Although this does not deal with your article, published 4/9 reviewing certain other writings, you have provided me with the inspiration to opine on something here since your readers will certainly relate to it. I recently received a beutifully illustrated pamphlet soliciting funds on behalf oh shomrei sheviis, farmers who observe the Shmitta with all its Chumros. This pamphlet makes no mention that any rabbonim were ever matir anything regarding work in the fields on shemitta, and implies, in fact it says, that until the arrival of the Chazon Ish in Eretz Yisroel everyone was simply ignoring the concept of Shemitta. I have seen many ridiculous treatments of this subject, but this is such an insult to the intelligence of humanity that it must be commented upon., Daas Torah nothwithstanding.
למארק
מישהו הראה לי לאחרונה עתק מהצוואה של שאול ליברמן ובה כתוב
"I hereby give devise and bequeath the sum of ten thousand dollars to merkos linyonei chinuch. 770 eastern parkway"
הופתעתי לראות איזה קשר היה לו להרבי מליובאוויטש, וחיפשתי בספרך ולא מצאתי כלום בעניין, לכן שאלתי האם ידוע לך על איזה קשר אישי בין שאול ליברמן להרבי מליובאוויטש?
We are having some technical difficulties, but the actual hashgachah letter for the toilet bowl cleaner should be up soon, so check back. Re. Lieberman, his ties to Chabad are mentioned in the Shochet-Spiro biography. I knew this info. when I wrote the book, and in retrospect should have mentioned it. L. was also a good friend of R. Rivkind, the Chabad RY at Torah va-Daas.
"In other word, the bee’s buzzing (zzz) shows us how one can extend the dalet."
R' Yaakov Kamenetsky preceded R' Mazuz in this. He writes it should be pronounced like a "th" (I think he mentions the yemenite custom). See EY on SA.
Jonah Goldberg mentions the company that makes that cleaner in his "Liberal Fascism," although he refers to their toilet paper in the context of Whole Foods.
"Solelim" means to break paths - I don't see how that has anything to do with pharmacists. In modern hebrew it refers to engineers, or it might refer to an inventor or entrepeneur.
I have never heard that in modern Hebrew it means engineers. Are you sure?
That is me
Marc
Now I have got the name thing fixed. I will look at R. Yaakov, but I don't think he quoted Ibn Gabirol!
Do a google search on סוללים most of the results have to do with making roads. So it seems this is the modern term for engineering.
Why are you so sure that the Ridvaz is not referring to Reines?
No, he didn't. He just said it would be impossible to lengthen a "d" sound. One would have a Dalet and a long Alef. I think it is in the hearos - M'Pi HaShemuah.
See my article on the Brisker method -- the Ridbaz is referring to a method which was very popular and sweeping the yeshivot. Reines' method had absolutely no influence.
I remember hearing Prof Richard Steiner say that since in Talmudic times the formal vowelization system with the names was not yet constructed, to be ma'arik in the dalet probably meant to elongate the final vowel sound. (Regardless of how the last consonantal sound is pronounced, whether thhhh, dddddd, or zzzzzzzz, it is a very difficult thing to have to pronounce, as I'm sure all can attest to. It makes sense that they just had no term to say elongate the kamatz.)
I'm sure Dr. Shapiro can check with Prof. Steiner if he likes.
Are there any halachic problems in giving a hechsher to this sort of product?
It seems to me that the first, original criticism of R. Shach by RAL seems softer and more respectful?
I'm not sure how you view it the other way.
Marc,
I really enjoy your posts. I was wondering if you could translate the hebrew quotes in your posts so the unfluent among us might appreciate them as well.
As for JR, it is quite possible that he checks his essays with NDT before he publishes.
I bought a walkie-talkie (CB channel 14) from Radio Shack 30 years ago (so I could monitor camp communications), which had an OU on the box.
Since my previous comment in which I inclined to R' Chavel's pshat was quoted here, I should note that I wrote that before seeing Efraim's pshat, and subsequently posted to say that I think Efraim's pshat correct. And I still do despite R' Mazuz's response, which is highly speculative.
I don't think R' Mazuz's criticism of R' Shach is justified. R' Shach was not talking about Sefardim. He was talking about changing the style in yeshivos in Europe.
I doubt if "many in the haredi world were very upset by what R. Lichtenstein wrote" since there were likely not many in the haredi world who were aware of what R' Lichtenstein wrote.
I agree with the comment above that the second version of RAL's criticism was harsher. "...wholly oblivious ... of the rudiments ..."
Did the Yated actually call the position that darkness is an absence "divrei minus"?
I disagree with the assertion that the Radak "leaves no doubt" that the reference to Dan was a later insertion. To the contrary, ISTM that the word "hasofer" - THE sofer - implies the (same) sofer who wrote the rest of the work. All he is saying is that this is not what it was actually called at the time of the incident described but that the sofer who wrote the work was entitled to use an anachronistic name.
It's unfair to praise R. Kafih as being "a follower of the Rambam who wrote that one should be “among those who are insulted, but not among those who are insulting”" since some of R' Hilman's criticisms were over nasty things that R' Kafih gratutitously wrote about people in his works.
For what it's worth, I also began learning gemara with the FOURTH chapter of Berakhos in elementary school. I also still stand by my original explanation, in the absense of any more concrete objections.
> "In other word, the bee’s buzzing (zzz) shows us how one can extend the dalet."
I dispute your reading of that Ibn Gabirol passage. It doesn't say a bee buzzes (zzz). In English dogs says Bow Wow, but in French they say Ouah Ouah, and many countries have their own version. Of course, the sound dogs make is neither Bow Wow nor Ouah Ouah.
Similarly, I would suggest that it's likely that Ibn Gabirol's bee made a "th" sound, and not a "zzz", much like the "th" in our "thin" or they way Temanim actually pronounce the thau rofeh.
While Rabbi Hilman's criticisms of Rav Kafih are crude and personal, I must agree with FP that at times Rav Kafih also violated the norms of proper criticism. I have been studying the Kuzari with Rav Kafih's translation and his criticisms of the translation o of Even Shmuel, while generally subtantively justified, are at times phrased in very crude and personal terms. This ,of course, does not justify the Frankel Rambam's not citing Rav Kafih.
It should be noted that the article to which Marc linked vulgarly criticizing Rabbi Hillman also attacks intemperately the Hazon Ish and the Steipler.
A few minutes ago there were comments here by S. and L. Kaplan. Now I don't see them. Let's hope they reappear. But I wanted to say to you S. that I agree with what you wrote. The sound of hte bee can just as easily be described as thth instead of zzz. But R. Mazuz explicitly states that the dalet without a dagesh is similar to a zayin, and it his (the th in "the" is close to zayin) and Shamma Friedman refers to an author who writes about a soft z in some parts of France which is similar to a dalet..
A. now I see your comment -- I think Ibn Gabirol is referring to a th sound as in our "the", not in "thin". Don't the Yemenites still pronounce it like th in "the"? That is what r. Mazuz is referring to when he says this pronounciation is still preserved. the th in "thin" was presumably how the taf without a dagesh is to be pronounced, but does anyone (other than academic Bible scholars) pronounce it this way?
Thanks. My mistake it not distinguishing between R. Mazuz's words and yours.
That was a mistype on my part. I meant to write "the" or something else, but wound up writing "thin" instead. "Th" in "thin" is indeed the ת w/o dagesh in the Yemenite tradition, while "th" in "the" is the ד.
As far as I know, only Temanim and their pronouncing-admirers among Jews pronounce it that way, while the Christian Hebraist tradition was to pronounce the ת as "th[in]" for centuries.
A sufficient proof that both these are more or less accurate is that it functions just the same way that the b/ v or p/ ph letters do (first plosive, than fricative). Of course, it is known that among the Temanim they reverse it for the gimmel, indicating that for that letter in particular, they were influenced by Arabic jim rather than carrying through the authentic bgdkpt distinction.
What is Rabbi Genack's explanation for the toliet bowl cleaner hashgacha? As a prominent MO rabbi, either this is a mistake or he should have to provide his community an explanation.
Why is toilet bowl cleaner any different than laundry detergent or all the other stuff that they put hashgachot on (also candles and probably also paper towels and the like) it is about money, and doesn't the OU use its money for good things?
Toilet bowl cleaner is reductio ad absurdum.
Instead of reductio ad absurdum, how about: if the goyim are stupid enough to pay for this stuff, we shouldn't take their money?
Was Even Shemuel Orthodox?
Regarding Even Shmuel's Orthodoxy: In his youth and middle age he was not Orthodoxm, and was associated with Labor Zionism. In his later years, however, he became Orthodox and a strict shomer mitzvot. See Yitzhak Rafael's Intro to the posthumously published volume 4 of
Even Shmuel's Commentary on the Guide
BTW, The McGill Library has a very interestng collection of letters that Evrn Shmuel wrote to Chaim Grade.
chametz is assur be-hana'ah.
what does chametz have to do with anything? The toilet bowl cleaner is not ksoher for pesah, but kosher all year long! Not to mention the fact, that since it is not rauy le-achilah it is not a chametz probelm anyway.
Instead of making fun (which I normally love doing), I think someone should really confront Rabbi Genack. If he was right-wing chareidi, I would say it's pointless, a lost cause and yes, let's make fun of it. But Rabbi Genack is basically of our community and if we care about it, take pride in it, and want it to remain normal, then I think Rabbi Genack ought to be confronted.
(Not to lay the responsibility on Prof. Shapiro, but just as he sends letters to Rabbi Mazuz, perhaps it might be a good idea for him to write a letter to Rabbi Genack.)
Marc writes
"[2] I stress the “current” Daas Torah, since Daas Torah has been known to change. For example, Yated Neeman will, for obvious reasons, no longer mention the Daas Torah set forth by the Brisker Rav, the Steipler, and R. Shakh, and which was the official haredi position for many decades, namely, that one is not permitted to serve in the Israeli government batei din. "
I don't think this was ever taken too seriously after all the son of the Steipler, R. Chaim Kanevsky, married the daughter of R. Elyashiv who was a dayan in the government batei din his whole life
Why does it really matter how to pronounce the daled? Or the Daleth? Hebrew is just another semitic language, merrily evolving and shifting along, and Moshe Rabbeinu wouldn't even understand Rav Yehuda Hanasi without subtitles, and he likely wouldn't recognize his multitude of Halachos leMoshe MiSinai. You need to let yourself go and move, once and for all, from Wissenschaft der Juden to Wissenschaft des Judentums.
how do you know it's not ra'ui le-achilah. I once drank toilet bowl cleaner and it tastes a bit like gatorade.
this is what a friend sent me some time ago:
במעמד "זכר להקהל" האחרון (סוכות תשס"ב
, קרא הרב שפירא ז"ל את פרשת שמע ישראל במבטאו האשכנזי, למעט פרט אחד: הוא האריך בד' של "אחד" כמבטא יהודי תימן (אח"כ שמעתי שכן נהג תמיד בק"ש, כעין "th" (כבמילה האנגלית: the).
>Without this text, there would be no reason to assume that Radak in Gen 14:14 is not referring to Moses’ prophetically writing the word “Dan.”
Also with this text there is no reason to assume that Radak is not referring to Moses’ prophetically writing the word “Dan.” It just means that in the time that the story took place, the name was not Dan. There is a possibility that in the time of Moshe it already was. I think that it is definitely possible that Radak understood that Moshe is the one who wrote "Et HaGilad Ad Dan".
There is no proof from the Radak that you brought regarding post-mosaic changes.
One can read the english summary from the Misinai Lelishkat Hagazi book here:
http://s.kassierer.googlepages.c...%99%D7%A8%D7%
A8
I agree totally with what you wrote about this book.
According to halacha we are supposed to stretch the daled, that's why we need to know how it is pronounced
Benny:
That was - R' Moshe Shmuel Shapiro?
Benny:
That was - R' Moshe Shmuel Shapiro?
Wolf2191 | Homepage | 04.10.08 - 9:47 am | #
R' Avrum Shapira zt"l.
Prof. Kaplan:
In the heat of the "Rischa D' Oraisa", I can justify HaRav Kafih's critcisms. See the famous Teshuvos Chavas Yair that is printed in the back of most Chafetz Chaim's. (There maybe a cultural difference as well - V'Chacham Ovadiah Yochiach).
In Hillman's case, he was responding to a very justifiable claim that, as a work of scholarship the Frankel Rambam is defective since for the sake of PC it does not use all the relevant sources. To respond with what amounts to a character assasination of HaGaon R' Kafih was entirely unwarranted.
It is only a pity that the blogger didn't pharse his response less crudely.
Wolf2191: I hope it was clear that was not justifying or seeking to mitigate Rabbi Hilman's disgraceful hatchet job.
Re Rav Kafih: I do not object to Rav Kafih's never ceasing criticisms of Even Shmuel's translation of the Kuzari, most of which seem justfied, though they do get tiresome after a while-- we get the point already!-- but at times Rav Kafih engages in rather childish and unworthy personal digs against Even Shmuel, which are unbefitting of his stature as a scholar and talmid hakham. See, for example, Ha-Maamar Ha-Sheni, note 44.
R. kafich was furious at Even- Shmuel, hence his anger and his need every page to point out mistakes, he wanted to get it into peoples head not to use his translation.
This refutation articles are rambiling, silly and more than a little coarse. He uses stupid ad hominems about almost anyone, besides his "Rebbi", R. Kafich.
Does anyone have any idea who he is and what his problem is?
I would say the opposite. It's more excusable for R' Hillman, since it was somewhat related to the claim that R' Kafih was of a stature that he couldn't be ignored.
The prior comment referred to the 3:20 comment. (The others did not show.)
Dr. Shapiro
See Prof. B. Browns book on the Chazon Ish appendix pg. 85. He agrees with Lieberman because the Ridvaz become a Rosh Yeshiva w/o being worthy (their talmidim are better then them) for money. This description doesn't fit the Brisker Yeshivos but fits R' Reines who received money from the "maskilim".... (See there for the rest of his arguments.)
If Hillman had stuck to questioning R' Kafih's scholarship (his argument from the word "Emunah" seems to be baseless -http://www.bhol.co.il/forum/topic.asp?
topic_id=1125977 - which also has some nice shiurim from R' Kafih at the end.) then he would be quite justified. There was no reason to resort to personal attacks.
shuey R.: I understand why Rav Kafih was angry with Even Shmuel. But he overdid it. He needed a good editor. Check the note I referred to, which is really over the top. By the way, the reference should be to p. 66, note 44. I note that in my copy I have written "silly and unworthy of K."
Prof Shapiro,
Since we are revisiting old posts, and you mentioned Prof Sperber, I was wondering if you had seen his footnote dealing with the infamous "Eshkol" (p. 209-10 of vol. 6 of Minhagei Yisrael). Sperber quotes this Eshkol in several places, as does Prof. Eric ZImmer in his Olam Keminhago, for which he was rebuked by Prof SOloveitchik in his review in JQR.
Wolf2191,
whats the title of the book on the Chazon Ish you referred to?
Thanks
S
There is nothing in Brown's dissertation on p. 85. But even if he said what you claim, he is 100 percent wrong. It is not even a question. the Ridbaz speaks of a method of learnign which has spread all over the Torah world. Reines' method had NO INFLUENCE. In fact, the Rav knew very well what the Ridbaz was referrign to and spoke harshly against the Ridbaz. How Lieberman could have said what he did is beyond me (unless Stampfer misunderstood what he said, which is possible. No one in history ever doubted what the Ridbaz was talkin about, since it is obvious.
I saw the footnote -- Sperber is well aware that it is a forgery. I spoke to him about it.
In the appendix pg. 85 And quite frankly I don't see that your argument is that much stronger then Brown's. Perhaps he was speaking about R' Chaim in one place and R' Reines in another.
The Phd is entitled - Ha-Chazon Ish:Halacha Emunah V'Chevra B'Pesakav Haboltim B'Eretz Yisroel. He plans on publishing it in book form soon.
Perhaps he (ie. Ridvaz).
Is Auerbach's Eshkol called the "Carmoly Manuscript". I know of another academic who quotes it (and points out the problems with that passage) but doesn't seem to realize that its a forgery.
I checked again. Its page 45. Sorry
Thanks for reminding me about page 45 (which I read a long time ago). Aain, Brown is miskaten. Of this there is no doubt. The Ridbaz also has an ethical will in which he speaks of this new method as conquering Lita. The Briskers have ver negative feelings to the Ridbaz because of this attack.
If so, then which bBisker Rosh Yeshiva did the Ridvaz have in mind, who was "less learned then his students" and sacrificed himself for money, etc.,etc.
He is using rhetoric -- and he opposed all the Roshe Yeshiva who were using the Brisker approach.
thanks for this excellent post prof. shapiro.
a) i am left with uncertainties regarding your method in treating da'ath torah. in one instance you are upset at the fact that r' mazuz's letters are not printed in the yated. in another, you quote that the da'ath of the nation as a whole should override the da'ath torah of the gedolim. and the yated, it seems, is accepted by the masses.
(unless you tell me that the problem is the fact that people run away from the truth, which is my opinion on the matter. however, we cannot all agree on the truth, so what are we left with?)
b) in your quote from r' n. kamentezky, are you understanding the word solelim the way it is used in the gemara (yevamoth, etc.): isha mesolelet im b'nah, thus linking adulterous behavior with pharmacists and providing meaning for solelim?
No dice. That is spelled מתעולל, I think.
Michoel,
I don't think RNK had that in mind (although the word is the same). I think he was just trying to figure out what common professsion was identified by irreligiosity.
Someone wrote me as follows:
אינני יודע גם כן את הפירוש של "סוללים" אבל אני נוטה לקבל את פירושו של ר' נתן קמנצקי, והסיבה היא כי "סולל" משמעו מחכך, משפשף (מילון אבן-שושן, וזה מזכיר מאד את שחיקת הסממנים ברפואה, שהיתה נתונה בידיהם של הרוקחים.
a) wolf, it is spelled מסוללת.
b) prof. shapiro - that sounds reasonable. in fact that is what the word means in the gemarah.
p.s. i am still a bit confounded about your treatment of da'ath torah
I cannot believe that in order to attack Shapiro, he links to the writings of a despicable and disgusting pornographer - who besides a few exceptions denigrates and smears every gadol beyisroel.
What does it say about a professor who has to lower himself to using such dreck??
The guy has a disgusting mouth but you call this pornographic? Too bad he wrote this way, since he has good points. He obviously is insane.
You probably would think Yaakov Emden is a pornographer, and he too smears and denigrates many gedolim.
There are two seperate words that seemed to have mixed into each other in the course of history. The first is in Shofetim 19 - ויידעו אותה ויתעללו-בה כל-הלילה
And there it can mean to rub (as in Inb Shushan) which in Rabbinic Hebrew might have ended up as מסולל.
The second can be found for ex. in Yeshaya 57 - סולו סולו המסילה
There it means a path or road - as in Mesillat Yesharim.
I think R' Yaakov somehow connects the two (in EY on Shas - I believe Sanhedrin) - I will look for it later.
I'm more inclined to think that in the case under discussion it refers to the second meaning.
Emes L'Yaakov Sanhedrin 69b
check out sephardicseforim.blogspot.com
I don't think you can compare this guy to Rav Yaakov Emden. This guy isn't a kannoi-he's a lunatic.
R. Mazuz's (and Prof. Shapiro's) explanation of the Ramban still doesn't sit well. It makes very good sense to begin with 'tefilot hashakhar' (ch. 4) because it introduces the young student to the mitzvah of tefilla and answers the most basic questions about it (what is it, when is it required, who is required, etc.). It makes no sense to begin with 'En Omedim' (ch. 5), since it is merely a continuation of the discussion in the previous perek about tefilla. It would be like picking up in the middle of a book without first introducing the reader to the main characters.
The "Philosophy Student" is actually a well-known character in the Hebrew blogosphere. He despises gedolim for the same reasons most of us aren't in love with them, he just takes it a lot further. He's made it his mission to verbally abuse gedolim on haredi forums to hammer into people's heads that they don't deserve any respect. He'll bash R' Shach or the Vilna Gaon for their persecution of Chabad/Hasidism, and a day later will publish an essay that comes down on the latter like a ton of bricks. One of his stranger sides is his taste for erotic verse, which about a year ago prompted some sociology student to write a paper on "Eroticism in Haredi Society".
He does seem to have gone nuts over Hillman. I myself was really surprised that Shapiro presented him as a serious scholar whose critique carries any weight when he is really no more than the typical mediocre haredi ideologue.
What I don't understand is what took Shapiro so long to notice something that made quite a stir on the Hebrew Internet several months ago. Seeing as this saga develops at the pace of once every few months, my defense of R' Kafih should be ready right on schedule...
He appears to be a Lubvitcher genius who was molested when he was a kid or something -- quite a troubled soul.
I have now read the anonymous virulent and disgusting attack on Rabbi Hilman more carefuly. It is really out of any ball park and is chock full of pornography. See its discussion of Lurianic Kabbalh. Perhaps it illustrates the dangers of exposing a young, impressionable, and very hormonal student to the highly erotic imagery of Lurianic Kabbalah. Its calling Rabbi Hilman a "meshumad" and referrng to Rav Schach as "YMS, etc., etc., take it over into the realm of psychopathology.
I hate that the OU gives needless/stupid hekhseirim. What are they trying to do?
I also hate when people misuse the term reductio ad absurdum.
Why does one need to be a psychopath to append YMS to certain gedolim? Does the Vayoel Moshe's mention of Rav Kook imply he is pschopathic?
btw - my comment on "mediocre haredi ideologue" was directed at Hillman, not the Student.
I think I understand the problem. Some people here have delved so deeply into the art of collecting trivia on various gedolim they have never taken a step back to take a look at the impact those gedolim have had on Am Yisrael. It's so much more fun to write about how Yoel'ush came up with a witty retort to some askan than to draw the necessary conclusions from the 100,000 graves he dug in Hungary. The Hazon Ish created modern Israeli haredism and rather than hold him responsible for this disaster, even people in "our" machane find extremist quotes of his titillating.
I certainly don't approve of the Student's foul and erotic language, but I understand where he is coming from. Israeli society is being torn apart by the legacies of these gedolim.
For the life of me I can't understand why modern Maimonidean Jews stand in awe before the people who destroyed Judaism and the Jewish people. There's more to Judaism than overanalyzing a life of gemara.
Yissachar: As Dr. Benny Brown has noted, it is an oversimplification to say that the Hazon Ish created modern Israeli Haredism. One can be a modern Maimonidean Jew and be critical of the hashkafah of the Hazon Ish and still respect his personal greatness, as well as acknowledge his importance as a halakhist and a ba`al mahshavah.
With regards to the comment about Rav Dovid Leibowitz being asked to leave Torah Vadas in the 1930's.My father is now 90 and was a student in Torah Vadas at that time. I have asked him a few times if he remembered when Rav Dovid left and he always replied " I was in Rav Gedaliah Schorr's shiur at the time and I clearly remember how pained he was that Reb Dovid left" My father explained that he understood that Reb Dovid left because of a difference in derech from the other Rabbeim. It seems that at least the Talmidim at that time understood that this was the cause and the impression they got was that it was a cause of consternation to Rav Gedaliah Schorr.
עברתי ליד סקרנטון שבוע שעבר וקראתי את הפוסט בעניין הרבנים והקומוניזם. ונזכרתי שראיתי מאמר קצר של העיתונאי דב גנחובסקי באחד הכרכים של "סיפורים ירושלמים" מפרי עטו בו הוא מתאר רב אדום שהיה חבר ברשימה של הקומוניסטים העבריים שהתמודדה בבחירות הראשונות לכנסת
Commenting by HaloScan
