Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yekke2:
“שינוי מקום or hesech hada’as” makes a difference for the same reason that a beracha acharona makes a difference – they are halachic mechanisms via which the person shows that he is “returning” the food to Hashem. I don’t think they particularly have to utilize the dinim of kinyanim because I think the whole concept is more metaphorical (or perhaps metaphysical) than actually a literal kinyan from God and then back.
(I’m sort of deliberately ignoring the “why?” and framing it as a “what?” in classic Brisker fashion. So you can’t really ask why a given act represents “returning”, but you can ask what the gedarim are.)
We can approach this question from a different angle:
Why does one make a beracha in the first place? According to the Gemara (Berachos 35a) it is סברא הוא אסור לו לאדם שיהנה מן העולם הזה בלא ברכה. This is further elaborated upon there, and it is explained that eating without a beracha is in some sense akin to stealing from God.
If this is the case, why should one ever have to make a new beracha? As soon as he made a beracha on an item one time, the item has moved from the geder of לה’ הארץ ומלואה to the geder of והארץ נתן לבני אדם!
על כרחך, a beracha acharona (as well as certain other forms of hefseik/heseich hada’as) somehow returns an item to the status of לה’ הארץ ומלואה. It is as if the beracha rishona allows you usage of the item and by making a beracha acharona you are “returning” it to God.
If that is the case, then if you made a beracha acharona (“returned” the food to God) but had in mind to continue eating rice (did not include it in the “returning”) then the rice is still “yours” – והארץ נתן לבני אדם.
There would thus be no reason to make a new beracha because the whole concept of a beracha is to appropriate something from God’s domain and make it yours, which would be completely superfluous if the thing is already yours (due to a prior beracha).
Do these two questions answer each other? The Trace may not be on wandless magic; the trace is on the magical signature from when a spell is produced from a wand. (And Dobby deliberately ‘forges’ a magical signature onto his spell to incriminate Harry; Dobby’s other uses of magic therefore go unnoticed) The Lumos was Harry’s desperation forcing a use of wandless magic; it wasn’t a regular spell.
The incident with Aunt Marge would seem to refute this theory.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22016&st=&pgnum=214&hilite=
Bottom left of the page, #1881. Though it’s not quite your question because it’s not specifically about the wife’s city.
Since nobody has yet provided the answer to the question, here it is:
There is another story of Rabbi Akiva’s death in Rabbinic Literature. It appears in the Midrash Mishlei in Parsha 9.
מעשה בר’ עקיבה שהיה חבוש בבית האסורים [ור’ יהושע הגרסי תלמידו היה משמשו ערב יו”ט נפטר ממנו והלך לביתו בא אליהו ועמד על פתח ביתו א”ל שלום עליך רבי א”ל שלום עליך רבי ומורי א”ל כלום אתה צריך א”ל כהן אני ובאתי להגיד לך שר”ע מת בבית האסורים מיד הלכו שניהם לבית האסורים ומצאו פתח שער בית האסורים פתוח ושר בית הסוהר היה ישן וכל העם שהיו בבית האסורים היו ישנים והשכיבו את ר”ע על המטה ויצאו מיד נטפל אליהו זכור לטוב וטלו על כתפיו וכשראה ר’ יהושע הגרסי כך אמר לאליהו רבי הלא אמרת לי אני אליהו כהן וכהן אסור לטמא במת א”ל דייך ר’ יהושע בני חס ושלום שאין טומאה בצדיקים ואף לא בתלמידיהם והיו מוליכין אותו כל הלילה עד שהגיעו לטרפילון של קסרין כיון שהגיעו לשם עלו שלש מעלות וירדו ירידות ונפתח המערה לפניהם וראו שם כסא וספסל ושלחן ומנורה והשכיבו את ר”ע על המטה ויצאו וכיון שיצאו נסתמה המערה ודלקה הנר על המנורה, וכשראה אליהו כך פתח ואמר אשריכם צדיקים ואשריכם עמלי תורה ואשריכם יראי אלהים שגנוז וטמור לכם ומשומר לכם מקום בגן עדן לעתיד לבוא אשריך ר”ע שנמצא לך מלון ערב בשעת מיתתך לכך נאמר אף ערכה שלחנה] 613
Part three:
do you worship the big dipper
do you wear crocks on Yom Kipper
are you one of those who think the IDF is Jack the Ripper
are you following the masses
wearing thick round plastic glasses
is it bittul zman to memorize the list of noble gases
are you dressed like a clown
because you come from out of town
where you can’t stop worrying how you’ll afford a wedding gown
would you recognize an A minor
if it was played at a diner
and who has a better voice Benny Friedman or Simcha Leiner
would you walk into Ramallah
if you heard a cry of “Allah”
is it assur or is it mutar to bake a schlissel challah
do you accrue big summer bills
by going up to the Catskills
while your husband’s in the city trying his homemaking skills
would you say chas vechalila
if you were offered gelila
just because you were the youngest person present for tefilla
are there sports that you would play
if your rabbi said it’s okay
do you think a kosher movie is a stira meenay ubay
do you want to pull a trigger
every time you see your shvigger
even though there’s a chance it will only make the problem bigger
do you think it’s all the same
if someone has an English name
or is it something that is goyish and should be a mark of shame
have you learned through hameiniach
do you believe in mashiach
and is it polite to ask if you’re a masis umediach
Thank you cozimjewish. Here is part two:
do you like Miami’s Revach
do you prefer Shwekey’s Shevach
and the most important question do you go away for Pesach
on Purim are you rated
as beyond intoxicated
while you vomit all over a girl you previously dated
do you think there is a niche
for the famous KosherSwitch
or was it just a scam designed to make somebody get quite rich
is it only during adar
when your sense of humor’s hotter
that you spend so many hours darshening on Harry Potter
what about tznius today
does it require a “mayday”
or is it just a little problem that is soon to fade away
secular education
and college matriculation
are they something positive or just a Torah deviation
Is the greatest of all wrongs
to listen to nonjewish songs
and does it make a difference if it’s just a bunch of singalongs
would you still respect your mom
even if she ate chalav stam
does your tefillin order follow Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam
do you stand on your raglayim
for your kiddush club lechayim
but immediately sit for “Avinu Shebashamyim” (the prayer, not God)
do you think there is a hiddur
in davening from a siddur
except if it’s on a smartphone in which case you get quite bitter
PAA: Rav Moshe says in Igros Moshe YD 3:86 that girls are not permitted to learn Torah Shebalpeh, including not Mishnayis or Gemorah, except they may learn Pirkei Avos. The VaYoel Moshe Maimer Lashon HaKodesh 33 (p. 436) says girls can’t even learn Rashi since it is Torah Shebalpeh. These are a couple of examples of contemporary sources. Rav Moshe apparently held Rashi on Chumash is still categorized as the simple pshat on Torah Shebksav.
I am well aware that many contemporary poskim are against women’s Gemara. I never claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is that there is Rabbinic support for it, and that the earlier sources that were against it might have reevaluated in contemporary times. Obviously R’ Moshe and the Satmar Rav didn’t feel that way. But no one ever claimed they did. There is a machlokes. My purpose in quoting various sources is to dispel the impression that those in favor of women’s Gemara are just deviant Jews with nothing to rely on. (As an aside, R’ Moshe is discussing a case where the faculty wanted to teach girls. That does not necessarily have the same status as girls deciding to learn themselves. I’m not claiming that R’ Moshe would necessarily be mechalek, but you can see the sources I quoted earlier for such a chiluk.)
P.S. I believe there’s a concerted effort to post your comments hours after they’ve been submitted/timestamped so that it can be easily missed under the hope that’ll occur and you will get the last word.
I don’t believe I have any control over how long it takes the moderators to approve my posts. I would be more than happy if they went up sooner. If you are suggesting that there is a moderators conspiracy to make sure I get the last word, you can take that up with them.
They tend to be long, and although I only speak for myself, I do not usually have time to read through it, although I do usually get to it eventually. -100
“Are You a Good Jew”
TTTO Do Your Ears Hang Low
(I don’t really know how the end of the tune goes so the following stanzas are each just the first part of the tune and then the next stanza starts over again. For instance, in Moderator 42’s song it would correspond to “Is your beard five foot three? Does it itch you like a flea? Can you tie it to a dock? Can you tie it to a tree?” and then the next stanza would begin from the beginning of the tune. It might take you a few tries to figure out how to make the spacings and emphases fit the tune, but I assure you they all fit.)
do you learn Gemara
do you say a sevara
do you skip through all the complicated agadita
is it Iyun that you pound
or is your goal to cover ground
what is your derech halimud is it valid is it sound
is it halacha lemaisa
or lomdus like the shev shmaitsa
or perhaps it’s the Slabodka style of Mussar that strikes ya
do you hold like the Rambam
or the Tashbetz’s responsum
about whether taking money is permitted or a problem
do you follow a mesorah
do you listen to Daas Torah
do you ordain female rabbis based on Biblical Devorah
how ’bout Talmud for women
or an all female mezuman
can a lady be the chazzanit in a partnership minyan
are your haskafos krum
even though you seem quite frum
remember it’s a bigger disqualification than a mum
do you consider it baseless
to reinstitute Techeiles
or perhaps it is because for your Tzitzis you want to pay less
what are your standards of kashrus
do you pedestalize yashrus
how much money do you spend do you live a life of pashtus
is it your greatest ambition
for your kids to gain admission
to a school a school that doesn’t take all your life savings for tuition
what’s your stance on metzitza
or a transparent mechitza
would you be open to yibum or do you stick to chalitza
what about the shidduch crisis
does it scare you more than ISIS
when you tell the shadchan no is the look on her face priceless
does your husband put his feet up
when you ask him to help cleanup
are you regretting not insisting on a halachik prenup
how big is your kezayis
do you go on Har Habayis
do you spend nine hours davening a day are you pious
where do you place your reliance
in Chazal or modern science
if they contradict each other which of them gets your compliance
do you create mitzva towers
by doing your chessed hours
do you say lesheim yichud before your erev shabbos showers
did you go to BJJ
because of what people would say
when they see it emphasized on your shidduch resume
if Brooklyn is your home
do you say Shabbat Shalom
or do you refuse to acknowledge the sanctity of the yom
divine omniscience and bechira
how do you resolve the stira
and I need to know if you rely on the heter mechira
would you go to a casino
did you boycott Borsalino
what’s your Jewish perspective on the paradoxes of Zeno
are you a Zionist
or Yeshivish with a twist
Hallel on Yom Ha’atzmaut I think you get the gist
What does have relevance to this thread, btw, and what makes the other things irrelevant – and how did you get to judge relevance to the thread and decide all the things you’ve posted are relevant? You seem to keep repeating that line when things are cited that don’t fit the line of thought that you’re pursuing.
The only thing that I said was irrelevant in this thread was the quote from R’ Wolbe. I don’t claim to be the Supreme Arbiter of relevance. But if the topic under discussion is whether women can/can’t/should/shouldn’t learn Gemara, then other things are irrelevant. I don’t necessarily mind if someone wants to have a discussion other than the one at hand; I am simply noting that it is a different discussion.
Rav Volbe was simply addressing the mistaken concerns some wives expressed that their husband wasn’t far more knowledgeable than themselves on Torah matters. I think this point has been beaten to death here already. Rav Volbe made a point, v’zeh hu. His point wouldn’t have been cited and recorded in the kuntres if it weren’t relevant then and relevant now to the intended audience.
I never said his point wasn’t relevant. I said that it’s not relevant to this particular discussion. My other point was that R’ Wolbe didn’t say any chiddush. If the woman had confronted her husband directly, he could have told her that in yeshiva they don’t learn the same things as in seminary, so she might know more than him about something that she learned and he didn’t. That’s not a chiddush, it’s not controversial, and it has nothing to do with women learning Gemara.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the other points. I think we’re (both of us) at the stage of repetition with them.
What aspect of what I said do you disagree with?
As far as the Tur, the Sefer Hachasidim, the Aruch Hashulchan and the Torah Temimah, I thought they are at least as relevant to the discussion as the items you’ve cited such from MiPninei HaRav, R. Rakeffet, the Riaz, etc. And to that I was wondering your input to what I brought from them.
The relevance of the quotes that I brought is that they demonstrate that there is Rabbinic support to rely on for women to learn Gemara. Bringing sources that are against women learning Gemara just means that there are sources against it. No one ever suggested otherwise. Additionally, the primary argument advanced by those in favor of women’s Gemara is that the metzius is not the same as it was in the past. Thus, sources against women’s Gemara from the past, do not necessarily prove anything about the present. (Again, this is not to say that there aren’t modern day sources against it as well; it is to say that one can claim that the earlier sources would agree that nowadays it’s different.
Sam2:
You are essentially saying what I said earlier:
If he was saying that the girl might know Hilchos Shabbos better than the boy but the boy knows Bava Kamma better than the girl since girls learn Hilchos Shabbos while boys learn Bava Kamma, then it’s very pashut and R’ Wolbe isn’t adding anything and it has no relevance to this thread.
I don’t see what the chiddush is. If a woman with a BA in psychology would complain to me that she married a guy who has a PhD in Mathematics, thinking he was such an Academic Scholar, but now she is disappointed that she knows more psychology than him, I would tell her that a PhD in Mathematics doesn’t cover Psychology; no need to worry, he is still more of a scholar than you. I wouldn’t need to refer her to R’ Wolbe to address her issue. Now, I’m not faulting R’ Wolbe for saying what he said – he is absolutely correct. I’m just pointing out that there was no need to seek out someone of his caliber to address a pretty simple issue, and additionally it has no relevance to this thread.
Joseph:
The part about Canaan was very relevant to the context. You were trying to demonstrate that even R’ Soloveitchik held that we should stay away from the world as much as possible. But what he actually said was that in Canaan it is advantageous to stay away from the world, and as long as we are in Canaan, so much the better. But now we are not in Canaan anymore. So the quote doesn’t really prove anything. It would be almost akin to castigating someone for engaging in ????? ????? ????? ?????? by telling him that the Gemara says ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????.
Chacham Ovadia Yosef said a week after Rav Cohen’s remarks that he was only referring to the seruga leadership like Bennett and R. Druckman (who were promoting forcibly drafting the Bnei Torah), not to the seruga klal. Regarding Rav Kaplan, he said his hyperbolic remarks about the government ministers trying to draft the Bnei Torah were said in humor.
That’s precisely my point. R’ Cohen and R’ Kaplan explicitly stated inflammatory remarks which were later clarified. You have no problem that they weren’t careful when speaking, that they didn’t think that someone might actually assume that they meant what they said and be insulted. Yet you fault R’ Lamm for not being careful to not say something which people might be able to misconstrue as insulting if they completely distort his words.
Regarding the sefarim you quoted, I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, so I will hold off until you explain what you are bringing them for.
Moderators: I apologize for the length of the post, but it is probably only a tenth of the length of Joseph’s post in the Modern Orthodoxy thread.
(Disclaimer: Please do not impute any negativity into my tone. The nature of the written word is such that in a debate the tone may seem strident even when it is not. I am not trying to be mean or sarcastic or disrespectful to anyone, including Joseph, R’ Wolbe, R’ Cohen, and R’ Kaplan; I am just making a few points.)
1) Here is a contrast:
Joseph said:
[but]
R’ Soloveitchik said:
The bolded parts are the parts you left out (except for “of” which was simply that you wrote “for” instead which was probably an honest mistake). As you can see, and it is even more clear from the rest of the context which would take too long to type up, R’ Soloveitchik was contrasting life in Canaan with life outside of Canaan, and applying it to contemporary times. Thus, it is of the utmost importance that the quote that you emphasized appears between dashes, as an explanation of Canaan. What R’ Soloveitchik was saying was that IN CANAAN we could be separate and as long as we can remain in the era of being in Canaan, where it is feasible to remain separate, so much the better. But once we are forced out of that era, which R’ Soloveitchik applies to us in modern times, it is no longer feasible to remain separate.
2) I truly do not understand how you are interpreting R’ Lamm’s speech. First of all, when he mentioned the “real world” he had not yet even brought up YU or other yeshivos. He was simply making a point based on the Gemara, explaining what he thinks is the proper approach to life. When he brings up YU, he says that it is an enclave as opposed to a cave, but that the “cave experience” is necessary to a certain extent and that’s why they advocate taking off time to study Torah uninhibited in Israel. The only point where he brings in other yeshivos is when he says:
Our commitment to and celebration of Torah lishmah is no less than that of any other advanced yeshiva; but unlike others, our confrontation with modernity is more nuanced, more subtle, and more balanced. We neither accept it uncritically nor reject it unthinkingly. We believe, as the Rav taught us, that Torah can be lived and implemented in every time and circumstance, and that includes modernity and post-modernity. We stand firmly in the world of Halakha, but we shall not turn our backs on the world of Madda – of culture and science. We shall ever heed the Voice that bids us “leave the cave!” That dialectic between the Cave and the World is the source of our glory – as well as of our dilemmas, our tensions, and our perplexing inconsistencies. Our commitment is to Torah, to this community of Modern/Centrist Orthodox Jews, and to this ideology. And it is a commitment, not a compromise or concession.
There is nothing remotely insulting there. All he says is that YU’s mission statement is to engage the world and that he understands this to be what the Gemara is advocating. The “cave” is clearly not derogatory; it is just not the ideal in R’ Lamm’s view. This is obvious from the fact that he says that YU believes in utilizing the cave for a certain amount of time, and moreover, as I pointed out already, you may as well accuse him of insulting R’ Shimon Bar Yochai if you understand the cave to be derogatory – better yet, you should accuse the Gemara of insulting R’ Shimon Bar Yochai. I really think that the only way to impute nefarious intentions into this speech is if that is your goal from the outset.
3) I’m not sure why you are bringing in the media. You can watch the video yourself and see what he said. I transcribed the beginning of it:
???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?-? ????? ??’ ?????. ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????. ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????. ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???. ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ???? ?-?-?: ??? ???? ?????
(There was an unclear, one-word-sentence between “?????” and “??”, and perhaps I was off by a letter here and there, but nothing that affected the thrust of the paragraph.)
As you can see, he clearly stated that God’s throne will not be complete while Amalek still exists. He then directly equated kippa seruga with Amalek and said that God’s throne will not be complete until there are no longer kippot serugot. I’m not sure how you expect people to interpret that. Keep in mind what you said about R’ Lamm:
He well knew beforehand that making the comparison in one speaking would give the impression it gave.
Now apply it to R’ Cohen. Whereas by R’ Lamm, you go out of your way to read malice into his words based on context and juxtaposition (which I anyway showed to be flawed), by R’ Cohen where he explicitly said the derogatory comments outright, you have no problem. Now if you think that it’s okay because R’ Cohen’s position was correct and R’ Lamm’s was incorrect, I am fine with that. But then you can’t complain when the other side, thinking they are correct, engage in the same behavior (which they in fact didn’t).
Also, you didn’t even respond to the case of R’ Nissan Kaplan’s remarks.
4) If that’s what R’ Wolbe meant then there was no need to take him away from his learning to say it. You could quote Patur Aval Assur as saying the same thing. In effect what the quote means is that if one person spends years and years learning Torah for the entire day and someone else spends a couple of years learning Torah for part of the day, the first person will generally know more Torah. A davar pashut and completely irrelevant to this thread.
Joseph:
1) I am not talking about a failure to quote five pages. I am talking about using an ellipsis to cut out half of a sentence which provides context to what R’ Soloveitchik was saying. I only read the first couple of paragraphs of your post – I stopped reading once I saw how long it was and that in just the first couple of paragraphs there were misquotes. Look at the quote that you obviously felt was the most important one (seeing as you bolded it) and then look back at the original and see the part of the sentence that you left out.
My point in mentioning R’ Soloveitchik’s other writings and his talmidim’s views was that they are clues to keep in mind when reading this speech. You took one source as if it was the first and last word on R’ Soloveitchik’s worldview. Any of his talmidim (actually there may be one or two who will deny this) can tell you that R’ Soloveitchik’s worldview was very complicated, probably more so than any other rabbinic leader. Now, R’ Soloveitchik may have contradicted himself at times. If there is indeed a contradiction, I would like to know by what means you determined that this is the authoritative source. On the other hand, it is eminently possible that there is no contradiction, and the quote has to be taken in context.
2) I suspect that you might have misunderstood the speech. All he said was that the “benei torah” (he didn’t use that term either) believe in isolating themselves from the world and the secular culture while YU believes in engaging with the world and culture. He compared it to R’ Shimon Bar Yochai in the cave and out of the cave. I’m not sure what would be insulting about that, especially since you cited R’ Soloveitchik as agreeing that one should avoid the secular culture as much as possible. Moreover, if it was insulting then by extension the Gemara must have been insulting to R’ Shimon Bar Yochai. The connotation (and perhaps even the denotation) of “cavemen” is a primitive, backwards, almost subhuman culture. This is not at all what R’ Lamm said; in fact in that very speech he advocated for the “cave experience” albeit to a lesser extent than in “benei torah” circles. I honestly don’t see how someone can read the speech and interpret it in an insulting manner, unless the reader feels that disagreement is insulting. Now, I will admit that I was not present when the speech was given, and as such it is possible that R’ Lamm used tone/hand gestures/facial expressions which put an entirely different meaning into his words, or it is possible that the published version is inaccurate; however, I doubt that you were there either. If you want to make such an argument the burden of proof is certainly on you.
3) I am not referring to R’ Elchanan nor to R’ Shteinman. I did specifically not mention any names but if you press me for details I will oblige. (Obviously, the moderators can feel free to edit this part if they deem it inappropriate.) I am referring to R’ Shalom Cohen’s remarks about ????? ?????? and Amalek, and the subsequent apology/clarification. And perhaps I am also referring to R’ Nissan Kaplan’s remarks and subsequent retraction/clarification. Note: I am not castigating either of them for what they said or what they clarified; I am simply wondering if you would say the same thing that you said about R’ Lamm’s comments.
4) The quote from R’ Wolbe is far from straightforward. If he was discussing a situation where the girl learned more Torah and knows more Torah than the boy and he says she still does not come up to his ankles, then you will have to clarify how that makes any sense. If he was discussing a situation where the girl learned less Torah and knows less Torah then the boy then the statement is meaningless. If he was saying that the girl might know Hilchos Shabbos better than the boy but the boy knows Bava Kamma better than the girl since girls learn Hilchos Shabbos while boys learn Bava Kamma, then it’s very pashut and R’ Wolbe isn’t adding anything and it has no relevance to this thread. If he was saying that it’s impossible for a girl to learn more Torah and know more Torah than a yeshiva guy, then again you would have to explain how it makes sense, particularly considering the Sefer Hachinuch (152) who says:
????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??????
And the Minchas Chinuch (78) who says:
?”? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???”? ??? ????? ????? ?”? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??’ ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?”? ?????? ?”? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???’ ?? ????’ ??”?
which clearly indicate that it is possible for a woman to exceed a man in Torah knowledge.
Joseph:
1) In the thread that you linked about Modern Orthodoxy, in which you claim to have cited R’ Soloveitchik as support for your contentions, you took R’ Soloveitchik’s words out of context, making it seem as if he was making a certain point. For anyone who read that thread, I urge you to read R’ Soloveitchik’s address(es) in the original. I’ll give you a hint: all the ellipses in Joseph’s post do not appear in the original. Now, Joseph, I can’t necessarily blame you for the miscontextualization, since the frumteens moderator is the one who put in the ellipses, but at least you should know for next time to be wary of quoting someone who heavily uses ellipses. Furthermore, it should be clear that what you “cite” from R’ Soloveitchik should not be the sole informer of his position, based on the simple fact that in his other writings he expresses a different position, and the vast majority of his talmidim do not agree with the way you portrayed his position. If you are interested, a good place to start would be “Revisionism and the Rav” which will point you to a few sources in R’ Soloveitchik’s writings.
2) The whole “cavemen” thing is a complete misquote. R’ Lamm did not equate benei Torah with cavemen, nor did he even use the word “cavemen”. I would quote what he actually said except that the relevant part is about five pages long. However, the address has been published in several places; you can find it on googlebooks in “Seventy Faces: Articles of Faith, Volume 1” if you so desire to see what he actually said. Again, I don’t fault you for the misquote since you are just quoting others who have propagated the misquote; however, I would reiterate that you should be more careful when you quote people who have an obvious agenda (e.g. frumteens moderator). As we have seen recently, you have attempted to delegitimize R’ Kook via misquoting R’ Kook; you have attempted to deligitimize Modern Orthodoxy via misquoting R’ Soloveitchik; and you have attempted to delegitimize R’ Lamm via misquoting R’ Lamm.
3) You wrote:
Regardless of any apologetics, the way Dr. Rabbi Lamm used the term cavemen in conjunction with Bnei Torah was malevolent despite a sophisticated explanation of how he “really” meant it all innocuously. He well knew beforehand that making the comparison in one speaking would give the impression it gave.
Aside from the fact that (as I pointed out in #2) there wasn’t anything to explain away, I wonder if you would say the same thing about people who may have referred to other people as “Amalek” and after causing a whole stir, explained what they meant.
4) Getting back on topic, you are going to have to provide an explanation for the quote from R’ Wolbe.
Joseph:
It is interesting how your position on the veracity of stories has changed so much in just a few weeks. You will recall that not long ago you tried to bring a certain story (two stories or perhaps two versions of the same story) as evidence and I brought approximately nine kashyas on the story. Not only that, you did not provide any source where I (or anyone reading the coffee room) could read/hear the story. You felt that such a story was good enough evidence; to quote you:
public verbal comments from Roshei Yeshivos counts as sources
Additionally, you placed the burden on me to research the veracity of the story.
Yet when it comes to this thread, we have a story, which you have not come up with a single kashya on. Not only that, I provided you with two sources where you can hear the story. Moreover, the source of the story was intimately familiar with the people in the story, and provided someone (who was perhaps ) even closer to the story (R’ Aharon) who could corroborate it. (Though the second shiur I quoted was given the day R’ Aharon died, the first one was given in 2012 when R’ Aharon was very much alive and capable of confirming/denying the story.) This is hardly an instance of someone repeating a fifth hand story. And then again, this time the burden is on me (the quoter) unlike last time when the burden was on me (the doubter).
Joseph:
Some of the journals are on Hebrewbooks. But seeing them won’t prove anything because R’ Rakeffet didn’t mention her name or which issue(s) she wrote in. The fact that you and I don’t know these facts is not a reason to doubt the story. A reason to doubt the story would be for instance that the journal was first initiated after the Lichtensteins came to America. Or that Telz never had a journal. Or something of the sort. If you have any kashyas on the story, by all means post them. But as of now you haven’t asked any kashyas. All you have done is suspect R’ Rakeffet of lying (or perhaps of being lied to, since it is unclear to me if R’ Rakeffet has seen the journal) because you don’t know the details.
Beis Habechira Yoma 66b:
??? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???
Joseph:
The difference is that with Rashi’s daughters, the first mention of it is hundreds of years after it happened. R’ Rakeffet, on the other hand, knew R’ Aharon’s mother personally, as he mentions in the shiur (though I did not quote that part), and additionally he says that you can confirm the details with R’ Aharon. That would be very much going out on a limb for someone who is making up a story.
Why?
R’ Aharon Rakeffet (discussing R’ Aharon Lichtenstein’s mother):
“His mother, zichronah livracha, was a genius, who used to write chiddushei Torah under a boy’s name, publishing it in the Telz Torah journal. Ask R’ Aharon, he’ll tell you the details.” (From a shiur titled “The Viewpoint of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein”)
“R’ Aharon’s mother was a genius, genius. She, her father was a mankal, one of the administrators of Telz Yeshiva IN TELZ – THE REAL TELZ. Telz Yeshiva published chiddushei Torah, articles, insights. His mother published in the Telz Yeshiva Torah journal with a pseudonym of a man, because Telz, as open-minded as it was, Eli, could not publish, could you imagine Lakewood today putting out – and Telz was not Lakewood, don’t misunderstand me, Telz at that time, not talking about Telz today – but could you imagine Lakewood today putting out a choveret of chiddushei Torah, and there you have a woman? Wow. [or perhaps “ahhh” – PAA] Under a pseudonym.” (From a shiur titled “The Royal Wedding!”)
MiPninei HaRav p. 167-168:
??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??”? ??????? ?????? (???? ????) ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??. ??? ???? ??? ?????”? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? “??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????” ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??”? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????. ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????. ????, ????? ???, ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ?”? ????? ?????? ??????? ????. ????? ???? ?”???? ???? ????” ??? ????? ??????? ??? ????? (????? ????? ????) “????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????”. [???? ????? ?? ???? ???”? ??????? ????’ ?????? ???? ???”? ??’ ?”?-?”?. ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?’ ??’ ?”?-?”?.] ?
Rabbi Reuven Ziegler, Tradition Fall 2010, “Understand the Years of Each Generation”: A Eulogy for Mori ve-Rabbi ha-Rav Yehuda Amital Zt”l p.81:
In 1995, I was present when R. Amital told a gathering of the kollel that he did not feel women needed to study Talmud; his grandmother and mother had been very pious Jews without it. A year or two later, he addressed a women’s learning program with the words, “You know, I used to think that Talmud study for women was unnecessary, but now I think it is absolutely essential!”
Pesachim 105b-106a:
???? ????’ ???? ?”? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??”? ???? ????? ??? ??”? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??”? ????? ???? ?????’ ??”? ???? ???? ??”? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?’ ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??”? ?”? ??? ?????? ???? ?????
Joseph:
As I pointed out, I have no evidence that the story is true. All I’m saying is that the story is eminently believable and the kashya of R’ Kahn doesn’t affect that. In fact as I alluded to, and as Popa elaborated on, R’ Kahn’s point makes the story MORE believable. Again, that doesn’t make it true. My point is that if R’ Lichtenstein said it never happened than we don’t need to try to poke holes in the story – it didn’t happen. If he didn’t say it didn’t happen then it might have actually happened, being that the “holes” are not holes. And regardless of whether it happened or not, I still think the suggestion about R’ Aharon Kotler is a bad pshat.
P.S. Probably because the moderators have to take extra long with my posts, going over them with a fine-toothed comb to see if there is any hidden controversiality/heresy/insult.
We have a special committee for your posts.
Joseph:
Why does the fact that they were previously acquainted affect the story? In fact, when I first read the story I assumed that R’ Gustman knew who R’ Aharon was. And the theory about R” Aharon Kotler seems like grasping at straws. First of all who was the milkman? Second of all, there is no particular reason why a story about R’ Aharon Kotler talking about a milkman who knew Shas would somehow evolve into R’ Aharon Lichtenstein volunteering as a milkman, and even more so with the whole rest of the story.
Now I’m not saying the story is true; in fact, there are people who claim that R’ Lichtenstein himself denied it. But the specific points raised by R’ Kahn do not seem particularly compelling.
In “the best played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many years” Harry is a bishop. Yet he effects the checkmate via moving “three spaces to the left” which is not something in the repertoire of a bishop.
Also, you would think that considering the chess game was supposed to be an obstacle to prevent one from getting the most valuable object in existence, it would be a little better than to fall for a simple ploy like the one Ron engaged in.
cozimjewish and Joseph:
Tosafos in Beitza 6a writes:
????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??”? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ??”? ???? ??? ?????
The Igros Moshe which I quoted earlier (though I did mistakenly cite it as 4:100 instead of 2:100 (but the link is still accurate)) elaborates on this point, ???? ??.
cozimjewish:
See the first paragraph of Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 4:100:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14675&st=&pgnum=292
Aruch Hashulchan Orach Chaim 260:6:
?? ????? ?”? ????? ?”? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??”? ????? ?? ??”? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ?’ ???? ???????? ????? ????
???? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??????
???? ?’ ??? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ????
??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??”? ???? ?? ???? ???”? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?’ ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ????”? ????? ?????”? ?????
????? ??????”? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??”?
???? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????
(emphasis added)
ubiquitin:
What I’m saying is that there are different levels. Some people only care what the rabbi has to say if he is simply telling them the halacha. Others care what the rabbi has to say on other things as well. The thing is that in many cases, including the prenup example, there are two separate aspects – the metzius (how does a prenup actually affect the relationship between husband and wife) and the hashkafic response to the metzius (if it does have a negative affect, how do we weigh it against the aguna issue). Here is where the different levels of mevatel da’as come into play. What if I’m sure the rabbi is wrong on the metzius? What if I’m not sure he’s wrong but not sure he’s right? For some people that will make a difference for whether they will be mevatel da’as or not. Then again it also depends on the other factors of the case. For instance, if the husband and wife both couldn’t care less about prenups, they might be mevatel da’as even if they think the rabbi is absolutely incorrect on the metzius, the hashkafa, or both. But they won’t necessarily admit that the rabbi is correct. If, on the other hand, there is a lot at stake, they may refuse to follow the rabbi altogether if they think he is wrong, and even perhaps if they are unsure he is wrong. The point is that the only thing that can really be quantified are the two extremes – the rabbi is always right or the rabbi’s opinion is completely irrelevant. There is so much in between, which depends on so many variables, and indeed, I think this is what writersoul was alluding to. For many people there is probably not a neat, all-encompassing formula for when to follow and when not to follow or for when to admit that the rabbi is right and when not to admit. It is done on a case-by-case basis.
My other point that I was trying to get at with popa earlier, is that for many people the same is true in pure halacha. There can be instances where a practitioner strongly believes that the rabbi doesn’t understand the metzius, or perhaps doesn’t know (some of) the halachic sources. He would then be in the same predicament as by the hashkafic question.
I don’t know if this answers your question; feel free to re-express if need be.