Volume 11 Number 22
Produced: Mon Jan 10 22:16:48 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Mail Jewish MinHaShomayim
[Pinchas Edelson]
Understanding and Peace.
[Michael Lipkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pinchas Edelson <Edelson@...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 94 17:43:10 -0500
Subject: Mail Jewish MinHaShomayim
I first would wish to relate a Chassidishe Torah regarding
technology. That is, that all inventions and discoveries made in this
world are decreed from Shomayim. Furthermore, that the ultimate purpose
of these inventions and discoveries is for the sake of Torah and Yisroel.
One may interpret this to be an extrapolation of maamarai Chazal (sayings
of our sages): That all is in the hands of Shomayim except for the fear
of Shomayim (Brachos 33:2), and the creation of the world, braishis (in
the beginning) is - bais raishis (the letter bais - two, beginnings).
One for the Torah which is called raishis (Braishis Rabbah 1:4), and for
Yisroel which is called raishis (Vayikra Rabbah 36:4).
I wish to further extrapolate on this by saying, that the
invention of computers and networking them is then ultimately for the
sake of Torah and Yisroel. Furthermore, is there anywhere else on the net
where more Jews from all over the earth correspond with eachother to
learn Torah than this list ? One may conclude from this that the entire
internet may have been created ultimately for the sake of Mail Jewish
(are you still seated ?). One can only think how we are being watched
from Shomayim with anticipation as to how we will use this ability which
was not available to earlier generations. Adom HaRishon could see from
one end of the world to the other, but he had no one to post email to. We
should consider ourselves fortunate. How then should we feel when such on
important discussion as who is a Gadol breaks down into simple political
squabbles. This list is the only place where ALL types of Orthodox Jews
can intelligently discuss sensitive matters which we might never discuss
in person.
I do not condone the prospect of censorship for publicly known
facts about any 'Gadol'. These people are more under the public eye than
you or I, and they must demonstrate a higher level of character than the
average Jew. If any of us were told by Hashem to speak to a rock to bring
out water instead of striking it as before, and we struck it instead, we
would not be punished as severely as Moshe Rabbeinu was. I am referring
to the recent postings questioning the behavior of some 'Gadolim'. It is
our duty to discuss these issues intelligently without anger for one
another, and it is not wrong to raise such issues if they are done with
the proper respect deserved to all the parties involved. There is nothing
wrong with posting facts, and our own observations and conclusions are
permitted if they are represented with derech eretz. This is even if they
may be distasteful to others, so long as they are presented in a manner
that the matter is still open for discussion. What we should avoid is
pure ignorance and arrogance where one is neither asking for an answer
nor making an intelligent comment to which one may respond, but only
trying to insult and anger others.
We learn in Sefer Melachim that Yeravam ben Navat made a strong
verbal attack on Shlomo HaMelech when he married the daughter of Paroh
with an excessive ceremony the evening the Bais HaMikdosh was completed,
drank wine, and slept four hours into the day until his mother was called
to wake him up. This resulted in the korbon tamid being brought after
four hours into the day on the day the first Bais HaMikdosh was
dedicated, since Shlomo HaMelech held the keys to the gates. Also that he
closed one of the entrances to Yerushalim which his father Dovid HaMelech
made for those coming up to the shalosh regalim (yomim tovim) and built a
palace for the daughter of Paroh. Yeravam ben Navat was not punished for
rebellion against a King, on the contrary, Hashem instructed the Novi
Achiah HaShiloni to proclaim Yeravam ben Navat as King over ten of the
shvatim, which he merited because of his verbal attack on Shlomo
HaMelech. This is all stated in the gemarra Sanhedrin (101:2 - 102:1).
It appears that in trying to define Gedolim some of us have begun
from the bottom upwards, that is, beginning with our generation instead
of with Mattan Torah. The precedence for starting with Mattan Torah is
the beginning of the Mishna Pirkei Avos: Moshe Kibel Torah MiSinai...
Even though there were many Gedolim not mentioned in the Mishna, we may
still learn which order we should proceed in. Seder Torah Hu Torah (the
order of Torah is also Torah).
One may ask, if there were many Gedolim not mentioned in the
Mishna, what do we call those who were mentioned. Of course, those
mentioned in the beginning of the Mishna Pirkei Avos are Nasiim (and
Zugos), but still there were those quoted (later on) who were also
Gedolim. The Jewish people were blessed with so many Gedolim in those
times that only the greatest of them could be recorded in the Mishna. I
therefore wish to coin a term called Gedolei Gedolim which is not
reserved only for one who holds the title Nasi.
Going back to the time of Moshe, we must first recognize that
from Mattan Torah began a period of prophets which lasted one thousand
years, into the first generation of the Second Bais HaMikdosh. There were
other prophets who were leaders of the people under the direction of
Moshe Rabbeinu, these would be the Gedolei Gedolim of that generation. We
also find others who are identified as a Gadol B'Torah, but do not have
the leadership status of the Gedolei Gedolim. One such example of this
may be Korach. The leaders of the generation were all ballei Ruach
Hakodesh and great Tzaddikim in their own right, and this was apparently
the rule not the exception.
From the death of Ezra began a new period of Jewish leadership.
The era of the Prophets officially ended, and from Shimon HaTzaddik began
the Chachamim of the Mishna. Chazal say in Bava Basra (12:1) From the day
the Bais HaMikdosh was destroyed prophecy was taken from the prophets and
given to the Chachamim. The Maharsha in Bava Basra explains that this
refers to the destruction of the first Bais HaMikdosh. Although we also
find in Sanhedrin (12:1), and Sotah (48:2), that when Chagai Zecharyah
and Malachi (Ezra) died Ruach HaKodesh departed from Yisroel, and they
lived during the first generation of the Second Bais HaMikdosh. The
Maharsha explains that this is not to exclude the prophets during the
seventy years of galus in Bavel and Chagai Zecharyah and Malachi, but the
remainder of the Second Bais HaMikdosh period.
The Maharsha asks, how can Rashi say the gemarra (Bava Basra
12:1) is saying that prophecy was taken away from those who were not
Chachamim, but not from the Chachamim, wasn't being a Chacham one of the
prerequisites for prophecy. The gemarra Nedarim (38:1) says that a
prophet must be a Chacham ? He answers, that for one to be a prophet on a
constant basis one must be a Chacham. However, after the destruction of
the first Bais HaMikdosh, being a Chacham was a prerequisite for prophecy
even if it was not on a constant basis (also see the Rosh in Nedarim).
Thus we find that prophecy remained with the Chachamim even after
the death of Ezra. However, this subject is not so simple, the gemarra
says in Sanhedrin (12:1) and other places that Ruach HaKodesh departed,
but they could still receive a Bas Kol, and that Hillel was worthy that
the Shecina should dwell upon him like it was upon Moshe. Also it says
that the Shecina should dwell upon Shmuel HaKatan. The Maharsha in
Sanhedrin explains, that this does not mean that the Shecina did not
dwell upon Hillel or Shmuel HaKatan. The gemarra here in Sanhedrin even
gives an example of prophecy by Shmuel HaKatan were he tells of the ten
Chachamim who would be killed by the Romans during the reign of Hadrian.
According to this, some Chachamim heard a Bas Kol, and some said actual
prophecy. We know that the Tannaim and Amoraim were ballei Ruach Hakodesh
and great Tzaddikim in their own right. There were also many others
during their time who were Gedolei Torah but they were not mentioned.
The gemarra Bava Basra 12:1 quoted above continues by saying that
a Chacham is greater than a prophet. The Maharal M'Prague in his
Chidushei Aggados on Bava Basra Chelek 3:61 explains this concept. The
Maharal says, that a novi is someone who knows something which no one
knows. Furthermore, what difference does it make whether or not it is
something in the future if it is hidden. In addition to the novi
receiving his prophecy from Hashem, the Chacham is also told things by
Hashem which no one knows. Even though the Chacham knows the thing in his
intellect, it is not something which his intellect reached on it's own,
rather it is something which Hashem made known to him, and he is
therefore a novi. The reason the gemarra says that a Chacham is greater
than a prophet is that the prophet receives his prophecy the form of
visions and examples, but the Chacham comprehends the thing (directly
and) clearly. The Chacham also knows future events, and if he is a
Chacham and a Gadol he can know future events more than a prophet. This
is since nothing happens by accident, everything is arranged and
organized before Hashem, therefore the Chacham also knows future events.
Thus we find that although the period of prophecy ended prophecy
did not end. The reason prophecy did not come in a direct message to all
of Yisroel as before was that prophecy now came to the Chachamim through
his intellect as the Maharal describes. This is not to say that Moshe
Rabbeinu did not also have these qualities, Moshe also had both aspects
of prophecy. However, in general the prophecy of the period after the
prophets is referred to as Ruach Hakodesh, allthough within this there
are many sub-levels, some closer to actual prophecy and some not.
There are many stories where we hear of the Ruach Hakodesh that
the Rishinom and many Achronim had. Also, we find this in reference to
deciding the hacacha itself. The Ravad disagrees with the Rambam in
Hilchas Lulav ch. 8 halacha 5 and states explicitly that he has received
this answer by Ruach Hakodesh. Nevertheless, the Magid Mishna is not
satisfied and quotes the Ramban regarding this halacha. Furthermore, the
Rambam writes in his Iggeres Teman that prophecy will return during the
fifth millennium (at a date which he specified). Therefore, there is no
reason to rule out a novi (in the simple sense of the word) appearing
before the coming of Moshiach.
In the sefer Shairis Yisroel in the beginning of the Drush
L'Sukkos, it is written in the name of the Rivash, "That all of the
chiburim (i.e. seforim or commentaries) until the Maharsha were written
with Ruach Hakodesh". R. Shalom DovBer of Lubavitch said in the name of
R. Schneur Zalman of Liady Baal HaTanya and Shulchan Oruch (Sefer
HaMaamarim 5672 Chelek 3: p. 1385), "That all of the chiburim (i.e.
seforim or commentaries) until the Turei Zahav and the Sifsei Cohen
including them were written with Ruach Hakodesh". Afterwards only some
seforim were written with Ruach HaKodesh. R. Levi Yitzchok Schneerson,
the father of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Shlita (may Hashem grant him a
speedy and complete recovery) wrote in a letter (266), "All of the
seforim written by Chachamim who were Tzaddikim, who learned Torah Lishma
(for it's own sake)... all of them Hashem actually said and in those words".
There were quite a number of the Achronim in the nineteenth
century who were ballei Ruach Hakodesh. Also, there were great Talmidei
Chachamim of this period who were not on this level. This does not take
away from their greatness, or from the importance of their writings.
However, we must make some kind of distinction for those who were great
Talmidei Chachamim and ballei Ruach Hakodesh. I have thought of the term
Gedolei Gedolim for this, but that is not the only descriptive term which
could be used. In the later nineteenth century, and into the twentieth
century there were less Talmidei Chachamim, and especially ones who were
ballei Ruach Hakodesh. This is even to the point where the idea of
someone being a baal Ruach Hakodesh is foreign to many Ashkenazic Jews.
Among the Sephardim this was not such a foreign idea.
It is perhaps in this environment, where Ruach Hakodesh in our
time is foreign to many, that the concept of Daas Torah was born. This
is apparently not exactly the Daas Torah to which the Semag referred, but
perhaps an extension of it. This does not mean the advice of a Talmid
Chachamim and Yiras Shomayim is not worthwhile if he is not a baal Ruach
Hakodesh, I simply wish to bring a greater perspective to who is a Gadol
in our generation. This is a relative term, we do not compare ourselves
to the generation of Rabbeinu HaKodosh. Also we must look at a bigger
picture when we ask questions such as what is Rabbinic Authority or
infallibility. None of us turned away from the words of R. Moshe
Feinstein because he was not a novi. Is it proper to have expected him to
be one.
A Talmid Chachamim has our respect whether or not he is a novi.
Perhaps the situation in our generation itself is a sign that Moshiach is
about to arrive. The Targum Yonasan ben Uziel on the first posuk of
Megilas Ruth says that in the history of the world there would be ten
famines. All ten are described, some of them in the days of the Avos. The
tenth famine which is before the arrival of Moshiach, however, is not a
famine of food, but a famine of hearing words of prophecy from Hashem.
May Hashem grant the Lubavitcher Rebbe Shlita a speedy and
complete recovery, and may we merit the complete and true redemption
through Moshiach Tzidkeinu speedily in our days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <msl@...> (Michael Lipkin)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 09:51:52 -0500
Subject: Understanding and Peace.
In MJ 10:94, Matthew Ian Tigger Subotnick writes:
>Isn't, excepting history and inbred racial intolerance, the whole reason
>jews have been persecuted for so long, that there was the holocaust, that
>there is daily bloodshed in our homeland, isn't the primary reason a lack
>of understanding and a will to live in peace with those who are different
>than us?
IMHO, NO! With all the probing, sensitive, intellectual, recent discussion
regarding the holocaust it seems strange that someone could casually pose
such a query. Hitler had a keen understanding of Judaism. I don't think
it would have been beneficial for him to understand us any better! Also,
many of the "enlightened" Jews of pre WWII Germany had Matthew's "modern"
outlook. They overflowed with understanding for their German bretheren.
All they wanted to do was live in peace with their neighbors. Not exactly
what they looking for, was it?
>Even mainstram commercial Christianity has valuable lessons to teach jewish >children, (mind you they only echo teachings that you learn every shabbat), >these are the belief that community and family are important, that there is a >good reason and purpose in fulfilling your spiritual needs.
If, as Matthew correctly states, our children can learn these things from
Judaism, why on earth would we allow Christianity, with all of it's negative
baggage, enter our childrens's lives?
>How much more pleasant it is to grow together, to study our rich heritage,
>and those of other cultures and religions ...
IMHO, Matthew has presented a recipe for assimilation. The reasons our
sages set up so many laws to prevent us from becoming overly familiar
with our non-Jewish neighbors seem even more valid today. I am not intending
to get into the fray discussing our various historical persecutions, but
they do appear to occurr when large segments of the Jewish population make
an effort to "live at peace" through assimilation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael S. Lipkin Highland Park, N.J. <msl@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 11 Issue 22
