Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 015

Friday, October 9 1998

• Sustainable communities
• Re: mesorah-Multivariate analysis
• Re: revising the Dor Revi'i
• Techeles
• Re: revising the Dor Revi'i
• Re: mesorah-Multivariate analysis
• Re: Ponim Chadashos
• Re: inappropriate statement
• Re: Ponim Chadashos
• atem keruim adam
• Re: Avodah V2 #14 Tefillin during chol hamoed
• Re: Shaving on the Intermediate Days of the Festivals
• Re: Avodah V2 #14 Chumros, Masorah, Minhog
• Or Lagoyim
• Re: Avodah V2 #14 Chumros, Masorah, Minhog
• Re: non-ortho rabbis

In message , Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>I believe, in my experience at least, that the reverse is true quite
>often, especially when one "in-towner" marries another. Ponim Chadashos
>are hard to come by, and you are often in a situation where the minimum
>becomes the norm.

To diverge from the halachic question onto a socialogical one, this is
fascinating me, because it so totally diverges from my experience.  In
other words, while the situation you describe is how I imagine it was in
the shtetl, where the whole shtetl was invited to the wedding, and you
had to rely on out of town travelers such as peddlers and maggidim
(almost certainly male, as it was too dangerous for women to travel the
roads), I can't think of a community today where this would be the case
(and I have attended weddings on five continents).  The closest I can
think of was a wedding I attended in Auckland, New Zealand, where yes,
the entire community attended the wedding. On the other hand, the reason
that I was there was the fact that although the kala was very keen on
having the wedding in her home town, where her father was a pillar of
the community, she had moved to Melbourne because there was no way she
was going to find a shidduch in New Zealand. Prior to her wedding, I was
told that there hand't been a wedding there for ages, and I doubt that
precious few weddings before hers even knew about the concept of sheva
brochas (my friend and her chossen of course moved to Melbourne for
sheva brochas).

If anything my exposure has been to the opposite problem, how do you
deal with the fact that, if you are talking about an in town wedding (ie
both parties has significant numbers they have to invite - where one is
out of town that party's numbers are usually considerably smaller), the
chossen kala cannot get away with under 300-500 without even inviting
their real friends  (and the whole issue is: is it nice to invite
younger people to come for the supper and to dance afterwards or is that
really cheap) (Ok ok, my mother's cousin in Israel, where the problem is
even more acute, solved it by having 1000 people at the wedding - and i
assure you they were not short of panim chadashos for sheva brochas, but
not everybody can afford to do that).

But be that as it may, the socialogial question that is interesting me
is: is a community that is small enough that everybody can be invited to
the one wedding a community that is capable of existing in isolation -
and yet is of sufficient size to have endogomous frum marriages?

Back on Melbourne again - most people are surprised when I tell them
that I know people where eg he is a Gerer Chassid and she came from
Mizrachi. Because most frum communities around the world, each community
is so large that such a meeting would never take place.  In Melbourne of
a generation ago, because the frum community was sufficiently small, and
because travel was extremely difficult (at that time it would take
anywhere up to a week - even today, it is 14 hours flying to LA) such
marriages happened. Today, because of the ubiquitous nature of the
aeroplane, people go overseas and meet people of their respective
communities there.  But a generation ago, each community was not large
enough to survive on its own without the support of quite different
hashkafic communities.  And yet I don't think that even then the
community was so pushed that if it sent out invitations to a decent
sized, or even large, wedding, it would have only a limited pool of
panim chadashos left to invite.

But I am obviously missing a community configuration here if your
experience is to the contrary.

>Mo'adim l'Simcha,
>YGB


Mo'adim l'simcha

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> Why do they need a written record? There was a written record about the
> knives to shecht the Korban Pesach?

I didn't say they needed a written record. I said that if the Yeminites had
produced a written record it would have been simple to answer the question as
to the nature of their mesora.
                                            Daniel Eidensohn

David Glasner wrote:

> You seem to assume that the Mishnah as we now know it actually
> existed, before it was finally written down.  But the canonical text that
> now exists came into being only for the purpose of being written down.

> Otherwise the Mishnayot would have remained more or less in the form
> of the many scattered beraitot quoted in the Talmud that were never
> compiled into an official edition.

I think it is admirable how you have tried to defend the Dor Revi'i. At this
point, I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Your position does
not seem to be that of the Dor Revi'i - though you obviously feel it is. I
apologize for being dense - but I just don't get your explanation to my questions.
I think that perhaps your concept of the Oral Law and the role of Chazal is
different than I and others such as Elie Ginsparg understand it.

> <<<
> In sum, after your revision  - what was the chidush of the Dor Revi'i?
> >>>
> There were many.  Perhaps the most important comes at the end of the
> passage I just quoted.  The purpose of a separate Oral Torah was to
> allow continuous development of and, when necessary through new
> drashot or adoption of previously rejected ones ("eilu v'eilu . . ."), change
> in the halachah by the Sanhedrin.  Otherwise, the Ribbono shel Olam
> could have just attached an expanded version of the Shulchan Aruch as
> a written appendix to sefer Devarim.

I really find this last statement difficult to accept. There was a separate Oral
Torah from the beginning. Rebbe did not create it. What were Hillel and Shammai
and others discussing?  - Sorry but  I really don't understand your position.
Perhaps someone out there can help

                                                                 Daniel Eidensohn

>of what he suggests. The article in its entirety is very powerful.
>He contrasts mesorah by birds, fish, chagavim, and etrogim.
	The article is only available in Word format,  in Hebrew.  Any ideas?
Gershon



>old one that no longer works.  Can anyone tell me the proper way to 
>tie the tekhelet or, failing that, a valid email address for someone who
>can?
	http://www.tekhelet.co.il
Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

In v2n13, David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV> writes:
: You seem to assume that the Mishnah as we now know it actually
: existed, before it was finally written down.  But the canonical text that
: now exists came into being only for the purpose of being written down. 

I agree. For example, "stam mishnah k'Rav Me'ir" implies that they were
written by a student of R' Meir. For example, Rebbe.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5944 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 8-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In v2n14, Ari Z. Zivotofsky <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov> writes:
: My question (I think) still stands: do we indeed have a "negative mesorah" on
: chagavim or do we simply lack a positive mesorah.

Chagavim and techeiles differ on a major point.

In the case of chagavim, relying on the masorah avoids an issur. For
techeiles, it permits one to fulfil a mitzvah. With no masorah either way,
safeik d'Oraisah lichumrah would have one not eating chagavim and wearing
murex colored tzitzis.

IOW, by chagavim, it is the presence of a mesorah that would change the
halachah from the default. However, by techeiles, only the negative mesorah
would have such impact.

So, while R' Chaim Vilozhiner discusses "negative mesorah" by cuttlefish
dyed tzitzis, I'm not sure he'd raise the subject by chagavim. Perhaps
not being in the community that has the mesorah means safeik d'Oraisah
lichumrah applies.

-mi


-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5944 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 8-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In v2n14, R' YGB <ygb@aishdas.org> writes:
: The Rama in CM 25 says that if Rishonim come to light that say differently
: from an Acharon, we may pasken like those Rishonim over the Acharon.

My father once quoted R' YB Soloveitchik saying the opposite one Tues night
in Moriah. It was suggested that some halachah (I forget which) may need to
be rethought in light of the Me'iri's opinion. The Rav replied that perhaps
there is a reason HKB"H allowed the Me'iri to be lost for so long.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5944 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 8-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

From v2n14:
: Unless I'm missing something you're post gives me the impression that what
: YOU think is good and right has some importance in the world of Torah.

Actually, all he said was that he is uncomfortable with a given d'rashah. He
didn't say this d'rashah was less valid or anything of the sort. I saw it
as an appeal for further explanation.

This is the second time in one day that "dan likaf zechus" could have been
better applied. The other, from v2n13:
: Interesting that he should be malshin Rav Kapach like that.

This kind of speech is outside of "darchei no'am". Hopefully, this criticism
is not. I intend to be constructive, not accusatory.

Talmidei chachamim marbim shalom ba'olam.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5944 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 8-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Micha Berger wrote:

> My father once quoted R' YB Soloveitchik saying the opposite one Tues
> night in Moriah. It was suggested that some halachah (I forget which)
> may need to be rethought in light of the Me'iri's opinion. The Rav
> replied that perhaps there is a reason HKB"H allowed the Me'iri to be
> lost for so long. 
> 

Hmmm... One of the rare things that Beis Brisk and the Chazon Ish agree
on...

But, seriously, while some saay this about the Me'iri, they haven't said
it about the Ritva and Nimukei Yosef.

YGB

> -mi
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5944 days!
> micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 8-Oct-98)
> For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
> http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:43:37 -0500 owner-avodah@aishdas.org (Avodah)
writes
>
>Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 18:13:43 -0400
>From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
>Subject: inappropriate statement
>
.. 
>>>>
>
>Thank you (and others) for the reference to the gemara in Yevamot.  I 
>am
>sorry that you found my choice of words in referring to the drasha in
>question  inappropriate (a term which now seems to cover quite a
>multitude of sins).  But I am afraid that I must also plead guilty to 
>having
>least favorite p'sukim in Chumash as well.  I generally try to avoid
>mention of the p'sukim mandating genocide of the Canaanites, Hittites,
>Emorites, et al.  I also think that we should narrow the application 
>of the
>injunction lo yavo mamzer b'kahal hashem to the maximum extent
>possible.  And as I recall R. Akiva and R. Tarfon state that if they 
>had
>been judges when the death penalty was still in force, no one would
>ever have been executed.  Chazal apparently were also uncomfortable
>enough with the p'sukim of ben sorer u'moreh that they interpreted 
>them
>in a way that made it impossible that the prescribed punishment ever 
>did
>or would actually be applied.
>
>Concerning the "appropriate" interpretation of the drasha in Yevamot, 
>I
>would make two observations.  First, the version in the gemara 
>actually
>reads "v'lo ovdei kochavim k'ruim adam."  If we take that  version
>seriously, then the anti-humanistic implications of the drasha are
>considerably limited.  But the Ramban in the Mikraot Gedolot quotes 
>the
>drasha as referring to umot ha'olam.  Second, aside from the Tosafot
>who seem to be disturbed by the implications of the drasha, the 
>Mahartz
>Chajes in his comments printed in the back of the Vilna shas makes an
>interesting and somewhat persuasive attempt to reconcile the drasha
>with a more humanistic outlook. 

>Some further thoughts about the drasha atem kruim adam v'lo ovdei
>kochavim kruim adam.  If you look at the sugya beginning at the bottom 
>of
>Yevamot 60b, you will find that this drasha is advanced by R. Shimon 
>b.
>Yochai to support his position that the corpses of (idolatrous?)
>non-Jews are not ritually impure.  [By the way, Rashi specifically
>comments that the residents of Ninveh were idolators, so his text
>obviously read ovdei kochavim, not umot ha-olam.  Moreover the
>repentance of the residents of Ninveh seems not to have extended
>beyond renunciation of their injustice and evil actions toward their 
>fellow
>men.  The text does not say, as best as I can recall without checking,
>that they became monotheists.]
>
>The derivation is from a verse in Ezekiel (34?) which I can't remember
>just now.  His drasha and his halachic position are immediately 
>disputed
>by the Chachamim (I'm not sure if this is part of the beraita itself 
>or the
>gemara's reconstruction of the machloket) who cite not only the verse 
>in
>Jonah but a verse in Bamidbar concerning the number of humans
>captured (nefesh adam) in the war against Midian following the Ba'al 
>P'or
>incident.  R. Shimon responds by saying that since the verses cited
>contain references to cattle (beheimah) the scripture uses the 
>elevated
>term adam to accentuate the difference between adam and beheima. 
>But otherwise, according to R. Shimon, a simple reference to adam must
>be understood as specific to Jews.  Unconvinced, the Chachamim
>continue to press their attach on R. Shimon and cite the very case of 
>the
>war against Midian when the soldiers who went to battle were required
>to undergo  ritual purification lasting to seven days to remove the 
>ritual
>impurity of having come into contact with non-Jewish corpses.  R.
>Shimon responds that they might have come into contact with Jewish
>corpses,  The Chachamim reject that because the battle was milhemet
>mitzvah so no Jews should have fallen in battle.  R. Shimon says that 
>if
>they had sinned, even Jews fighting in milhemet mitzvah might have
>fallen, so that it was possible that the returning soldiers had been 
>ritually
>defiled.
>
>There the matter rested for perhaps two or three centuries.  The
>halachah must have followed the opinion of the Chachamim who reject
>the drasha atem k'ruim adam against the opinion of R. Shimon.  But 
>then
>the gemara records the opinion of Ravina, the last of the Amoraim, who
>introduces the distinction between tumat ohel and tumat maga to effect
>an ex post  reconciliation of the conflicting opinions.  Tumat ohel is
>restricted by the verse zot hatorah adam ki yamut ba-ohel to Jews
>whereas tumat maga applies without restriction to all humans.  
>
>This provides an interesting footnote to earlier discussions about the
>ability of Amoraim to dispute the opinions of Tannaim.  Here Ravina is
>creating a brand new halachah by cutting and pasting the diamterically
>opposed opinons of R. Shimon and the Chachamim, in the process,
>introducing a significant leniency by exempting a person from ritual
>defilement when coming under the same roof as a non-Jewish corpse, a
>leniency that involves the potential transgression of capital 
>offenses.
>
I hope you don't mind I took the liberty of putting these to pieces
together to comment about both of them. I unfortunately am to busy these
days to make any postings to this  list, but there is so much I found
objectionable in your comments that I could not resist. 

1. I dont understand what it means that you by trying to avoid posukim
mandating genocide of cannanim. With out going into the opinions of the
Rishonim when such an act is mandated, this mitzvah is as important as
the mitzvah of giving tzedakah and  ahavta lereicha Kamocha, they are a
revelation of the ratzon of Hashem and therefore  by definition is
absolutely perfect and morally and ethically correct. This sounds like
Shauls hesitancy to kill Agag and the spoil of Amalek on "ethical
considerations" which was obviously wrong and therefore he lost the
kingdom

2. The statement of R'Akiva etc. is understood by the Rambam in Hilchos
Sanhedrin 14:10 to just mean that the Beis Din must be very careful and
deliberate, but not CHas Vshalom to mean that they meant that they would
try to subvert the intention of the Torah because they felt
"uncomfortable" with it. How can we be uncomfortable with the ratzon of
Hashem as if we should or could judge it! And even if you learn not like
the Rambam, it is only because there is a concept in the Torah called
"Hitzlu Haeidah" which is a greizaros hakasuv that we should try to save
the accused and not  because that is the way we feel about it (also see
the Tifers Yisrael)

3. I believe that your statement about Chazal's interpretation of Ben
Sorer is outside the bounds of accepted traditional Orthodox theology
(Forgive me if I misunderstood or am wrong!) CHazal don't "feel
uncomfortable" and then interpert part of the Torah out of existence.
Either Chazal had a mesorah how to understand the pesukim or they  used
the midos that they had from Sinai etc. based upon a mesorah. But to say
that Chazal approached a topic with a preconcieved idea and then
interperted it in a way that was consistent with that rather then let the
Torah speak to them is a Conservative  or Reform  way of looking at
Chazal. See Hirsch's Collected Writings and his taking Graetz to task. 

4. I cant help but be amused with your attempt to reconcile Torah with
Humanism as if Humanism is of such great value that we should use it as
the standard by which we judge Torah. At any rate it clearly makes no
difference whether you say ovdei kochavim or umos clearly the ability of
a person to be metamai is not based upon their actions but on their
intrinsic nature (no one would ever suggest that a Jew who practices
avodah zara would not be metamai!) and therefore it really is the same
idea that Jews are metamai and not goyim As anyone familiar with Gem
knows, the expression akum or oved avodah zara is used interchangibly
with goy in many places  (partially due to concerns of censors)

5. Your explanation of R' SHimeon's original statement as that the corpes
of gentiles are not metamai and that Ravina "cut and pasted and created a
radically new halachah"  is utterly absurd. Ravina is explaining R'
SHimeon's position R' Shimeon himself said specifically the graves of
gentiles and not the corpeses. (See Rashi also in the original statement
of R" SHimeon) If anything Ravina is being strict with R' SHimeon's
position that even though he claims that the graves are not metamai with
ohel still the body is metamai through touching. Amoraim don't create new
positions or leniencies out of air in a machlokes of Tannaim! (I also
wonder where you got the idea that the halachah was a certain way for
2-300 years?) I think this also shows a total distortion of the Halachic
process

THere are other things that I feel is mistaken in the way you explained
the Gem. but I have already taken enough space and it is not as
significant.
I apologize in advance for any mistakes or if I offended any
sensibilities

SHraga ROthbart

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

     >>The idea of not putting on t'fillin in Eretz Yisrael has to do with 
     minhag ha-
     makom and al tifrosh min ha-tzibur.  The minhag of EY is to NOT put on 
     t'fillin.  Therefore one is not permitted to don them in public.  
     
     During my years of study there, my father informed me of what his 
     father told
     him.  Daven without t'fillin, and then back at home go into a room 
     alone and
     put them on for sh'ma.<<
     
     Ok help me out here.
     
     Question: why does Eretz Yisroel have one uniform Minhgo while 
     America doesn't?  isn't it true that the Yehudim in EY are just as 
     diverse in their Minhogim as area American jews?  Aren't there 
     gazillions of divergent minhogim with regard to all kinds of other 
     dinim?  Whye should tefillin be different?  (My understanding of Lo 
     sisgodedu with regard to Tefillin is only within the shul/Minyon and 
     not country wide).
     
     If the Minhog is abased on first come first serve we need to answer 
     why does America not follow the minhog of the Spanish Portuguese 
     kehilot that first settled here?
     
     
     Assumption:
     My understanding of the prevailing Minhog wrt to Tefillin on CHhM 
     Israel is simple.  Three large followings: GRO, BESHT, & Eidot 
     hamizroch, set this up.  (of course my assumptions might be 
     incorrect).
       

Is this the same article as was published in the RJJ journal or is this an expanded
version?

Ari




Micha Berger wrote:

> R' MJB asked if this was appropriate for the list. Topic-wise it is,
> lengthwise, well... I made an exception.
>
> It took me some time to coerce the text into something the list could handle.
> So, formatting might be off, and I may have made editing mistakes while I had
> the file open.
>
> Moadim Lisimachah,
> -mi
>
>         Shaving on the Intermediate Days of the Festivals
>                         Rabbi Michael J. Broyde

     >>
     
     There is a difference between starting a NEW mesora and trying to 
     reinvent a
     lost one.<<
     
     Ein hochi nami.  the question was quite innocent.  I really think that 
     we should get a consistent sevoro on this.  remember this stemmed from 
     a scientific observation that indicated that X is the real Tehciles.  
     My parallel is simple, does science and technology influence the 
     Mesorah or the Metzius in a halachi sense?  It seems that people took 
     it for a dovur poshut that spinning thread on a mahcine was not a 
     problem of lishmo.  some people felt it might be  aproblem re: matzos. 
      My obesrvations was tehcnology is technologyu and lishmo is lishmo.  
     What's good for tsitsis should be good for matzo.  (that is also to 
     say the obection to machine shemuor weemed to stem more from 
     sentimental reasons as opposed to hard-headed halachic analysis)
     
     NO we are in the throes of the opposite; the lure of hard-headed 
     scientific analysis with regard to halacho.  
     
     Let's say we invented a time mahcine and proved beyond a shadow of a 
     doubt that during the time of the Mishno everyon wore Rabbein Tam 
     Tefillin (see below)  Would that verifyiable and dublicatable 
     discovery influence OUR mesorah?  IMHO  no way.  
     
     .
     >>
     
     The GR"A, it is told, remarked when asked about R. Tam's t'fillin, 
     "And what
     of the other shittos?"  He calculated that there are, I think, 8 
     independent
     shittos relating to t'fillin, necessitating many pairs of t'fillin to 
     satisfy
     all possibly permutations.  Why chose one over all the others?<<
     
     
     Ein hochi nomi!!
     
     That is why I believe mesorah is suerior to chumro!  (see my previous 
     postings)  This GRO - while no proof of my pet theory - certainly 
     l;eans in that general direction.  In fact I once remarkd to my fellow 
     who wears Rabbeinu Tam Tefilin that at some level every second he 
     wears RT, he is denigrating Rashi's Tefillin.
     
     
     Of course now Rabbi Teitz, we BOTH have to answer the Beit Yosef, the 
     Baal haTanya and otehrs who insist on wearing RT Tefillin.
     
     
     Moadim Lesimcho
     
     Richard Wolpoe

On the subject of whether we are supposed to actively pursue being an or
lagoyim, I'd like to raise the following Rambam (Milachim 8:10):

	... and so commanded Moshe Rabbeinu from the Pi HaGvurah to force all
	those who come into the world to accept those mitzvos that were
	commanded to descendants of Noach. And whoever doesn't accept them
	should be killed. And someone who does accept them is the one called
	a Ger Toshav...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5944 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 9-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In a message dated 98-10-09 10:08:04 EDT, you write:

<< 

     NO we are in the throes of the opposite; the lure of hard-headed 
     scientific analysis with regard to halacho. 
      Let's say we invented a time mahcine and proved beyond a shadow of a 
      doubt that during the time of the Mishno everyon wore Rabbein Tam 
      Tefillin (see below)  Would that verifyiable and dublicatable 
      discovery influence OUR mesorah?  IMHO  no way.  
     Richard Wolpoe

    >>

Would you feel the same way if we unearthed ancient validated texts from the
time of the mishna proving this?  What about changes in rishonim based on more
authentic texts or newly discovered rishonim or achronim?  Is this really a
technology issue or a historical mesora issue(ie its not accidental that our
mesora has come down the way it has)?

Moadim Lsimcha
Joel Rich

Ps Food for thought-pretend you're an ethiopian jew just exposed to our
mesora-what do you do according to your mesora?

In v2n9, Saul Z Newman asks:
: peripheral to the conservative issue, please explain to me the cherem issued
: in the fifties of coop wi non orth  rabbis.

: 1--did the RCA/OU rabbis have an altenative psak?

Yes. A teshuvah written by R. YB Soloveitchik (the Rav) in 1954, titled
"Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews in the United States: Second article
in a series on Responsa of Orthodox Judaism in the United States". It is
only available as a 7 page Xeroxed copy of type-written pages, not dated --
although the Rav refers to a proposal he presented at an RCA conference
"this past summer" that a footnote associates with the summer of 1954
convention. Unfortunately, I lent my copy out, and it walked.

In true Brisker derech, the Rav divides the concept of the unity of the
Jewish people into "_tzvei dinim_". The first he associates with the term
"_eidah_", which he relates to the words "_eid_" and "_eidus_". The second
is that of the "_am_", from "_im_".

What unifies us as an _eidah_ is "the unity of Jews as members of a spiritual
community", of being a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation", as decreed
at the end of the revelation of Sinai. "A collective testimony united us
all into a Jewish community. It therefore goes without saying, that the Jew,
who erases from his memory this great testimony, and destroys the unique
collective tradition, breaks the tie which joins him with the Jewish community
as a breaks the tie which joins him with the Jewish community as an _eidah_,
as a spiritual Jewish entity."

The second concept is that of "_am_" -- "_Am livadad yishkon_" we are a
nation that dwells alone. Is is "in our historical transmigrations and in
our paradoxical fate. Our history would not fit into a different historical
framework, and our fate is incomprehensible." This entity predates Sinai,
"And I shall take you unto me as an _am_, and I shall be unto you a G-d"
(Ex. 6:7).

The Rav therefore concludes that participation in political or welfare
interdenominational orginizations is *obligatory*, as to refuse would defy
the sanctity of the _am_. However, religious umbrella groups should be avoided.


A few observations.

1- The idea of fate/destiny, community of fate vs. one of destiny, creature
vs. creator, etc... is central to the Rav's thought.

2- Rabbiner Samson Rephael Hirsch, in his commentary on our pasuk, reaches
a similar definition of the word _eidah_ but does so using a different
etymology. He finds the root to be _ya'ad_, to fix or appoint. "A society
united by their common calling."

3- I would like, if I may, to add to the Rav's thought by pointing out
that the proof provided in the Gemara that a minyan requires 10 men is the
gezeirah shava eidah::eidah from the miraglim. Noe the word is _eidah_.
A collection of 10 men, by becoming an _eidah_, are able to perform things
that require the collective sanctity of Bnei Yisrael.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5944 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 9-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]