Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 139

Tuesday, January 26 1999

• Rosh Hodesh Torah reading
• Re: Rosh Hodesh Torah reading
• "Wolf"
• Re: Accusations of apikorsut/progressive revelation/innuendo
• Re: Modern Orthodoxy
• Modern Orthodox Hashkofo
• Kollellim
• What MO means to me in a nutshell
• Edah
• Mazel Tov
• Re: Kollellim
• Who Said it?
• Re: Accusations of apikorsut/progressive revelation/innuendo
• Re: Edah
• Good Wishes
• Bostoner Rebbi
• Re: Good Wishes
• Update on Bostoner Rebbi
• Unacceptable postings
• Re: Unacceptable postings
• Motzi shem Ra / Lashon Hara on this list

	The Shulhan Aruch says that, for the Torah reading on Rosh Hodesh, 
aliyat kohen is Num. 28:1-3, levi is vv. 3-5, shlishi is vv. 6-10, and 
r'vi'i is vv. 11-15.  (I think the cite is O.H. 423:2, but I don't remember 
with certainty.)  The GR"A ad loc. adopts a different practice, I think 
dividing the reading up 1-3, 4-8, 6-10, and 11-15.  Thus, the M'haber has 
the levi aliya repeat one verse, and the GR"A has shlishi repeat several 
verses.  I'm familiar with the practice prescribed by the M'haber, but I 
was wondering whether there are any communities that follow the practice 
prescribed by the GR"A.

		Richard Friedman

 When I learned krias hatorah with the Rov, he remarked that he
 was amazed that no one seemed to follow it. But, even the geroh 
 has a problem. You are still rereading a piece. The question is only "how
 many violations. 
 But, you avoid the other issur of strating less than 3 sentences from a
 parsha. "gezaras hayotzim vnichnosim". It is only that "ovyom
 hashabos" even though 2 pesukim is a whole parsha. This is permissible.
 Only 2 pesukim that are part of more are assur. 
 So Rosh Chodesh is  still a "problem". 



At 01:40 PM 1/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>	The Shulhan Aruch says that, for the Torah reading on Rosh Hodesh, 
>aliyat kohen is Num. 28:1-3, levi is vv. 3-5, shlishi is vv. 6-10, and 
>r'vi'i is vv. 11-15.  (I think the cite is O.H. 423:2, but I don't remember 
>with certainty.)  The GR"A ad loc. adopts a different practice, I think 
>dividing the reading up 1-3, 4-8, 6-10, and 11-15.  Thus, the M'haber has 
>the levi aliya repeat one verse, and the GR"A has shlishi repeat several 
>verses.  I'm familiar with the practice prescribed by the M'haber, but I 
>was wondering whether there are any communities that follow the practice 
>prescribed by the GR"A.
>
>		Richard Friedman
> 

Upon opening my e-mail this morning, I was dismayed to discover very
strong language about the emunot ve-deot of two of my colleagues, Rabbi
Saul Berman and Rabbi Avi Weiss. As far as I know, there is no basis for
this harsh judgment. One may criticize various positions they have taken
without resorting to name calling about their commitment to the
fundamental emunot ve-deot of Yahadut.

I say this precisely because I take kefira very seriously. It is for this
reason that accusations of kefira should not be made casually.

Moreover, the impression was created that my revered teacher, R. Aharon
Lichtenstein, is a partner to these accusations. Reference is made to
remarks R. Lichtenstein made last year at the Orthodox Forum. As it
happens I was present on this occasion (and participated in the
discussion). As the Forum's deliberations are a private affair, I am
reluctant to supply a blow by blow account of R. Lichtenstein's reactions.
Two points however are worth making.

1) Neither Rabbi Berman nor Rabbi Weiss were mentioned by anyone, nor was
anything they have said or written or done. I don't know of anything they
have said or written or done that would be pertinent to the issues
discussed.

2) It occurs to me that the source of the accusations against Rabbis
Berman and Weiss may have reasoned as follows: Insofar as the person,
whose writings scandalized R. Lichtenstein and other yerei Shamayim at the
conference, is associated with "feminist" halakhic positions, and Rabbis
Berman and Weiss are also viewed as sympathetic to such positions, then
condemnation of the former is tantamount to condemnation of the latter. In
the course of the discussion R. Lichtenstein explicitly declined to make
such an equation. He made it very clear that denial of fundamental emunot
ve-deot demands a different, and much more severe, response, than such
relatively minor matters (his term was "pakkim ketannim") as disputing,
correctly or erroneously, within the framework of halakhic discourse,
about specific halakhot and minhagim.

Obviously I am concerned about the bein adam la-havero issue: accusations
of kefira are too serious a matter to throw around lightly. But I am also
concerned for kevod Shamayim. If imputations of kefira are bandied about
imprecisely, there is a grave danger that when honest to goodness kefira
rears its head, we will have lost the ability to recognize it. The boy who
cried wolf irresponsibly certainly damaged his community by wasting
everyone's time and energy, but the greatest harm he caused was that when
the wolf really came, nobody believed him.

Or as the Mishna says: "Wise men, be careful with your words!"

In a message dated 1/25/99 12:05:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<<   In another context, R.
 Sacks of Great Britain has suggested that Orthodoxy rejects the idea
 that history is normative in Halakhah.  If that is true in Halakhah, kal
 va-homer in hashkafah.  But I am sure that we can all agree that
 discussions of giluy Shekhinah are be-rumo shel olam and need to be
 discussed with a maximum of precision and a minimum of innuendo.
  >>
Dear Eli, 
More detail please. Didn't HKB"H pasken through history that chassidut wasn't
apikorsus, that those who worked for shivat tzion in the 19th and 20th century
were correct etc.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 1/25/99 12:17:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 
 To tie this with discussions we've had in this past, I think mod-O /requires/
 a sh'leimus orientation, and see our lives within the modern world as part of
 that whole that needs to be created. A d'veikus orientation would see
anything
 but Toras Hashem (and perhaps enough science to see the glory of creation) to
 be a distraction from seeking Him.
 
 According to the S'ridei Eish, R' SR Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz is about
 giving the form of Torah to the substance of derech eretz, creating a unity
 (a sh'leimus or t'mimus) of the two, whose aims and function is defined by
 Torah. According to the Rav (based on R' Aharon Zeigler's email list that has
 been getting mentioned lately), there is value in Adam I as well as Adam II.
 Adam I finds expression in mastering this world. Sh'leimus includes knowing
 how to live as both Adams.
 
 Unlike Joel Rich, I think modern O is about both, learning how to live as
both
 Adams. Chassidus ends up stressing Adam II, but so does R' Chaim Vilozhiner
 or any "d'veikus" based thinker. I think it's true of anyone who reacted to
 the fall of the ghetto walls with retreat (an Adam II response to begin
with).
  >>
Dear Micha,
To bring geula to the olam :-) it's R' Ronnie Ziegler of the Gush Virtual Bet
Medrash. R' Aharon Ziegler (no relation) is the author of a recent book on
Halachic positions of the Rav.

If I inferred that modern O is not about both Adams then it was due to my poor
presentation/communication skills, I think the Rav was pretty clear that we
vacillate between the poles of Adams and need elements of both majestic and
spiritual man.

In a tape of one of the Rav's drashas he refers to the Gra as from bnai
rachel(kedusha/tzniut) and the Besht from bnai Leah(malchut) and that as
always knesset Yisrael unifies these seemingly contradictory midot(I think I
wrote on his understanding of oseh shalom bmromav= melding the opposites of
din and chesed)

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

There was a lecture Series at Lincoln Square Synagogue in the ealy '80s that 
included speakers from Satmar, etc.

The closing speech was by R. S. Riskin.  He said, "Modern Ortodoxy is not about 
a heter for mixed swinmming.." and went on to outline some of its ideals.  It 
essentially is an integration of Judaims with modernity - AND a more open, 
(cosmoplitan?) approach to society in general, (ie less insular than say Satmar 
for example).  Ideally it is not about compromosing Halocho, it's about 
integrating it with society, etc.

No doubt the sociological MO, may have members who are lax in observence, but 
that is not the MO hashkofo.  MO hashkofo is comfortable in disussing and 
comparing Jewish Philosophy say with existentialist philosophy of Sartre, camus,
etc.  In THIS sense it resembles RDR Hirsch who discussed conptemproray German 
Philosophies from his pulpit.  Where it differs from Hirsch is re: dealing with 
non-Orthodox, Hirsch demanded a divorce (asutritt) while MO seeks common ground.
At no time did MO recognize the legitimacy of conservative or refrom hashkofo, 
it only recongnized them as legitimate Jewish communities who have have common 
cause to fight anti-Semitism, raise money for Israel, etc.  The "clergy" of 
those congregations were defacto communal leaders NOT valid poskim.

There is much to disagree with MO hashkofo, however, MANY of the disgareements 
and attacks were based on mis-understanding the basic premises.  (boy is that 
ever a recurring theme! <smile>).

The major tension in MO is the desire to be progressvie OTOH, and the loyalty to
mesorah OTOH.  Orthodox thinking Tends to encourage a certain rigidity, while 
modernity demands some flexibility.  MO believes that "hafoch bo.. dechulo bo" 
means that the Torah has somehow addressed modern ideas and needs if we can 
unearth it.

Another MO issue is the integration of tehcnology into the Torah world.  let's 
face it, sh'eilos today require detailed knowledge of chemistry, biology, 
electicity, etc.  That kind of sophisticiation often demands a modern education.

A "chareidi" friend of mine is a physician and has been honored by his kids' 
yeshiva.  He tells me, that they honor him - a modern educated professional - 
who contributes handsomely, yet they discourage his kids from getting any more 
than the bare minimum secular education.  His own kids would never qualify to be
professionals based upon what they are learning...

MO's response is to see secular education in a more favorable light...

Kol Tuv
Rich Wolpoe


htlookDaughter's B 



        

I realise this is an old post (I am very behind, not surprisingly), but
while I saw a fair bit of comment on the post quoted below, I did not
see anything similar to my comment:

mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>The recent discussion regarding a class system for kolel learning is a
>pointless one, based as it is on assumptions which are either
>demonstrably false or highly likely to be so. One of the core
>assumptions is that we can predict who will be future gedolei yisroel.
> Those who are aware of the literature in psychology, decision theory,
>etc. know that our ability to predict to outcomes that are much better
>defined amd well -structured than "gadol beyisroelness" is poor. We
>are incapable of predicting who will be successful physicians or good
>psychologists; why assume that we can identify gedolei yisroelwhose
>attainment of that status is much further removed from the point of
>measurement than the successful completion of medical school?

The problem I have with this analysis is that it implies (if it does not flatly
state) that the situation that existed in the Lithuania prior to the Shoah,
was heavily flawed in producing gedolim, and that our current system is
that much better.

After all, ask anybody who was in yeshiva in Lita before the war (I
realise such people are becoming fewer and fewer, but they still exist)
about people remaining in or leaving yeshiva, and it would appear that
the system was ruthless in throwing out (or not letting in) boys in
circumstances where they were not seen to have both extremely high
demonstrated ability and extremely high motivation (and when I talk
about boys, I mean 15, 13 or younger).  

Now maybe what you are suggesting is that today we do not have the
Rebbeim capable of making such assessments, whereas then they did,
or that the situation has changed to make our system necessary, that
may be a different story.  But to suggest that the theory of a class
system is flawed would seem dangerously close to bein motzei la'az al 
harishonim.

>Second, the assumption that we need only gedolei yisroel to maintain a
>Torah society is dubious at best and surely an assertion without
>evidence to support it. It is equivalent to asserting that a modern
>society needs no cadre of scholarly juudges, learned professors and
>trained consumers and interpreters of knowledge for the masses as
long >as we have some geniuses and brilliant inventors and
discoverers. >Perhaps this is so, but I would be loath to bet on it."

Again, this appears to be expressed without reference to historical
situation, where they seem to have made that assumption.  The
environment, as my grandfather tells it, is of children going
to cheder at 3 or so, and staying there until, in most cases, around 10,
when a limited few went on to yeshiva, and even then, many had left
by 15.  The number who stayed were extremely few, compared with the
number of boys who started cheder.  And I think I read somewhere that
there were a total of 200 or so Rabbaim (ie smicha) in the whole of Lita
(but those guys really knew *something*).

Now, one difference is that today most boys also cram in a
secular education of some sort, whereas my grandfather had none. 
The time from 3-10 or 3-15 was full time limudei kodesh.  I can see it
easily being argued that therefore the amount of limudei kodesh imbibed
today at say, 20 is necessary to equate to 15 there.

Perhaps to make the matter more personal, without the fairly ruthless
"up or out" policy my Grandfather might well have become a Rav.  It was
certainly my great-grandmother's dearest wish (he was the only surviving
son, and she had a certain yichus, especially on her side, to maintain).
And my grandfather was a dutiful son - when he left yeshiva (at around
15), he spent a year in Skud training to be a shochet at his mother's
insistance ("so at least he would have a torani profession") - despite
his complete antipathy to the knives.  But dutifulness and above average
brainpower (nobody has every suggested my grandfather is a fool) were
not enough (and nobody suggested they should have been).  They were
looking for people with a fire burning within them to learn, and my
grandfather didn't have it. Nor did he have the kind of extraordinary
memory and ability to analyse which would have made the grade. What
about him being part of the cadre even of the learned masses? - well it
would seem that, by 15, you had enough to put you firmly in that
category, and that it was time you went out and earnt a living (most of
the masses having left earlier). So he went off to South Africa and into
business instead (which was a blessing for the family, including his
mother, as he managed to bring them out in 1936.

But are you prepared to say that the policies of Rav Kahanaman and
Ponavich yeshiva (as well as those like it) in those days wrong?


Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In a simple outline:
1) A positive view towards secular learing and culture. 
2) An open posture towards the world at large.
3) A willingness to deal with Non-Ortho groups as de facto communities and NOT 
out of recgonizing them as legitimate alternate hashkofos.
4) A conviction that Halcoho can be and should be decisive even lekulo (more on 
this in another post)
5) Using Torah wisdom themes to confront and interact with modernity as opposed 
to avoiding it.  (EG Feminism.)
6) A willingness to openly discuss/debate all topics, opinions, and hashkofos, 
even those we acknowledge as being incorrect. 
7) Accepting that there is lav davka one single correct hashkofo
8) Receptive to the positive contributions of both EY and the medina, without 
necessarily subscribing to government' hashkfofo.
9) Respect for a wide range of sholars from all stripes, as opposed to the more 
narrow confines of a single yeshiva's hashkofo.
10) A requirement to think and reflect and analyze and contemplate Torah, and 
whenever possible to avoid acceptance on blind faith alone.
11) To confront the challenges of a modern technological society by being as 
well informed and educated as possible

The trade-off is perhaps less rigorous observance, with more rigorous halachic 
and machshovo analysis to back it up, as well as the boldness and courage to 
take stands and to be exposed to alien hashkofos.

In another sense it is more complex, and fraught with "danger", but ideally more
challenging and rewarding.  Therefore MO Yid sees the Torah as superior and si 
not afraid to debate anyone because he feels convinced on every level of its 
correctness and is confient in victory in any given KulturKampf.

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe

IMHO a more rational approach is to say that there are some good points re: Edah
and some questionable ones, and it remains to be seen what they're all about.  
Is jumping to conclusions,  consistent with concepts such as hevu mesunim badin,
be'tzedek tishpot es amisecho, hevei don es kol hodoom lecaf z'chus... etc.? 

OTOH, It's ok to question and debate certain items on the agenda...

One "chareidi" at work already told me, "Boy your list is full of Apikorsus!" 
and that was before any mention of Edah, etc.  "Drocheho darchei Noam..."

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

Mazel Tov To RYGB and the Mishpocho.

BTW, did anyone see the recent USNEWS article re: a certain Shsoshan Bechofer?

R. Wolpoe

In a message dated 1/25/99 5:05:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk writes:

<<  They were
 looking for people with a fire burning within them to learn, and my
 grandfather didn't have it. Nor did he have the kind of extraordinary
 memory and ability to analyze which would have made the grade. What
 about him being part of the cadre even of the learned masses? - well it
 would seem that, by 15, you had enough to put you firmly in that
 category, and that it was time you went out and earnt a living (most of
 the masses having left earlier). So he went off to South Africa and into
 business instead (which was a blessing for the family, including his
 mother, as he managed to bring them out in 1936.
 
 But are you prepared to say that the policies of Rav Kahanaman and
 Ponavich yeshiva (as well as those like it) in those days wrong?
 
 
 Regards
 
 Chana
 
 -- 
 Chana/Heather Luntz
  >>
Dear Chana,
Wrong is a rather strong word. Perhaps given the economic circumstances it was
their best choice for allocating limited resources to unlimited demand(pardon
my secular education but I think that's how Dr. Samuelson defined the study of
economics) . Until such time as there is no limitation on resources(ymot
hamashiach?) , we will always need to deal with this issue. What always
bothers me is not (no offense) your grandfather's case(though I would like to
be able to give those without the fire a chance to develop it a la the year
after high school in Israel miracle) but those who have the fire without the
ability (a miracle in and of itself in our society ). On what basis do we deny
them the right to utilize whatever ability hkb"h gave them?

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

Jordan Hirsch writes: <<
 I dont remember who said that Geula will come when we are more interested in 
our own spiritual well being, and our neighbors physical well being. It seems 
that all too often, we get that idea reversed.<<

I heard besheim Rav Schwab (although it's likely he too was quoting) that the 
defintion of a tsaddisk is someone who is worried about his own ruchniyus and 
the other person's gashmiyus. 

Having had the privilege of being personally acquainted with him, he always 
exhibited "Sever Ponim Yofos" and a kindly attitude towqards others, while 
simultaneously being extremely stringent upon himself.  This is a most difficult
challenge.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

Shocked enough by my esteemed colleague's post to take the time I do not
have to respond!

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> elu va-elu).  But it is the mekubbalim who developed the concept of
> ongoing, progressive revelation.  This is evident in many works of
> kabbalists, including early works, such as the perush of Rabbenu Azriel
> and Sefer Rimmon, and later works, such as the Shelah (citations on
> request).  More recently, Rav Kook put forward the suggestion that
> history itself is part of the Divine revelation.  Thus far traditional
> sources. 
>

Sources please?

Ongoing Sinaitic type revelation? Surely not?

> What Dr. Ross wrote was that, if one accepts R. Kook's idea that human
> history itself reflects a part of Divine revelation, then the feminist
> revolution in Western society is also part of that revelation.  This is
> 

Certainly sounds heretical to me (nebech apikorsus, of course). Why, if
then, is Christianity or Islam not part of that ongoing revelation?


YGB

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

On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 
> One of the posters noted that some of the names associated with Edah are
> at the fringe of Orthopraxy; I would say that they have crossed the
> remotest boundaries.  This is not to say that we should not attempt to
> 

I don't know about R' Berman. His teshuvos on Kol Isha and Ball Playing on
Shabbos are not high points in the history of Halacha, but that is all I
know of him, and cannot know on their basis if he is "arop fun veg."

But - one of the leaders - on the letterhead - of Edah - is Emanuel
Rackman. An organization that can put an individual that scoffs at the
Halachic process in its most sensitive area - is not just ta'un bedikah -
it demands rejection.

Period.

YGB

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

>Although both are progressing nicely, tefillos are always helpful:
>Shoshana Michal bas Rivka Rachel
>Ha'Tinok ben Shoshana Michal.
	Allow me to add my wishes of Mazal Tov and Refuah Sheleimah.  May you be
zoche lehachniso bevriso shel Avraham Avinu be'ito uvizmano (sometimes
the ito uzmano is davka not the 8th day but what is right for him)
ulegadlo leTorah lechupah ulemaasim tovim.

>v'nizke l'gadlo l'Torah l'Chuppa u'l'Ma'asim Tovim, u'l'Hachniso 
>l'Briso
>shel A"A!
	And of course thanks to RYGB for opening a new thread:  does anyone know
why many siddurim have the order in the misheberach with Torah Chupah
Maasim Tovim,  followed by Hachnasa Labris,  when the latter should
certainly be first?   I believe the Artscroll Handbook for Gabboim has it
right,  but their siddur and many others have it in the order described.

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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

I received the following sad e-mail last night:

On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:54:51 EST  SF45678@aol.com wrote:
> Dear everyone,
>	This is very important. The Bostoner Rebbe is in Miami now, and is
>supposed to come to stay at my house on Wednesday. This morning he had a
>parlor meeting and began to feel faint.  He laid down on a bed in the
>house he was at and lost all feeling in his left arm and leg.  He was
>rushed to the hospital where the diagnosis was made: The Rebbe had a
>stroke.  Please say Tehilim for him:  Levi Yitzchak ben Sorah Sasha
>May Hashem answer our tefilos b'shaha tova u'mitzlachas.
>Please pass htis on to whomever you know. Tizku Limitzvos.
> >>   Yael Kahana

Let me assure you that the order in which I wrote was a slip-up, caused,
no doubt, by my expectation that the bris would be delayed (probably to
Sun iy"H). Immediately after sending out the message I realized the error
- but in e-mail "me'uvat lo yuchal litkon!"

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> >v'nizke l'gadlo l'Torah l'Chuppa u'l'Ma'asim Tovim, u'l'Hachniso 
> >l'Briso
> >shel A"A!
> 	And of course thanks to RYGB for opening a new thread:  does
> anyone know why many siddurim have the order in the misheberach with
> Torah Chupah Maasim Tovim, followed by Hachnasa Labris, when the latter
> should certainly be first?  I believe the Artscroll Handbook for Gabboim
> has it right, but their siddur and many others have it in the order
> described. 
> 

YGB

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

The latest news is that the Bostoner Rebbe did not have a stroke. His
lungs were filled with liquid and there were various diagnosis including
exhaustion. He has been released from the hospital.

I am amazed that the editor/moderator of this list allowed the
publication of M. Press's posting (V2,137) attacking various rabbinic
and academic figures. While I applaud E. Clark's reasoned response (V2,
138), I would like to raise another issue, independent of the precise
details of the posting. 

It is quite clear to me that postings on "Avodah" are not simply
semi-private conversations among the list members; rather, they are akin
to lectures open to the general public, since the "Avodah" archives are
accessible to anyone with an internet connection. Doesn't M. Press agree
that some ideas, even if they are true, ought not to be said in public ?
Doesn't he realize that he is "speaking" in public ? Even if M. Press
doesn't agree with the above, doesn't the editor/moderator agree with
this ? DOESN'T ANYBODY AGREE THAT STATEMENTS SUCH AS THOSE MADE BY M.
PRESS, AS WELL AS OTHERS POSTED IN THE RECENT LUBAVITCH CONTROVERSY,
FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE RUBRIC OF "CHILLUL HASHEM" ? How can we allow
this to continue ? How can we be associated with such a list ?

	I ask that anyone who agrees with my umbrage let the editor/moderator
know that such postings are unacceptable to them ! If enough people
object, we can change the tone and content of this list towards a more
positive direction.

Saul Stokar

In a message dated 1/26/99 6:55:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sol@mri.elscint.co.il writes:

<< 
 It is quite clear to me that postings on "Avodah" are not simply
 semi-private conversations among the list members; rather, they are akin
 to lectures open to the general public, since the "Avodah" archives are
 accessible to anyone with an internet connection. Doesn't M. Press agree
 that some ideas, even if they are true, ought not to be said in public ?
 Doesn't he realize that he is "speaking" in public ? Even if M. Press
 doesn't agree with the above, doesn't the editor/moderator agree with
 this ? DOESN'T ANYBODY AGREE THAT STATEMENTS SUCH AS THOSE MADE BY M.
 PRESS, AS WELL AS OTHERS POSTED IN THE RECENT LUBAVITCH CONTROVERSY,
 FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE RUBRIC OF "CHILLUL HASHEM" ? How can we allow
 this to continue ? How can we be associated with such a list ?
 
 	I ask that anyone who agrees with my umbrage let the editor/moderator
 know that such postings are unacceptable to them ! If enough people
 object, we can change the tone and content of this list towards a more
 positive direction.
 
 Saul Stokar >>
Dear Saul,
Welcome to the slippery slope of public speech. While I agree in theory that
there are halachic boundaries which shouldn't be breached, the practical
applications are very difficult. My general take on this list is that we have
articulate voices representing many points on the compass and I would rather
err on the side of honest intellectual discussion(of course without personal
invective). 

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

I'm happy to say I agree with Joel (my first such post this week).

I broached the subject with a few of the long-standanding subscribers of
starting moderation two or three battles ago, when YU was the victim of
diatribe.

The "no!"s were loud and unequivical. It's not the kind of list people want
Avodah to be.

I try to control content by controlling membership. Someone who repeatedly
ignores my reminders to keep to the rules will not stay on the list. So far
I had this happen four times. Two people were evicted (one with much
hullabaloo), the other two were insulted I accused them and left on their
own.


Unfortunately, it appears that being well learned does not necessarily imply
the person has mastered the laws of dibbur on a personal level.

This is a big problem, as it means that by running this list I am probably
over lifnei iver.

It has also been a major problem pragmatically, as these wars of words are
becoming continual. We had a brief respite after YU, then the meshichtzin,
followed by Lubavitch, Chassidus vs. Hisnagdus, and now Eidah and who's off
the edge of Orthodoxy.

To repeat what I said in my last administrative post: such talk is either
motzi shem ra or lashon hara. As it has no impact on our lives on way or
the other, would not be permissable even if it is LH.

We're here to talk ideas, not people.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6072 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 26-Jan-99)
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 ]