thinking that withholding his opinions would also be harmful to readers, who would continue thinking that such opinion does not exist.
AAQ – i understand that rabbi tendler said so, when i said “this has nothing to do with rabbi tendler” I meant that when responding to the statement, I have no intention specifically at rabbi tendler or any other individual, only that the statement that was said is a mistake. I’m addressing the content and not the speaker thereof. It doesn’t concern me if he said it or not, only that rav moshe was crystal clear in his teshuvos and to say that he would have said differently nowadays is to ignore the simple words of those teshuvos.
The issue itself of women learning gemara was discussed at length elsewhere; i think i covered it pretty well in the closed MO ranting thread – here isn’t the place for it.
Avira, thanks for your courage. And thanks for protecting the Gadol HaDor in this thread, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l
Avira,
to help you reconcile Gemora w/ R Tendler, one line of reasoning is that women are obligated in learning mitzvos relevant to them. Chafetz Chaim applied that in endorsing BY concept of learning Tanach and Mussar. The claim is that modern educated women need Gemora learning to support their emunah at the intellectual level they are. So, they need to learn it and it is not a trade-off, but a simple requirement. Same way, a woman who prepares for Pesach needs to know halochos of Pesach, so a woman with a law degree needs to understand Yiddishkeit at the same level.There is a lot to criticize in this concept and think critically whom it can be applied to and how, but the claim seems to be well within the parameters of halakhic discourse. You may be particularly unappreciative to the concept because it applies less to women in your community, so you do not see the relevance.
some caveats thrown around that I did not check out, but if you want to look into this: [I am skipping references by authors you do not like]
Rav Aharon Soloveitchik, 1986 – prohibiting coerced study based on Torah Temima (Devarim 11:19) who quotes the Teshuvot Maayan Ganim [this puts in questions a lot of high schools who do that :)]
Tzitz Eliezer (9:3)
Rav Yehuda Henkin (Teshuvot Bnei Banim 3:12)
Rav Chaim David Halevi (Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav 2:52)AAQ – i don’t think it’s respectful for us to veer off of the topic of kovod hameis for for rabbi tendler. I’d be happy to respond at length in a different thread.
AAQ – all i can say is that if that is your view of jewish women and their role in Judaism than i feel sorry for you, and for your daughter(s) who are missing out on the true meaning of spiritual worth and value. You also continue to be clueless on the difference between disapproving something because you don’t like it, and disapproving something because it is incorrect.
The claim is that modern educated women need Gemora learning to support their emunah at the intellectual level they are.
It’s a silly claim, because there’s plenty of material which Bais Yaakovs offer which is on a high intellectual level without learning gemara. Speak to anyone beho knows something about BJJ.
You may be particularly unappreciative to the concept because it applies less to women in your community
Aside from that comment being arrogant and condescending, it’s blatantly untrue. There is certainly a big range of education level in our community (as there is in the MO community) but that range extends to law degrees and above. Yet, learning gemara is still unnecessary and therefore assur (self motivated learning is not assur, but mandated, structured classes are). Plus, as mentioned above, the Bais Yaakov system has managed to make a high level Torah based curriculum available for those who need it, without having to resort to learning gemara.
Bottom line: the success of the Bais Yaakov curriculum is a complete rebuttal to the claim that nowadays it is necessary to teach gemara to girls, and the only reason the MO do it is because they are too weak to fight the feminist elements among them.
Agree with Syag, DY, etc. One little interesting caveat, FWIW. I’ve been saying a daily daf yomi shiur for a while. During the early months of Corona, I said the shiur from home on Zoom and/or conference call. My post seminary daughter (since married, BH) would listen in many evenings, albeit without following along inside. When topics in Shabbos an Eiruvin would come up around the Shabbos table, she would say, I remember when you spoke about that in your shiur!! If her husband’s family found out, I wonder what they’d think about that!!!
Did she go to BJJ?
I don’t remember clearly. Was it Michlalah?
Its sad that even within shloshim, there cannot be a “quiet period” where there is some deference to the niftar and the truth squad can wait to “set the record straight”. Rav Tendler, A’h, was a great talmid chacham who achieved greatness in secular matters and contributed much to klal yisroel. Some of his positions were indeed controversial but in all cases were well informed, well reasoned and well documented.
What Rabbi Tendler said does not contradict the Rishonim and Acharonim. There is no isur for women to learn Gemara. They are b’geder einah metzuvah v’ose:
אִשָּׁה שֶׁלָּמְדָה תּוֹרָה יֵשׁ לָהּ שָׂכָר אֲבָל אֵינוֹ כִּשְׂכַר הָאִישׁ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִצְטַוֵּית. וְכָל הָעוֹשֶׂה דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּה עָלָיו לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ אֵין שְׂכָרוֹ כִּשְׂכַר הַמְצֻוֶּה שֶׁעָשָׂה אֶלָּא פָּחוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ
(Rambam, Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13)
People confuse the halacha about teaching girls Torah with a prohibition on women learning Torah for themselves.
See the Perisha on Y”D 246.No, what’s sad is that to you it’s a truth squad, because you are selective in who and what you consider honorable and worthy if respect. Written law included. Defending halacha and arguing it’s points isn’t something a true talmid chochom considers disrespect. Don’t diminish his greatness thru assumptions of pettiness.
@Daas and Syag and AAQ this tread is about Rav Tendler, not womens education
Someone mentioned his shittah on women learning gemara.
I agree that we can move discussion to a different thread. I think I was not clear here – I quoted a hesped with several points, and, in response to Avira, tried to clarify what R Tendler’s and related views are based on. I don’t think I posted any of my opinions here, but will happy to discuss in a different thread. Overall, I think it is a respect to Talmid Chacham when people discuss his Torah. We say that the person is alive while his opinions are quoted.
I tried to start a thread discussing girls learning Gemara, with viewpoints from both sides. It wasn’t approved.
I don’t see it anywhere
There’s at least one, if not more, threads already on the exact issue of girls learning Gemorah. Google it and bump it back with your chochmos.
several interesting quotes and footnotes from JOHN D. LOIKE AND MOSHE D. TENDLER Molecular Genetics, Evolution, and Torah Principles, 2006. I am not trying to summarize the paper, just finding interestig references for further research:
genetic drift: Because human beings have only a small number of offspring, not all of the parents’ genes will necessarily be passed on to their progeny. In contrast, species that have many offspring tend to distribute all of the parents’ genes to various progeny of the next generation. Thus, a small surviving population is going to be affected more dramatically by natural disasters (such as earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, or fires) or by war and may not be representative of the original population in its genetic makeup.
Neziv affirms that, prior to Abraham, randomness existed in all areas except when it impacted upon humankind as a whole and threatened the divine plan for the world. However, Abraham brought God “down to earth” to govern humankind with hashgah. haperatit and thus altered the relationship between God and humankind such that hashgahah became a force in the world
Hullin 7b R Hanina v Rava whether Hashem controls every event
See Mo‘ed Katan 28a, where Rava states that “length of life, children and sustenance depend
not on merits but on mazzal.” Also Shabbat 156 ein mazzal le-Yisrael or yesh mazzal le-Yisrael. “Mazzal” here may mean not chance, but natural lawMeam Loez God created man together with the animals to teach him that as far as his body is concerned, he has no advantages over lower animals. His only advantage is his divine soul
Malbim (Gen. 1:25) points out that the description of creation in the Torah presents an evolutionary-like sequence of events whereby each day introduces a qualitatively higher level of life form
Vilna Ga’on comments on Prov. 25:2 that God’s honor demands that we leave hidden what preceded creation and focus only on scientific studies that impact humankind directly. Sa‘adyah Ga’on interprets Eccl. 2:12 as an injunction not to waste time in the study of cosmology, since
the truth will never be revealed and little will be accomplished despite the expenditure of great effort. We propose, however, that these authorities would have supported the study of the genetic basis of evolution had they been aware of the benefits to humankind—both medical and moral—that
emerge from the molecular genetics of evolution. Shla Hagigah 11a) that it is legitimate to inquire into and examine the processes by which the world was created during the first six daysIn Eruvin (100b), R. Yohanan states that had the Torah not been given, we would have learned various (good) characteristics from different animals. Animal characteristics are also expressed in
human beings and should be appropriately studied so that the knowledge gained from such study may be utilized to serve the Creator.Humility: The Talmud (Sanhedrin 38a) states: “Our Rabbis taught:
Adam was created on erev Shabbat [as the last creature created]. Why?
. . . . So that if man becomes arrogant, one can say to him in reminder: the
lowly gnat preceded you in the order of creation of the world!” The
remarkable genetic similarities between human beings and animals—
the fact that each human being is about 99% genetically similar to the
monkey—teaches us that human beings have a propensity to behave like
animals if they are not in possession of morals and values that give them
true human dignity and enable them to realize their z.
elem Elokim.45Where is the netziv he’s quoting? That seems to be untenable as per the rambams ikrei emunah. Perhaps Avrohom revealed hashgocha, but he didn’t change the way Hashem runs the world. To think that only the big picture matters is an opinion of many Greek philosophers, not gedolei yisroel.
The other quotes I’m not going to comment on, as the conclusions he draws from them are conjecture and extrapolation.
Avira,
How does that Netziv contradict the Rambam’s ikrei emunah?
The Ramban holds that only tzadikim are zocheh to hashgacha pratis (Breishis 18:19) even after Avraham. And the Rambam holds that the level of hashagacha fluctuates according to the level the person is on (in the Moreh, don’t remember where).The Netziv, if anything, ascribes even more hashgacha than the Ramban and the Rambam himself.
That’s not how the rambam is understood; in yad hilchos taanis, he says that when people attribute suffering to mikra or teva, they are “cruel”. Also chazal say openly that one does not stub their toe without it being announced min hashomayim.
The online presentation about hashgocha is very, very deceptive… Everyone agrees that nothing happens without it being caused, whether directly or indirectly, by Hashem, as there is no power besides him, no reality besides him either…
What the rambam in moreh means is explained to mean that he doesn’t sense or realize that it’s from Hashem, mitzad him it is nature.. it appears to a regular person that he is at the mercy of teva because he is not trusting Hashem… Hashem will deliver him into the hands of what he believes in. Special nissim on a constant basis, like by Avrohom, were only for tzadikim who by them everything was hashgocha, so Hashem reveals himself to him more palpably.
Hashem is called the boreh umanhig es kol habruim, he leads all the creations.
Avira,
The Ramban is quite clear. I don’t need an online presentation to read it:
כי ידיעת השם שהיא השגחתו בעולם השפל היא לשמור הכללים וגם בני האדם מונחים בו למקרים עד בא עת פקודתם אבל בחסידיו ישום אליו לבו לדעת אותו בפרט להיות שמירתו דבקה בו תמיד לא תפרד הידיעה והזכירה ממנו כלל כטעם לא יגרע מצדיק עיניו (איוב לו ז) ובאו מזה פסוקים רבים כדכתיב (תהלים לג יח) הנה עין ה’ אל יראיו וזולת זהThere are many other Rishonim that discuss the issue also (I don’t remember them off-hand). I understand that many interpret the Ramban, Rambam, and others to mean differently than what they appear to say. But the Netziv and Rabbi Tendler are not meshubad to such an intepretation.
Where do Chazal say that a person doesn’t stub their toe without it being announced min hashomayim?
But nothing I wrote, nor the Rambam and Ramban wrote, contradict the statement: “Everyone agrees that nothing happens without it being caused, whether directly or indirectly, by Hashem, as there is no power besides him, no reality besides him either.”
Of course, you statement is correct. But the key is the directly vs. indirectly. If Hashem sets up and sustains a world that operates according to certain rules and those rules cause an event to occur, Hashem has caused that event, indirectly. But that event may not reflect any judgment that person(s) effected specifically deserved that outcome.
Chulin 7b, memra of rabi chanina – ain Odom nokef etzbao ele im kein machrizin etc…
The rambam in yad, hilchos taanis 1,3 אבל אם לא יזעקו ולא יריעו אלא יאמרו דבר זה ממנהג העולם אירע לנו וצרה זו נקרה נקרית. הרי זו דרך אכזריות וגורמת להם להדבק במעשיהם הרעים. ותוסיף הצרה צרות אחרות. הוא שכתוב בתורה והלכתם עמי בקרי והלכתי גם אני עמכם בחמת קרי
Moreh nevuchim is anything but “clear”. Rav chaim brisker told the brisker rov not to learn it when he was young, even though he himself did. He also told his son to think of ain ohd milvado when jn trouble, that there is no power or cause besides Him. It’s also translated from Arabic. My thoughts are that the rambam is referring to all of klal yisroel when he says chasidav, l’afukei goyim. Other achronim make this point without referencing the rambam, that hashgocha protis in its full extent is for klal yisroel and not goyim. We find elsewhere that klal yisroel are called Hashem’s chasidim and “yireim”, if they’re keeping the mitzvos.
The rambam in yad is much clearer. There are tons of pesukim that eschew Mikrah(happenstance) and tell us to ascribe everything to Hashem. The chovos halevavos is also very clear about this in shaar bitachon, as is the sefer hachinuch on jealousy and revenge. He happens to hold that animals and plants are hashgocha klalis, like the rambam you quoted, but the achronim don’t go with it, especially in light of the zohar which has many statements to this effect.
Hashgocha protis in the way the yiddishe mames taught us is the mesorah for klal yisroel, especially after hisgalus hakabalah; it’s not a coincidence that seforim such as the nefesh hachaim, which were based on an understanding of chazal in light of kabalah, stress these issues very much. For us to accept the views of rishonim would be – itself – denying hashgocha in Hashem’s guidance of the flow of the development of hashkofa/mesorah throughout the generations. It’s for the same reason that rav elyashiv banned slifkins books, even though he may have had rishonim supporting some of his views. We don’t have authority to revert back to the rishonim if Hashem has guided the way He wants us to serve Him through the mesorah of the achronim that’s the point the chazon ish in iggros makes about finding kisvei yad and using them to overturn rulings of schronim.
Avira,
I didn’t say the RambaM was clear, I said the RambaN was clear. He says it in multiple places. And it is not just him. Most Rishonim hold that hashgacha pratis is limited in some way, either just to tzadikim, just to humans, or just to humans.
Your Gemara in Chulin is a good raya. I will need to look up how the Ramban and other rishonim that hold that hashgacha pratis is limited to tzadikim explain that Gemara.
Your raya from the Rambam in Hilchos Taanis is not a good raya. The Rambam is discussing the tzibur. When bad things happen to a tzibur, that is always hashgacha–at least hashgacha klalis.
I don’t think going by what you were taught as a child is a good measure of Toras Emes. Part of the mesorah is that you grow up and learn seforim inside and understand the nuances and machlokesim. No amount of sifrei kabalah or chasidus can override rov Rishonim. Moreover, the Ramban learned kabbalah and still wrote what he wrote.
I don’t think your explanation of Rav Elyashiv’s position is accurate. Of course a person can rely on Rishonim–especially for hashkafah. Slifkin didn’t have any Rishonim supporting the parts of his views that got his books banned. He had some Rishonim who said superficially similar things in different circumstances. The fact that Rishon says that Chazal could make a mistake (something that is obviously true because they are human), doesn’t give Slifkin grounds to say that they made a bunch of mistakes on specific issues.
We aren’t dealing with obscure Rishonim, or texts that were found recently in this case. These are amudei oilam, meorei hagolah. The mesorah, rests upon the shoulders of the Ramban and the Rambam. You can’t mach avek with them because it doesn’t fit with the Nefesh HaChaim or the Baal Shem Tov.
If you read the rambaN literally, it sounds as if he’s saying Hashem doesn’t know the details of a person’s life aside from the big things…i honestly don’t know what the ramban means, but when something seems untenable from tanach and chazal, we don’t have permission to go with a literal reading of rishonim.
Also, I’m not maching avek the rishonim; I’m saying that any sugya needs interpretation based on the wide spectrum of chazal and tanach before being properly understood, precisely because we know that these rishonim knew these gemaros snd pesukim like the back of their hands.
Also, do you know any ehrliche person who lives their life thinking that things “just happen”? The mesorah is not childish, it’s a life of awareness of Hashem in every part of our lives that brings to both emunah and ahavas Hashem, when we think about how much Hashem cares about us and is constantly guiding our lives.
Hamaychin mitzadey gaver is another mekor, agav
I sgree that there should be a separate thread about this and women learning gemara.
CS: Welcome to the Internet! In this neck of the woods, going off topic or on a tangent is par for the course.
Troll.
CS: Welcome to the Internet! In this neck of the woods, going off topic or on a tangent is par for the course.
“In this neck of the woods, going off topic or on a tangent is par for the course…”
Memo to file: Its much easier to go OT if you wait until post 51 so you are on a “new page” continuing the thread and don’t have the overhang of 49 prior relevant posts which sort of make your OT comments look really tangential
I think it is zechus to a neshomah if his works lead to some interesting Torah discussions.
I am interested in the question where both sides seem to be reasonable:
1) we can’t follow Rishonim unles acharonim go same way [this is relevant when new books of old authors are discovered. Is Mishna Berurah using not very well known re-published Meiri, do I recall this correctly?]
2) we can’t go against rov of Rishonim.I am also afraid that we all use these notions inconsistently. I am probably guilty, but can’t recall particular cases 🙂 but Avira often says that others disagree with a Rishon or an Amora without fully showing Acharonim.
Also, does everyone hold by the same acharonim?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.