<table cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0' border='0' background='none' style='font-family:arial;font-size:10pt;color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;width:100%;'><tr><td valign='top' style='font: inherit;'><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><BR><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>--- On <B>Sat, 6/14/08, Moshe Feldman <I><moshe.feldman@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><BR></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>>From http://www.forward.com/articles/13553/ (article about Halivni's<BR>theology):<BR><<The ontological absence of God during the Holocaust was, in other<BR>words, preceded by a long history of eclipses of God's will from what<BR>Orthodox Jews fervently believe to be Judaism's immaculate, revealed<BR>sacred texts, both divine and rabbinic. Halivni's most scholarly and<BR>original contributions to talmudical studies point to the many "bumps<BR>and fissures" in Jewish sacred literature and as such have served,<BR>quite deliberately, to undermine the religious authoritarianism and<BR>maximal claims to access to divine wisdom on the part of the experts<BR>in these very texts, namely, the rabbis.<BR>>><BR><BR>Rabbi Dr. Yaakov Elman (who teaches Talmudic Criticism at
Bernard<BR>Revel) accepts the notion that many of our texts have been corrupted<BR>or misinterpreted, but reconciles that with his fealty to Halacha by<BR>drawing the exact opposite conclusion of that of Halvni. Based on R.<BR>Tzadok HaCohen (can anyone provide a cite?), Dr. Elman says that<BR>Hashem deliberately caused these textual problems in order to allow<BR>for Halacha to develop differently over time than the way originally<BR>envisioned by the Tannaim.<BR></P></FONT>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">----------------------------</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Much of R. Halivni's theolgy is in line with Dr. Berkovits's Shitos as expressed in <EM>Lo BaShamyim He</EM>. AIUI, he claims that TSBP was intended by God to remain Oral. That it was written down as an Eis Laasos should not detract from the essential nature of Oral law which was intended to be flexible. He cites numerous examples in Chazal (which I do not recall ar he moment) to demonstrate this point. He complains that the codification of TSBP in the SA is rigidly and wrongly treated like TSBK.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Dr. Berkovits˘s point is slightly different than R. Halivni˘s point which is to dispute the audacity of those who attempt theodicy in explaining events like the holocaust. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">But I believe that they are both trying to say that there is a non Torah based and therefore unreasonable rigidity that has evolved in the Torah world that produces both of these attitudes.<o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">HM</FONT></P>
<P> </P>
<P>Want Emes and Emunah in your life? <BR><BR>Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/<BR><BR></P></td></tr></table><br>