Volume 12 Number 80
Produced: Mon Apr 25 7:23:21 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administrivia
[Avi Feldblum]
Artscroll
[Marc Shapiro]
Hespedim for Rabbi Moshe Cohn, zt"l
[Mike Gerver]
Masorah
[Sol Stokar]
Rav's Shavuot Drasha
[Arnold Lustiger]
The breakdown of halachah
[Mitch Berger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mljewish (Avi Feldblum)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:09:33 -0400
Subject: Administrivia
Hello all,
There are two new items in the archive area, one is a writeup of one of
Rav Soloveichek's grashot related to Shavuot, transcribed and edited by
Arnie Lustiger, the other is copies of the Hespedim given for Rav Moshe
Cohn, sent in by Mike Gerver. Notices of the location of the two
articles are in this issue. If anyone has items that they would like to
submit for the mail-jewish archives (generally items that are 200 lines+
will go in the archives with a short announcement in the mailing list)
please let me know. Just a short reminder of accessing the archives
using email:
Send your request to: <LISTSERV@...>
NOT - mljewish or mail-jewish.
To get the index of what is available on the archive server, send the
message:
index mail-jewish
To get any specific article, send the message:
get mail-jewish article_name
where article_name is replaced with the name of the article you want to
get. One usefull article to get on a regular basis is fullindex, which
is an index of all the postings since volume2.
To get a specific mail-jewish issue, send the command:
get mail-jewish/volumeXX vXXnYY
where you replace XX and YY with what you want.
If you are using ftp or gopher, I'm assuming you know what you are
doing, but I will try and put together a bit of a primer sometime in the
future (any takers to do that?). Plans for the future include a Web home
page. Keep tuned.
Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Shapiro <mshapiro@...>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 08:57:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Artscroll
Yitschok Aldersteinmakes a number of good points in his response to Sol
Stokar re. Artscroll and Yedid Nefesh. However, it doesn't seem to be
enough to take away the sense that we are dealing here with some
intellectual dishonesty. Artscroll tells the reader that the prayer is by
Azkiri, however the prayer they printed is a corrupted version. They
should tell the reader where they copied there version from (they might
have just put the common version to words). They should also explain that
even though this is not the original version it has become the accepted
version, and also is the only version that really fits the tune. Perhaps
they should also print the original version.
Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that there are some
serious examples of intellectual dishonesty in the Artscroll project and
this is distressing since they have become so popular. Most people are
probably aware of the scandal involving R. Zevin's books. Here it was
more than intellectual dishonesty, it was actual genevah since they
published a book, claiming it to be a translation, when they actually
censored a passage. They would be required to give you your money back if
you demanded. It is also a very grave sin to distort what a gadol say.
Our sages tell us that one who says a teaching in another's name brings
redemption to the world, but the oppositi is also true, that one who
distorts a teaching brings destruction. IT is funny, because all R. Zevin
did was express thanks to God that there is a State of Israel. Since when
is this a crime? If Artscroll was written by Satmar people I would
understand, but the official Agudah position is that we are thankful that
we have a State, but we are not happy with the condition it is in.
Apparently the editors of Artscroll have a more anti-Zionist view.
Perhaps this is what drove them to sponsor a biography of R. Sonnenfeld,
when virtually the entire Litvish community associated with R. Kook and
his Bet Din, and did not secede from Kenesset Yisrael.
This anti-Zionism also appears in their siddur. This is most
unfortunate because their siddur is without a doubt the best and most
user friendly. Would it have been so terrible for them to have included
the Prayer for the State of Israel or for IDF. If they wanted they could
have included it in the back as an appendix. Since they do that with all
the obscure piyutim which no one says why not with these two prayers,
especially since the majority of Jews who use Artscroll daven in shuls
which say these prayers. Here we have an example of Artscroll's world
view -- they do not view these prayers as legitimate (however, for a
great deal of money they did produce the RCA version which included these
prayers -- if they had originally included them there would have been no
need for the RCA version). Also, what happened to the prayer for the
governement? I have noticed that many right wing circles no longer say it
and it is not included in Artscroll. This is very strange, expecially
since the anti-Zionists use to stress the prayer for the government even
as they refused to say the prayer for Israel. Something is obviously
wrong with Artscroll if they include Gott fun Avrohom which no one says
and, in a slap in the face to most of its readers, refuse to include the
prayer for IDF and Israel.
The problem of intellectual dishonesty also arises at other times
and if someone one the line is close to Artscroll maybe he or she could
find out why they ignore information brought to their attention. Because
of Artscroll's popularity the books are often reprinted and there is
ample opportunity to correct mistakes but they refuse to do so. For
example, it has been brought to their attention that Yonatan ben Uziel
did not write a targum on the Pentateuch, only on Nach, but they continue
to repeat their error. There are literally hundreds of such examples,
which is only to be expected since a series as large as Artscroll which
deals with hundres of commentaries is bound to make mistakes (Their
mishnah series is truly excellent and I don't believe I have ever caught
an error). Another example is when Rashi uses the phrase lashon kenaani,
they translate it as Canaanite. It should have occurred to them to ask
how Rashi knew Canaanite. He obviously didn't but lashon kenaani means
old Czech. This error was brought to their attention but they have not
corrected it. How come? I am not criticing Artscroll's method of dealing
with Midrash or the way they ignore sages such as Kook and Soloveitchik
(not to mention the Lubavitcher rebbe, may he be granted a refuah
shelemah), but with simple errors of fact which have been brought to
their attention. I would have thought that Artscroll would welcome the
chance to correct the errors. Similar errors are found in their
biographical books but have not been corrected, and I pointed out that in
their book the Rishonim they included Joseph ibn Caspi who is a
heretic (by their standards at least) but his name was not removed. They
always rely on the Encyclopedia Judaica for their information but
frequently this information is outdated.
I have already mentioned that their siddur is the best.They have
correctd many errors, e. g. mashiv ha ruah u-morid ha-geshem is the
correct way to say it and Artscroll has done it right.They have also
printed the complee version of Alenu. (I assume Sol would argue that we
must say the complete version and Yitzhok would say that history has
given us the expurgated version) There are many other such examples
where they show that they are the new standarfd for a siddur (before they
came around it was impossible for the community to participate in Rosh
ha-Shannah and Yom Kippur prayers since no one knew how to sing the
verious piyutim. They tell you exactly howw the verses are to be
chanted). However, since I have mentioned Alenu I should mention that in
their commentary the first time it appears they say that an apostate
slandered Jews by saying that this passage was meant to slur
Christianity. It would have been best had Artscroll not included any
commentary on this passage because although the apostates were traitors
in that they revealed the secrets of the Jewish community, they did not
slander anyone. The fact is that Jews always believed that the word
va-rik refered to Jesus. Why should Artscroll deny a well known fact.
Just don't say anything.
Other issues relating to artscroll which need
to be discussed
include their philosophy of exegesis but since I have said enough for today
I'll end here wish Artscroll continued success in their Talmud
translation which will soon replace Soncino as the standard (whether such
translations are really needed is another issue entirely)
Marc Shapiro
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <GERVER@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 2:30:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Hespedim for Rabbi Moshe Cohn, zt"l
In v12n24 I said I would try to post copies of the hespedim [eulogies]
for Rabbi Moshe Cohn, principal emeritus of Maimonides School, given by
his sons Yaakov and Reuven, and by R. David Shapiro, present principal of
Maimonides. Yaakov and Reuven are both on the net, and have e-mailed me
the texts of their hespedim, which are given below. At Yaakov's suggestion,
I have prefaced these with some biographical material that appeared in an
article by Michael Rosenberg in the March 25-31 issue of The Jewish Advocate,
reproduced here with the kind permission of Robert Israel, editor of The
Jewish Advocate.
Unfortunately I am unable to include the text of the hesped given by Rabbi
Shapiro, who is just not "with it" in these modern times :-). Not only did he
not write his hesped on a word processor, he did not write it down at all,
but spoke extemporaneously, referring to some notes scribbled on an index
card. He spoke about Betzalel, and asked why, in parshat Vayakhel, the
Torah speaks as if Betzalel single-handedly built the mishkan, when in fact
many people contributed to building it. But Betzalel is credited with
building the mishkan because he put all of his time and energy into it.
Similarly R. Cohn devoted all of his energy to Maimonides. This was not
always so good for his family, but it was to the great benefit of the
community.
Mike Gerver, <gerver@...>
[Hespedim are archived as:
email listserv retreival: hespid_cohn
ftp/gopher/www: Special_Topics/hespid_cohn
Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <sol@...> (Sol Stokar)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 94 16:11:03 -0500
Subject: Masorah
In some recent postings (e.g. Marc Shapiro's posting in vol. 10 #99
and Mechy Frankel's posting in vol 11,#40 amoung others) various matters
relating to the "masorah" (the accepted text of the Bible) were discussed.
While the work of a number of scholars was discussed, including Penkower,
Goshen-Gottstein, Ben-Haim and Cassuto, I was disappointed that the work of
Rav Professor Mordechai Bruer was not discussed, or at least not discussed
fully enough. After some private e-mail conversations with a few people on
this list, I became aware that R. Bruer's work is not as well known as it
should be, perhaps due to the fact that he publishes primarily in Hebrew.
I would like to take the opportunity to outline what is for me the pre-eminent
work of masoretical scholarship in the last 750 years, viz. R. Bruer's
"reconstruction" of the masoretic text of the entire "Tanach" (Bible).
Let me emphasize at the outset that I have no professional qualifications
in this area, nor have I ever had the priviledge of meeting R. Bruer, and
I apologize for any errors in this summary that are due to my own
misunderstandings. My sources are essentially threefold:
[Full article archived as:
email: masorah
ftp/gopher: Special_Topics/mesorah
Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <alustig@...> (Arnold Lustiger)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 16:51:00 -0400
Subject: Rav's Shavuot Drasha
JEWISH ETHICS AND THE ASERET HADIBROT
****The following is a summary of one portion of a lecture presented to
the Rabbinical Council of America by Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on
June 22, 1972.****
[Drasha is archived as:
email listserv retreival: rav_shavuot
ftp/gopher/www: rav/rav_shavuot
Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <mberger@...> (Mitch Berger)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 15:42:39 -0400
Subject: The breakdown of halachah
Why is there a "Chumrah of the Month Club"? Here's some reasons I came up
with.
1- As I wrote a couple of months ago, when we were discussing "gedolim", I
feel the existance of the concept of "gadol" who is different in kind -
not just in quantity - than the LOR, handicaps the LOR. Only "the
gedolim" (e.g. R. Moshe) have the authority to go beyond just playing
safe. (Both in their own minds, and in their congregants'.)
2- In today's age, religiosity is defined as "frumkeit". "Frum" has bein adam
LaMaqom [between man and Gd] connotations, as opposed to "ehrlichkeit"
which seems to be more about how you treat others. In such a community,
whoever looks the most stringent on himself will get more respect.
As one article put it "Keeping Up with the Cohens".
Either way, we are losing site of what halachah is about, how one is
supposed to get a p'saq [halachic decision]. The Gemara warns you not to
shop around until you find a Rav who'll permit what you want. Today we
have the problem in reverse. The rumor mill passes around chumros for
all to share. Never mind asking your own LOR. As the mishnah in Avos
says:
Asei lichah Rav - Make for yourself a Rav
You only need one!
| Micha Berger | (201) 916-0287 | On Torah, on worship, and | | | |
| <mberger@...> |<- new address | on supporting kindness | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 12 Issue 80
