Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 141

Thursday, January 28 1999

• Re: Rabbi Rackman and his "cure" for the Agunah problem.
• MO and Mixed swimming
• Re: Rabbi Rackman and his "cure" for the Agunah problem.
• The Rav's Halocho vs. TT
• Definitions of MO
• Re: Giving Discredit Where Discredit is Due
• Re: Giving Discredit Where Discredit is Due
• MO - dangerous?
• Rabbi, The Title
• Re: Giving Discredit Where Discredit is Due
• Re: Giving Discredit Where Discredit is Due
• Rav Aharon Soloveitchik
• More on Avos
• "swing to the right"
• R. Soloveitchik on lamdut, philosophy and mada
• "MO lite"
• Apology

Being new to the list, I'm not sure if this issue has been addressed
previously, but I wonder if anyone has thought of the long term ramifications
of Rabbi Rackman's (or as Rabbi Bechhoffer puts it, (Rabbi) Rackman) solution.
In 20-25 years from now the children of these women from their second husbands
(if they remarry), will be in the market for a Shidduch. Speaking for myself,
(and I imagine many others out there) I can say, that I would not allow my
children date them. After all we are talking about Safek Mamzerim. Classifying
these people as undesirables will almost certainly lead to the creation of yet
another sect of Judaism. They will marry among themselves, socialize among
themselves, daven among themselves and educate thier children among
themselves.  In addition to the Reconstructionist, the Conservative, the
Reform and the Orthodox movement, we can add the Modern Orthodox sect, or if
you prefer , "The Rackman" Jews.
Just a thought, I'd be interested in hearing any comments.

Daniel Lefton
New York, NY

In the recent thread on MO (lite and otherwise), a number of  posters made
offhand references to mixed swimming as something that the " MO lite " do as
something that is clearly assur, and proof of their lax observance of halacha. 
While there is clearly room to be machmir, to view mixed swimming as inherently
assur and "outside the fold" is to be motzi la'az on many  rabbanim, as well as
many  kehillot, both here and in Europe. Current normative behavior in Boro Park
does not define the outer limits of halacha.

While I agree with the distinction between ideological and sociological modern
Orthodox, part of the ideology of Modern Orthodoxy is to encourage participation
in many aspects of the outside world to the extent halachically permissible.
Many of the kulot embraced by many of the MO affect our interactions and ability
to participate more fully in the outside world.   While there are halachic
limits, and ideological MO does not view the search for kulot as the driving
force, it does not necessarily embrace the more machmir position that has
recently become normative.     

This is partially related to the thesis of Rav Haim Soloveichik's article.   It
is clear that there were many halachic areas where entire communities  of
unquestioned piety, including the rabbinic leadership, accepted kulas whose
textual basis may be murky at best.  Most of us continue to eat fish with bones
on Shabbat.  Much of MO has simply maintained similar traditions.

With regard to mixed swimming, my father remembers that in the 1930's, many
rabbanim and admorim from Austria, Hungary, and Galicia went in the summer to
the beaches in Trieste.  While the bikini had not yet been invented, the bathing
suits were roughly of the modesty currently seen in many middle class family
pools (these were not the ankle length suits of the 1890s).  There may have been
rabbanim who objected, but most saw no problem in swimming.

My father's rav from Austria, (name available to the moderator on request) a
musmach of Pressburg, saw no problem in such swimming.  In his community,
everyone went to the (mixed) swimming pool.   He later came to the United
States, where he was prominently involved in chinuch (not MO) for many years. 
He complained to my father in the mid 1950s that the "amaratzim" were trying to
ban most normal social pleasures, such as going to the beach and to the opera
(He continued going to Jones Beach throughout the 1950s, where the standards of
modesty were not significantly different than today.)

My father studied in the late 1930s with a rav, now a well respected rosh
yeshiva (again, name to moderator on request) who also saw no problem with going
mixed swimming, and indeed went to the beach.    (The same rav also actively
participated in, and introduced my father to, mixed circle dancing).

If one would ask many of the older generation in the haredi community, it would
be clear that many (although clearly not all), including rabbanim, went mixed
swimming throughout the 1950s, and even later, and only stopped secondary to
changed communal standards.  This was not just the modern Orthodox.  It is too
easy to bask in our assumed superiority over the Orthodoxy of the 1950s, and not
realize that many of the kulot widely prevalent then were not modern, American
compromises, but have deep roots in European standards.

I understand that given changed standards in the general community, it may be
important to be more machmir on issues of ervah.  Furthermore,   there are
clearly opinions that assur it.  However, there was a well established communal
precedent, sanctioned by many "maaseh ravs" of rabbanim who could not be accused 
that they were otherwise lax in observance,  that this was acceptable behavior. 
Therefore, to view mixed swimming as convincing proof ox lax observance is to be
motzi laaz on all the rabbanim and communities who practiced it.   

 For another example, it is well known that in  Lita, most women, including
rebbitzens, did not cover their hair.   A publisher of one the "biography"
series of gdolim told a friend that they had to retouch many of the photographs,
because the women did not have their hair covered.  I do not know the halachic
basis for this kula.   However, to suggest that what they did was wrong then, or
to criticize a current community for continuing to follow this tradition, seems
to be motzi la'az on many rabbanim and communities.

Thus,  it is legitimate to espouse the more machmir position, and even to
believe that it is mandated by our textual tradition.  However, these off hand
condemnations of those who continue in their established traditions which are
more makil is to be motzi laaz not just on the MO, but on many kehillot in
Europe. The Rambam's admonition in the beginning of Iggeret hashmad has to be
recalled.

Meir Shinnar

In a message dated 1/27/99 11:13:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, LIPPYESQ@aol.com
writes:

<< Being new to the list, I'm not sure if this issue has been addressed
 previously, but I wonder if anyone has thought of the long term ramifications
 of Rabbi Rackman's (or as Rabbi Bechhoffer puts it, (Rabbi) Rackman)
solution.
 In 20-25 years from now the children of these women from their second
husbands
 (if they remarry), will be in the market for a Shidduch. Speaking for myself,
 (and I imagine many others out there) I can say, that I would not allow my
 children date them. After all we are talking about Safek Mamzerim.
Classifying
 these people as undesirables will almost certainly lead to the creation of
yet
 another sect of Judaism. They will marry among themselves, socialize among
 themselves, daven among themselves and educate thier children among
 themselves.  In addition to the Reconstructionist, the Conservative, the
 Reform and the Orthodox movement, we can add the Modern Orthodox sect, or if
 you prefer , "The Rackman" Jews.
 Just a thought, I'd be interested in hearing any comments.
 
 Daniel Lefton
 New York, NY
 
  >>
And of course for the sake of completeness lets not forget the heter meah
rabbanan jews. What about descendants of baalei tshuva(never liked that term
because I hope it describes all of us) or baalei tshuva themselves in many
circles? What about those who had prenupital agreements....
I don't at all mean to belittle your concern, it is a real one but also a
subset of a much bigger issue.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Here's is my summary of my impression of the Rav's hashkofo...

1)  Learning itself  - the process that is - is a necessary step in 
shleimus/deveikus/avoda/.  IMHO the Rav didn't publish (much) becasue people 
would focus on the conclusions and not the procedure. It is the effort and 
energy in understanding, debating, and clarifying that engages the intellect in 
Avodas Hashem.  It might be an intellectual's version of "meditation".  The 
actual maskono is not the ikkar - within this paradigm.  The process of using 
kol kocho, of focus one's mental facutlties on learning - whether it be chumash,
gemoro or kinos of tish'o b'av - THAT is the ikkar TT.  (This can be corelated 
to the Nishma in Naase v'Nishma...) 

2) Outside of the world of learning, there is the world of behaving - olom 
ho'asiyo.  In that realm, it is Halocho which guides us - not only in our bottom
line slection of what to do, but in our day-to-day mintue to minute hahskofo of 
how we approach doing.  This halochocism (to coin a new term) is THE Jewish way 
<pun intended> to higher consciousness.  The constant awareness of what halocho 
says...

Which is MORE important.  I have no clue.  I think the Rav himself would have 
accentuated one aspect in 1 essay and the other in another essay.  Again, I am 
NOT the definitive expert on the Rav, this is based on a general gestalt from 
hims and via his Talmidim

I have a bit more on this, perhaps later BEH.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

>>
The problem with trying to define MO is that there are too many factions 
within it and some of your points could apply to other forms of 
Orthodoxy (Such as points 10 and 11)  It is well known that Rav Heineman 
of Baltimore is a world clas Auto Mechanic,  and that R, Shlomo Zalmen 
Auerbach, ZTL was an expert in certain areas of physics. Neither of them 
could be classified as MO.

HM<<

Ein hochi nami.  I was sensitive to that fact and my hakdomo was this is what it
means TO ME.

BTW I was a talmid of Rav Heinemann, he might not be MO, but he is definitely 
WORDLY.  As such, he really doesn't quite fit into anyone's definition of any 
camp.  He has at least soem shaychus to All of the above.  I would accuse R. 
Moshe F. also as being above the fray, look at his sons and his son-in-law.  And
as far as I know they had basic Sholom.

In general, the really true Gedolim transcend labels.  I would put R. Heinemann 
in the transcendent category.  There are/were others.

BTW See Dr.Joe Kaminetzky's auto-biography.  It is a masterpiece of how a 
quasi-MO dealt withthe yeshivish world.  I had previously considered R. Aaron 
Kotler as a Kanoi, after that book, I realized he was rodesh sholom in many 
aspects of Orthodox communal life.

And the Rav was not a simple MO either.  Many of his talmidim will confirm that,
too.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoie

 Rav Yosef Gavriel,   

 I cannot resist responding. You do not seem to have kovod hatorah.
 The word "hakoton" is a play on the name Klein. In Yiddish Klein
 means little. This and "meshane halochot" is the technique of the
 jealous yeshivah bochurim who still are wet behind the ears to
 pick on people way over their stature.  These remarks are childish and plain 
 insulting.He is a godol batorah. Most
 of your remarks are Loshon Horo and motzih shem rah. It appears
 that you said "alleged". Then why without proof do you dare talk like 
 this. He denied his involvement in kedushe ketanoh. Anyone can call
 (and they do) a godol and then put words in their mouths. it happened
 to Reb Moshe. Even the heter "meah rabonim" we don't know much
 about. Everything is gossip and fighting. He is a posek, people rely
 on him. Maybe, he knows what he is doing (lehalacha)?

 Rav Yosef Gavriel. I am surprised at you. You are a polemicist and a
 Don Quixote all wrapped up in one. Sometimes you have a good issue.
 But, you lose it when you don't know where to stop. Even Reb Eliezer
 Hagodol who was excommunicated could only be told by Reb Akivah.
 When you pick on Rabbi Rackman be careful. He is wrong lehalacha 
 but still a Rabbi (you cannot remove his semicha) and a person. The 
 SA in hilchos talmud torah teaches us how to handle Talmide Chachomim
 who are deviating. They have to handled a little better. Probably, not on
 Avodah@aishdas.org. I suggest the RCA and those Rabonim
 like Rabbi Broyde  who must deal with it should do the appropriate
advertising.
 The advertisement is necessary, but this mailing list does not reach the
 audience that has a need to know.

 But, now you are picking on a godol batorah; a mefursom who does need
 our approval. Unbelievable. You need proof before you start, then you must
 present it and then maybe others might disagree with your self appointed
court.
 Remember "lechishoson lechishas akrov". Please be careful with whom
 you start.

__________________________________________________________________________-

At 05:27 PM 1/27/99 -0600, you wrote:
>While we are still on the topic of "Edah" and (Rabbi) Rackman, it behooves
>us to note that there is a figure on the other end of the spectrum who
>should be publicly excoriated: (Rabbi) Menashe Klein, who aptly signs
>himself as "HaKatan", author of She'eilos u'Teshuvos Mishne Halachos,
>known in some circles as the "Meshane Halachos". Klein allegedly was the
>resource for the "Kiddushei Ketana" Chillul Shem Shomayim of several years
>ago and serves now as the resource to allow "Heter Me'ah Rabbanim"'s to be
>issued without allowing the wife access to her get. Individuals would be
>well advised not to rely l'halacha on anything such a person writes in
>his seforim. As R' Broyde noted yesterday, not every distortion of Halacha
>makes one a heretic, but there are several other choice categories in
>which to place such people...
>
>YGB
>
>Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
>Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
>ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 

I am surprised at you!

How can we be sillent b'makom Chillul Hashem? Ein cholkin kavod l'Rav!

Evil must be excoriated!

"U'bi'arta ha'ra mikirbecha!"

> 
>  Rav Yosef Gavriel,   
> 
>  I cannot resist responding. You do not seem to have kovod hatorah.
>  The word "hakoton" is a play on the name Klein. In Yiddish Klein
>  means little. This and "meshane halochot" is the technique of the
>  jealous yeshivah bochurim who still are wet behind the ears to
>  pick on people way over their stature.  These remarks are childish and plain 
>  insulting.He is a godol batorah. Most
>  of your remarks are Loshon Horo and motzih shem rah. It appears
>  that you said "alleged". Then why without proof do you dare talk like 
>  this. He denied his involvement in kedushe ketanoh. Anyone can call
>  (and they do) a godol and then put words in their mouths. it happened
>  to Reb Moshe. Even the heter "meah rabonim" we don't know much
>  about. Everything is gossip and fighting. He is a posek, people rely
>  on him. Maybe, he knows what he is doing (lehalacha)?
> 
>  Rav Yosef Gavriel. I am surprised at you. You are a polemicist and a
>  Don Quixote all wrapped up in one. Sometimes you have a good issue.
>  But, you lose it when you don't know where to stop. Even Reb Eliezer
>  Hagodol who was excommunicated could only be told by Reb Akivah.
>  When you pick on Rabbi Rackman be careful. He is wrong lehalacha 
>  but still a Rabbi (you cannot remove his semicha) and a person. The 
>  SA in hilchos talmud torah teaches us how to handle Talmide Chachomim
>  who are deviating. They have to handled a little better. Probably, not on
>  Avodah@aishdas.org. I suggest the RCA and those Rabonim
>  like Rabbi Broyde  who must deal with it should do the appropriate
> advertising.
>  The advertisement is necessary, but this mailing list does not reach the
>  audience that has a need to know.
> 
>  But, now you are picking on a godol batorah; a mefursom who does need
>  our approval. Unbelievable. You need proof before you start, then you must
>  present it and then maybe others might disagree with your self appointed
> court.
>  Remember "lechishoson lechishas akrov". Please be careful with whom
>  you start.
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________-
> 
> At 05:27 PM 1/27/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >While we are still on the topic of "Edah" and (Rabbi) Rackman, it behooves
> >us to note that there is a figure on the other end of the spectrum who
> >should be publicly excoriated: (Rabbi) Menashe Klein, who aptly signs
> >himself as "HaKatan", author of She'eilos u'Teshuvos Mishne Halachos,
> >known in some circles as the "Meshane Halachos". Klein allegedly was the
> >resource for the "Kiddushei Ketana" Chillul Shem Shomayim of several years
> >ago and serves now as the resource to allow "Heter Me'ah Rabbanim"'s to be
> >issued without allowing the wife access to her get. Individuals would be
> >well advised not to rely l'halacha on anything such a person writes in
> >his seforim. As R' Broyde noted yesterday, not every distortion of Halacha
> >makes one a heretic, but there are several other choice categories in
> >which to place such people...
> >
> >YGB
> >
> >Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> >Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> >ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> > 
> 

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:51:34 -0800
From: "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org> 
Subject: MO lite---doxy vs praxy
>> Thus my original concern for the outer limits of MO. I would think it's a 
slippery slope. <<

Ein hochi nami, IMHO, MO flirts with a certain danger.  It is not for everyone. 

Then again, Kollel is not for every frum yid, and neither is Kabbolo.  Certain 
derochim might be legit for some and not for otehrs.

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe

RYGB may his new son live and be well at 120 writes:
>>ertainly, to call such a person "Rabbi" is a mockery of the
term <<

As I recall R. Tukachinsky (sp?) in his hakdomo to Gesher Hachayim dicusses 
putting the title Rov on his matzeivo.  While he humbly doesn't think it applies
to him, he acknowledges that it was seriously being abused anyway...IOW misuing 
the title rabbi goes back a long time...

Regards,
Rich W. 

 To micha,

  Please read our interchange and arbitrate off line.
  Thank you.

 Rabbi Beilin


 Prove what you said. You have not answered a single remark of mine.  
 Who gave you a heter to do this?

 You claim he is evil. And, there is no proof that a single
 allegation is correct. Saying "meshane halochot" and
 Klein is baby talk that has nothing to do with any issue. It is
 cheap tactics only meant to lower him in our eyes.

 Again, I want Micha to stop you and apologize on this
 list for your chutzpah. Without proof you could not even start.


At 08:40 AM 1/28/99 -0600, you wrote:
>I am surprised at you!
>
>How can we be sillent b'makom Chillul Hashem? Ein cholkin kavod l'Rav!
>
>Evil must be excoriated!
>
>"U'bi'arta ha'ra mikirbecha!"
>
>> 

It's really not my place to arbitrate arguments.

I will, however, demand for the Nth time: DO NOT DISCUSS, PARTICULARLY
DISPARAGE, PEOPLE ON AVODAH! Particularly since it's assur regardless of
venue. We have no need-to-know, even if it's true, you're causing roughly
200 people to read lashon hara, or avak L"H.

How would you feel if you caused 200 people to ch"v be mechallel Shabbos?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6074 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 28-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I was asked to pass on to the olam that rav Aharon fell ill and checked
into a hospital.  Tehillim are requested - Aharon be Pesha.

Moshe Luchins

Actually more on Maseches Avos! <g>
Here is the first half of the outline of a recent lecture I gave in Teaneck 
Motsoai shabbos P. Vo'eiro:

 Following Passover,   there is a custom to recite one or more chapters from 
Maseches Avos.  During the weekly classes at Congregation Ohav Sholaum  , 
several points evolved into a new understanding  regarding  the history of this 
most popular Masechto.

     
 Questions:

1. What does the name Avos mean?   If it means "ancestors", how is it that the 
first quoted Ancestor from Anshei Kenesses haGedolo and not include Avrohom, 
Moshe, etc.?  It is obvious from the text, that all ancestors prior to Anshei 
Kenesses haGedolo are virtually ignored.

2. What is meant by the Mishno stating:  Moshe Kibel Torah Misinai when Hashem 
gave him the Torah? Furthermore,  Bamidbor and Devorim came after Sinai?  In 
other words what  specific transmission took place At sinai and NOT later?

3. The Mishneh states Moshe.. umesoro LeeHoshua.  Didn't  Moshe give the Torah 
to ALL of Yisroel?   As it says: Vezos Hatoroh _ Lifnei Benei Yisroel?  And 
Tzivo Lonu Moshe, Morosho Kehilas Yaakov? IOW: what "Torah" was given to 
Yehoshua that was NOT given to all of Yisroel.

4. What is the connection between Avos and Seder Nezikin? 

5. How did it come about that Avos is learned publicly?

6. What is the significance of  introducing each perek by the Mishno Col Yisroel
Yesh Lohem_? What is the specific connection is there between this Mishno from 
Sanhedrin and  Avos.  That is since it is NOT an intrinsic part of Avos, why is 
it added in the public learning of Avos?

 Alan Davidson <DAVIDSON@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU> writes:

> I think the issue is that there has been a
>rightward shift and a lot of things which used to be construed as optional
>are now default -- even in some very modern circles -- men wearing yarmulkes
>all the time, married women covering their heads, cholov Isroel and Pas
Yisroel
>unless one's rav gives a heter otherwise, etc.

While there has been much discussion of a swing to the right, and Alan's
comments are very much in place, I think some distinctions should be
kept in mind.

I believe it is generally accepted that the average standard of halakhic
observance and the level of Jewish knowledge and learning in American
Orthodoxy have risen considerably in the last 30 years.  I cannot think
of this development as anything but wonderful.

Alan's post alludes to a less desirable aspect of this phenomenon.  In
many cases, the heightened observance is fueled by social factors,
rather than religious ones.  In practice this results in a certain
skewing of priorities.  If I adopt a certain hanhagah because of social
pressure, it is more likely that the hanhagah in question will be a
public one.  As a result, we have seen a move toward humra in areas of
dress and kashrut, while less visible mitvot -- and especially hovot
ha-levavaot -- are often neglected.

Just look, for example, at Alan's list.  As anyone with a knowledge of
Halakha will attest, the issues of yarmulke and women's hair covering
are worlds apart halakhically speaking.  There are also important
differences between halav Yisrael and pat Yisrael.

More striking, while people are quick to adopt a kashrut standard
dwarfing the demands of the Shulhan Arukh, we are witnessing a
willingness to judge and shun people in a very unhalakhic manner on the
basis of dress, occupation and other utterly superficial categories.
This is not a swing to the right, but a swing to the wrong.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Elie Ginsparg asks (again)

>Is the Rav's focus really Halacha, which would
>exclude classical lomdus as it isn't really essential to halacha, and
>would also make the Rav a great supporter of the Baal shem tov who also
>told his Talmidim to learn halach and not lomdus (such halacha based study
>could also be termed talmud Torah). Or does the Rav really advocate in
>depth
>learning whteher or not it leads to Halacha, as long as it's not kabballa
>or maybe aggadaic (I don't know the Rav shittos on learning aggadata in
>depth), and the above is being excluded with the term HAlacha.

Firstly, one must understand that the commmitment of R. Solovetichik
(the "Rav") to lamdut is unquestionable.
I would say that your question sets up a dichotomy that the Rav did not
recognize.  You distinguish sharply between halacha and lamdut, the way
a yeshiva might set aside part of a seder yom for iyyun and another part
for learning Mishnah Berurah.  In the Rav's writings, however (and
presumably, in his own mind), no such division exists.  The application
of lamdut to the laws of shomerim, kiddush ha-hodesh, or keriat shema --
is nothing if not the study of Halakhah.  Indeed, as I understand it,
quite early in his tenure at Yeshiva University, the Rav gave an iyyun
shiur in Hullin.  This is not to say that, when he gave shiur on
Massekhet Shabbat, he followed each sugya through to the Mishnah Berurah
(as one of his talmidim does).  The Rav was willing to derive practical
halakhic conclusions from lamdut, but (in keeping with his family
mesorah) he loved Torah lishmah.  For the most part, his iyyun shiurim
did not address halakah le-ma'aseh.

Caveat: much of the above is derived from second-hand knowledge.  I
welcome correction (or corroboration) from those who know better.

>Furthermore, what else is being excluded with this approach--is Mussar
>excluded (posters have said earliar that mussar isn't talmud Torah and it
>doesn't seem to be halacha), maybe one doesn't need mussar because he's so
>engrossed in Halacha/Talmud Torah.

There is a striking passage in the Rav's Ish ha-Halakhah, where he tells
a story about his father and himself.  The Rav entered shul before
davening on erev Rosh ha-Shanah (or perhaps Yom Kippur, I forget) and
found the tzibbur reciting Tehillim.   He joined them.  When his father
came in, he told the Rav to set aside the tehillim and pick up a Gemara.

This approach is consistent with the classic Litvak view; R. Hayyim
Volozhin is reported to have told R. Yisrael Salanter that he would not
introduce mussar in to his yeshivah, because you don't give medicine to
a person who isn't sick.

So, to the degree that the Rav was a Litvak and a Brisker, he recognized
that talmud Torah can be the best mussar.  On the other hand, the Rav
had a strong inclination toward philosophy, and this clearly served as a
complement to his lamdut and his avodat Hashem.

Is there a paradox in this?  If so, it is not the only one in the Rav's
thought.  But this paradox may have a resolution.  In his conclusion to
(the inaptly titled) Halakhic Mind, the Rav speaks of deriving
philosophy FROM Halakhah.  He does  this in practice throughout his
writings: in effect "darshening" various principles of Halakhah.  Thus,
the Rav saw Halakhah as embodying philosophical truth (more precisely,
ontological truth).

> In addition, where does Madda fit in,
>is
>it Torah, Halacha or something else. If it's something else where exactly
>does it fit in, and if it's Torah, do you get knowledge of Hashem the
>same way out of Torah as out of Madda. My interest has been stimulated
>by Mr. Wolpoe's post, please provide some of the answers.

It is ironic that the Rav, considered by votaries of Torah u-Madda the
embodiment of that philosophy, did not per se address the issue of madda
study and its place in one's avodat Hashem.  Philosophically, he
considered part of man's divine mandate to master the physical universe
("mile'u at ha-aretz ve-khivshuha"), and the study of madda is an
essential part of that quest.  (Note too that the Rav was a great
student of mathematics and saw a parallel between its abstract
structures and the abstract rules of Halakhah.)  In short, he offers no
systematic defense of madda study (though one of his talmidim has), and,
it seems, he felt no need to.  For him it was the most natural thing to
do.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Saul Newman asks:

>But my concern is that if you combine
>practitioners  who are 'lite' on the 'praxy' part  with  clergy who are very
>liberal on the 'doxy' part , would that not cast doubt on the benefit of
>such an endeavor? from a sociological point of view, i can't imagine the
>children in such an atmosphere remaining in such a shitah. Thus my original
>concern for the outer limits of MO. I would think it's a slippery slope.

As R. Carmy noted in the name of R. Lictenstein, we should be far more
concerned about the doxus than the praxis.  There is far more to be lost
by questioning Torah mi-Sinai than by going mixed swimming.

As for those who are lax in observance, I assume the MO leadership is
working to improve things.  It has been suggested on this list that that
is one of the goals of Edah.  Indeed, I was told that several of the
speakers at last year's feminism conference (including, I think, R.
Berman) told the married women that they should be covering their hair.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I apologize for using such strong language, readily subject to
misinterpretation, as I did in my response to R' Beilin, in our public
forum.

I had thought that R' Beilin's message to me, by its tone, was a private
one. I responded in a manner fitting for private correspondence, not for
public consumption.

Let me, therefore note, that the use of the term "evil" and the pasuk of
"u'bi'arta" were both meant figuratively, not literally.

I will, at the listowner's behest, not write more on the topic. But a word
on responsibility:

As a prominent member of our list, whom I deeply respect, pointed out to
me in a phone conversation yesterday, those in the "camp" with which
I am "identified" need to repudiate Chillul Hashem caused in sectors to
the "right" of ourselves, not just to the "left". The individual I scored
yesterday was one we discussed explicitly.

Micha's vision of Avodah - which I accept, and will therefore adhere to
his rules - differs from my own - and that of R' Beilin. I perceive this
group - the creme de la creme of the Orthodox World Online - as a Kotzker
Beis Medrash. A place for birur ha'emes in Avodas Hashem and related areas
across the scope of Orthodoxy. It is, in fact, one of the few places where
we "congregate" from across the spectrum and discuss, debate and clarify.
As R' Dessler writes about "dor shekulo chayav, dor shekulo zakkai",
Ikvesa d'Meshicha demands birurim - because the "Olam ha'Sheker" is so
strong. Whatever our scope, may we in Avodah be zocheh l'varrer Emes and
be Mekadesh Shem Shomayim - and reject Chillul Hashem, ad ki yavo Shilo!

YGB

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

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


[ 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 ]