Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 143

Friday, January 29 1999

• R' Soloveitchik
• Piskei halakha
• tithing salt
• Re: Irv Greenberg
• Re: Learning Halacha
• Re: MO and Mixed swimming
• Re: History and halakha
• Re: Irv Greenberg
• Tefilla
• RE: Avodah V2 #142
• More on Avos - the Answers
• Re: Tefilla
• Judging actions, judging men
• Progressive Revelation
• Re: MO - slippery slope
• mixed swimming
• Re: credit and discredit

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

I cannot correct or comment, having learned at YU after the Rav was no longer
there.   I would only add that those who are interested in the Rav's hashkafa
and lomdus should begin by reading first hand his writings - Ish HaHalacha,
Lonely Man of Faith, and U' Bikashtem MiSham for starters.  The hesped of the
Rav for the Brisker Rav (published in Divrei Hashkafa) is a poignant picture
of the Rav's views of lomdus.  

-CB

Shaya Beilin asks (for a second time)

YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT RAV KLEIN'S PESOKIM.
I SUGGEST THAT YOU BACK THIS UP. PERHAPS, I COULD TRY AND
CLARIFY SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS. IF WE STILL HAVE AN ISSUE
THEN WE CAN WRITE HIM OR CALL HIM. I AM WILLING TO, IF YOU
WANT. [snip]
I HAVE READ A LOT OF HIS TESHUVOT  (NOT RECENTLY) AND HAVE
NOT FOUND MUCH OUT OF LINE.

First, I appreciate your offer of help.  But I do not think your
clarification will be of much assistance.  Nor do I think that calling
him will clear things up.  My concern relates to his overall derekh in
pesak, as reflected in his teshuvot.

I begin, by way of introduction, with a word about pesak.  I have always
thought that the process of pesak involves the conscientious sifting of
sources and weighing of precedent in an honest quest for amitah shel
Torah.  Such a process cannot have a foreordained conclusion.  For this
reason, I have always read with skepticism the so-called responsa
written by certain Conservative "rabbis."  In my experience, their
conclusions are always lenient, and one often senses then straining for
a desired conclusion.  In my view, this is not pesak.  If anything, it
is more like an attorney's legal brief, submitted to justify a position.

Now to R. Klein.  I have not made a systematic study of the Mishneh
Halakhot.  Such a study would take weeks, if not months, as there are
some 12 volumes of teshuvot.  Nevertheless, over the years I have read a
fair number of his teshuvot on any number of issues.  Without exception,
I have always found him coming to the same conclusion.  Just as certain
Conservatives can be expected reliably to mattir, R. Klein is reliably
oser.  Every time.  In my view, this is not pesak.

Now someone may feel that in this sinful age, surrounded as we are by
giluy arayot and  shefikhut damim, it is appropriate to live a life
fenced in by humra.  This is a defensible philosophical position, but it
is not a halakhic one.  Thus (and I know this sounds presumptuous), I
have a lot of trouble taking R. Klein seriously as a posek.  This is not
to imply that he does not know a lot of Torah.  He does, and one can
learn a lot from reading his teshuvot.  But the predictability of his
conclusions runs contrary to the canons of pesak halakhah as I
understand them.

Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,

Eli Clark

Micha Berger asks:

> Subject: Ma'aser Kisafim
> 
> A thought hit me last night.
> 
> Roman soldiers were paid in salt, which is the origin of the English
> expression "worth his salt". 
> 
> This little factoid affects how we understand a medrash. Eisav attempts
> to impress Yitzchak by asking if ma'aser should be given on salt. He's
> asking about ma'aser k'safim! 

Does this possibly give us a different perspective on Eisav's motives in
asking the question?! 

Freda Birnbaum, fbb6@columbia.edu

If anyone picked up a copy of last week's Forward, there was an interesting
blurb about Irv Greenbergs last book. (I'm not even going to attempt to put
Rabbi in front of the name of such a deplorable individual). Apparantly Irv
thinks that ever since the Holocaust, the Jewish people are no longer required
to ask forgiveness from Hashem but rather Hashem must seek forgiveness from us
for the evils of the Holocaust. While I don't have a copy of the paper in
front of me, I think his exact words were that G-d should "beg" our
forgiveness.
      I happen to live in the same community as the Greenbergs. I see this man
and his wife coming out of the (so called) Jewish Center on the Upper West
Side of Manahattan every week. I call on Rabbi J.J. Shachter ( the Rabbi of
the shul) to make a brave and courageous move and ask this apikores and his
wife to stay out of his shul.
Just a thought, I'd be interested in any comments.

I once heard that Irv and Blu advocated getting rid of the Zayin Nekiim (7
pure days following Niddah). Has anyone else heard that?

Daniel Lefton
New York City, NY

It's been a rough month for this list!  The last fifty issues or so
remind me of a line I heard in the name of the Alter of Slabodka.  He was
speaking about the mishna in Avos which deals with machlokes l'shem
shamayim and lo l'shem shamayim.  He said "It's still possible in our day
and age to have a true machlokes l'shem shamayim...but it won't last
longer than two minutes."  Anyway....

I would like to ask the esteemed members of the list their opinion of
something I read in the name of the Vilna Gaon, quoted in the "Hilchos
Ha'Gra U'Minhagav" by Rav Shternbuch.  He writes: (free yeshivish
translation)

"One who learns Kitzur Dinim and is not m'ayin in the entire halacha and
its source is a ramai and in the end will forget everything." 

What does that say about kitzur s'forim such as the kitzur SH"A and the
Chayei Adam.  Is it wrong to rely on them?  Are we all expected to go
thru shas-rishonim?  And could this gra be the reason the Chofetz Chaim
chose the format he did for the Mishna Brura? 

Raffy
___________________________________________________________________
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]

In a message dated 1/28/99 6:32:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, C-
Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< There is an issur to intend to benefit from looking at a women. I believe
 this applies to the pinky finger. There are a myriad of other problems
 with looking at ervah-regardless of intent. Rav Moshe has a teshuva (I'll
 look it up if I have to but othrewise trust me) whether or not it is an
 inyun of yaharog val yavor to go to a beach. (he poskens it's not--but
 it's still assur) I believe the burden of proof is on those who want to
 justify the practice, not the ones who say it's assur. Hiding behind what
 others did doesn't seem justified in this case, one must understand the
 reasons of the past and see if they really are comparable nowadays.
 Otherwise this appears like another way to justify basic Taavah. (much
 like the justifications for going to movies---I'm sure everyone can find
 some
 gadol who went to a movie in the 50's ...but that's another issue.)
 Elie Ginsparg
  >>
Dear Elie,
Would this extend to a walk on the boardwalk on a shabbat afternoon or a walk
anywhere in NYC(or any city, state, county park etc) in the summer etc??

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS Why does everyone describe the issur as mixed swimming?

In a message dated 1/28/99 8:33:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< 
 If the Zionists were shown retroactively to have made the better
 decision than the Jews who stayed behind, that can be characterized as
 sound political judgement, yad Hashem or dumb luck.   But it has nothing
 to do with "paskening" or with halakhic principles.
 
 As I said in my earlier post, if we reject this idea as applied to
 Halakhah, then kal va-homer with respect to hashkafah.
 
 Kol tuv,
 
 Eli Clark
  >>
Dear Eli, 
I am only a 'bookcase' so let me quote from The Rav(Soloveichik) in "The Rav
Speaks"(Chamesh Drashot) originally delivered in Yiddish to Mizrachi.

'If I now identify withthe Mizrachi, against my family tradition, it is only
because , as previously clarified, I feel that divine providence ruled like
"Joseph" and against his brothers; that he employs secular Jews as instruments
to bring to fruition His great plans regarding the land of Israel.'

I'd be glad to copy the whole essay for you.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 1/28/99 9:48:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, LIPPYESQ@aol.com
writes:

<< If anyone picked up a copy of last week's Forward, there was an interesting
 blurb about Irv Greenbergs last book. (I'm not even going to attempt to put
 Rabbi in front of the name of such a deplorable individual). Apparantly Irv
>>

How about a compromise, we call everyone with smicha from a recognized
institution by the title R' or Rabbi and then caveat that we don't agree with
many of his pskei dinim or hashkafot etc.  If that doesn't work, we can create
a committee to determine the proper titling structure:-)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

R' Beilin has written much to critique the current state of Tefillo in Am
Yisroel. Justifiably so - although, I hasten to add, most of us here are
probably aware of the R' Chaim on tzvei dinim in kavana.

Hey, why don't we as a group be mekkabel to daven some tefilla a day with
kavana yeseira? Sounds corny, but Avodah is Avodah!

Ideas?

YGB

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

>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:01:00 -0500
>From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
>Subject: progressive revelation -- ?? what does this mean??
>
>It seems that R. Kook took this farther and suggested that historical
>events can also be seen as part of this process.  I have not seen his
>words inside, but I imagine he viewed the return to Zion in his day as
>something more than a migration of people.  He saw Hashem's voice, as it
>were, in the movement of hundreds and thousands of Jews back to Eretz
>Yisrael.  The kibbutz galuyot was not merely a fulfillment of Hashem's
>promise; it was part of that promise, a pulsing expression of devar
>Hashem through the hands that steered the plows and sowed the fields of
>Eretz Yisrael.  (Note that I am substituting eloquence for information;
>anyone who is familiar with R. Kook's actual statements on this issue is
>invited to clarify his views.)

Actually, my daughter recently gave me her notes on how Rav Tzvi Yehudah 
Kook viewed the return:  In essence, till a certain historical point in 
time, only jews who came by themselves succeeded in settling in Israel.  
Once groups succeeded (Talimidei Ha'Gra, I think) - it meant a change had 
come and it started the time of Kibbutz Galuyot - when the children of 
Israel were supposed to return to Israel.   The terms used "Va'Havi'otime" 
and similar ones all through the Nivi'im are double edged:  if you are aware 
- you will come by yourselves.  And if not "I will bring you" - by kicking 
you out (sometimes violently) from your present places in the world.  Here 
in Israel this is very visible as for the last 150 years jews have been 
coming to Israel in waves, some like the Yeminites were loaded onto planes 
and came without further ado.  Some came running away from anti-semitism (a 
wave came from various South American coutries about 30-25 years ago b/c of 
persecution) and so on and so forth around the globe.

>In any case, viewing a historical development as an extension of mattan
>Torah is a fairly bold innovation.  Far more radical is to apply this
>notion to historical developments that run contrary to traditional Torah
>concepts, such as feminism.  It is a way of saying that Hashem's will,
>as reflected in the Torah, was that men and women would behave in a
>certain way for thousands of years, but then this ongoing mattan Torah
>modifies (halilah) the terms of the Torah and calls for sexual equality.

There is another way of viewing the issue of feminism.  If we take the 
historical context of feminism and compare the plight of women pre-feminism 
with Jewish halacha and philosophy we can find some interesting information.

True, nowadays, it appears that feminism is calling for a contra-Torah 
sexual equality.  But where did they come from?  Let's look back just 100 
years ago in England.  The way the law worked then, a man could take his 
wife to the market place;  Sell her - and use the money to get drunk in the 
local pub.  Women couldn't own property, or at least they couldn't buy or 
sell it without a signature of a responsible male.  The issue of marital 
rape has been recognized by English law only during the 2nd half of this 
century.

Compare this with Torah law.  For all that people like to use the catch 
phrase "he owns her" to describe the jewish marriage - the jewish male not 
only can't sell his wife - he is ordered to pay a ransom if she is 
kidnapped;  There are reports in the G'mara of women carrying out financial 
transactions (borrowing money against the Ketuba etc.) without reference to 
the need for a male to contersign.  Marital rape comes under the heading of 
"living with a snake" which is an ancient recognized reason for paskening 
for a Chiyuv Get when requested.

The issue that now feminism calls for eqality while ignoring the uniqueness 
of each gender can be understood under the heading of the Rambam's Golden 
Path (note that Rav Kook followed the Rambam's philosophy) - when something 
is far off the track to one side, sometimes when trying to correct things, 
and gain the Golden Path (create a balance), things are tipped over to the 
other side (i.e. equality while ignoring uniqueness) before they swing back 
on to the correct path.

So there is a historical perspective that we can use to see the greatness of 
Torah, the concept of "Histakel Ba'Torah U'Varah Alma" (which is a basis of 
much of the Rav Kook's philosophy) and the revelation of how the world 
slowly but surely, comes closer to how Hashem decreed things should be.  

Shoshana


-------------------------------------
Name: Shoshana L. Boublil
E-mail: toramada@mail.netvision.net.il
Date: 29/01/99
Time: 08:49:46 AM , Israel

This message was sent by Chameleon 
-------------------------------------
Torah U'Madah Ltd. is developing a DB on the topic:
"Environmental issues and the Halacha (Jewish Law)"
any and all related information would be welcome.

The Answers

     By way of background, it will be helpful to view the separate tractate Avos
as an evolving document, instead of it being separated into its own tractate  by
Rebbe - the editor of the Mishno.

1. However, Avos refers to a position, that is Av Beis Din.  This maseches is 
specifically geared to the Avod Beis Din thoughout our history. (Another 
possiblity it that Avos means "principles", for example, Arbo'o Avos neizkin, Av
melocho, etc., but, I prefer the first answer.)

2. Regardless of what Torah was received at Sinai as opposed to what was 
received later, Moshe received the position of Av Beis Din at Sinai.  This 
dovetails well with the those who date the the "mimochoros"  in Yisro as the day
following Mattan Torah.

3. Specifically he gave to Yehoshua not the body of the Torah, rather the 
administration, or the authority of the Torah.  Yehoshua was Moshe's successor 
as "Trustee" of the Torah.  While all of Israel could learn the Torah, and had 
to follow the Torah, only Yehoshua, and his successors were responsible for 
adjudicating, legislating, and administering the Torah.

4. Since it refers to the guidelines and the wisdom of Avos Beis Din, therefore 
it is connected to Tractate Sanhedrin. 

5. Col Yisroel indicates a tremendous paradigm shift.  That which was the 
private province of the Avos Beis Din is now being taught to and learned by ALL 
of Israel.  This paradigm shift is hinted at by the dictum of the Anshei Knesses
hagdolo -Ha'amidu Talmidim Harbei.  As a reaction to the Babylonian exile, the 
Beis Din was concerned that if a future exile were to occur, all of the Torah 
theory could be lost since it was concentrated into a small elite body.  The 
solution was to disseminate Torah widely, in order to preserve the tradition and
not to keep all of the Mesorah's proverbial eggs in one basket.  

6. The Mishne Kol Yisroel serves to underline the paradigm shift.  Avos is no 
longer the exclusive province of Avos Besi Din, but now becomes the possesion of
all of Israel. Also see the connection above to Tractate Sanhedrin. 

At 10:44 PM 1/28/99 -0600, you wrote:
>R' Beilin has written much to critique the current state of Tefillo in Am
>Yisroel. Justifiably so - although, I hasten to add, most of us here are
>probably aware of the R' Chaim on tzvei dinim in kavana.
>
THAT IS NOT QUITE WHAT I WAS DOING. I WAS TRYING TO SHOW
THAT BOTH THE NH AND THE BAAL HATANYA HAD MAPPED OUT
A DERECH TO ACHIEVE THIS. SO TO COMMENT ON YOUR NEXT
PARAGRAPH-WHY REINVENT THE WHEEL.

THE SA PASKENS AS FOLLOWS. THE MECHABER BRINGS THE 
FIRST DIN THAT IF WE DO NOT HAVE KAVONOH ON THE FIRST 
BEROCH WE MUST REPEAT THE SHEMONO ESREH. THE RAMAH
SAYS DON'T BOTHER. YOU WON'T GET IT RIGHT THE SECOND TIME.
MANY POSKIM ASK - THAT IF SO HOW ARE WE ALLOWED TO DO
IT THE FIRST TIME. SEE THE MEFORSHIM. SOME REMAIN BY A ZORICH IYUN.

THIS REMINDS ME OF THE WELL KNOWN JOKE. THEY SAY THAT THE 
BAAL SHEM TOV WAS TESTED BY SOME MISNAGDIM TO SEE IF HW
WAS A TALMID CHOCHOM. THE RUMOR WAS (PUK CHAZI) THAT HE
WAS AN AM HOORETZ. THEY ASKED HIM "DO YOU HAVE TO REPEAT
YAALE VYOVO IF YOU FORGET IT AT NIGHT"
HIS RESPONSE WAS "THIS SHEELOH IS NOT NOGEAH FOR EITHER OF
US. WE WOULD NEVER FORGET IT AND YOU WILL NOT GET RIGHT THE
SECOND TIME"

IT IS GOOD TO BE AWARE OF REB CHAYIM - BUT, DO WE PRACTICE
IT. THIS IS WHAT I SUGGESTED WAS THE VALUE OF CHASIDUS AND
WHAT IT CAME TO TEACH. THE NH TRIED TO SHOW THAT HE IS ALSO
CONCERNED.

BETTER WOULD BE IF THIS GROUP WOULD WORRY ABOUT PROBLEMS
TO IMPROVE OURSELVES THEN TO SOLVE ALL THE WORLDS PROBLEMS.

>Hey, why don't we as a group be mekkabel to daven some tefilla a day with
>kavana yeseira? Sounds corny, but Avodah is Avodah!
YOU DON'T NEED ANY. READ THE NH AS YOU SUGGESTED.
>
>Ideas?
>
>YGB
>
>Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
>Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
>ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 

Or to put this another way:  "hate the sin" not the sinner.  I think Bruriioh - 
Eishes R. Meier expressed a similar concept yitamu chato'im NOT chot'im.

As such, going against Halocho is an avlo.  But it wouldn't hurt to have a bit 
of rachmonus on the individual, there might have been mitigating circumstances 
etc.

Let me relate a maase re: R. Yeruchim Gorelick who was quite a kanoi.  While he 
often ridiculed "scientific Judaism" professors, he would refrain from singling 
them out by name when they were shomer mitzvos.  I specifically requested his 
opinion (privately) re: one of those professors, and he demurred saying that 
Professor so-and-so is a frumme yid, etc.  While, R. Yeruchim was an outspoken 
critic, he was criticizing the hashkofo only and not the individuals.

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe

>>From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject: progressive revelation -- ?? what does this mean??

Similarly, history is
from Hashem, but does not affect Torah principles.  An action that 
constituted a melkahah on Shabbat in the time of Moshe is still a 
melakhah today, notwithstanding all of the intervening social and 
technological changes.

In sum, we generally believe that the revelation of Torah was limited to 
what Hashem taught Moshe at Sinai (or perhaps a bit later).<<

this is a very complex topic.  Someone help me with the source, but it says that
even the havayos of Abbaye and Rovo were given at Sinai.  this itself is very 
ambiguous.

Model #1.  Literal.  EVERTYHING from soup to nuts is from Sinai.  Nothing is 
new, it's all there.  If it's not in our Mesorah, it is not part of Torah...

Model #2.  radical.  sinai was only the beginning.  Everything that progressed 
since is ALSO miSinai in effect.  (kind of inventing Torah as we go along...)

Model #3.  compromise perhaps?  Everything started at Sinai.  Like the seeds of 
an apple it contains the genetic code, but it needs to be planted and nourished 
to flourish.  All the SEEDS of Torah were distributed at Sinai, but many of 
those seeds blossomed later.  Let's say al pi 13 middos and other forms of 
Drush.  So Hashem IMPLIED all of Torah, but we continually, (progressively) 
INFER.

Shavuos is Zman Matan Toroseinu.  Kabbolos haTorah is an ongoing process 
(regardless of whether Hashem's Kol is still talking).  That one speech on Sinai
is still being listened to.

EG Purim.  There are remozim in the Torah for a many things re: Purim.  It 
developed to clariy during the time of Mordechai and Esther.

'Roiso es Achorai, ufonai lo yiro'u.  We can understand many remozim in the 
Torah only through hinsight.  I heard besheim the Gro said that all of history 
can be inferred from the first perek in breishis!  Nevertheless, that does not 
mean the Gro was able to predict every future event, rather he was saying it's 
embedded there, and it remains to be discovered.

Therefore lo bashomayim hi means we got it all.  Hafoch bo vahafoch bo dechulo 
boh means, we still do not understand it all.  We're still working on getting 
it. Remember the maasse of Moshe Rabbeinu in the back of R. Avkio's Class.   To 
me bepashtus, it is saying, Moshe got the ball rolling and it evolved into R. 
Avkiov's drosho.  Moshe might not consciously understood every implication of 
the Mesorah he handed down.

(lemoshol the medeival Chinese probably didn't see any connection between 
gunpowder and space-ships, we can.)

Events and history serve to illuminate aspects of the Torah that were always 
there, but whose implications were not always understood.  In that sense, 
Hashem is progressively revealing to us what was said day one at Sinai. Maybe 
we were too overwhlemed to absorb it all in one fell swoop, so we "get it" (ie 
comprehend it) a bit at a time.  Maybe that is a metaphor for what kabbolo 
means that Hashm's voice is still talking.  If we dig into Torah, we can still 
perceive Hashem's revelation now.  Bechol dor vodor chayo odom lir'os es 
atzmo....extend yetzias Mitrayim to include Sinai and it all comes together.  
We WERE all at Sinia, and today we can all re-live that event - 
metaphorically.

Good Shabbos,
Rich Wolpoe 

<<
Thus my original concern for the outer limits of MO. I would think it's a
slippery slope. 
>>

And as I have mentioned in the past, proclaiming issurim where there aren't
any is  prohibited, and likewise a slippery slope on the right.  One must walk
a fine line to stay on top of the hill.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Rav Maryles wrote in response to my post:
Mixed Swimming!  I can't understand how anyone can possibly defend this 
practice today.  Back in the fifties, beach wear, although not Tzniusdik 
by Halachic standards, were more or less Tzniusdik by the sociological 
standards of American culture.  That is to say that when walking on the 
beaches of America in the fifties you would have encountered less than 
Halachicly sanctioned beach attire on the average woman, but relative to 
today, it was not something that would cause a second look.  The point 
is that our Tznius perceptions are defined down by our surrounding 
culture and, in effect, we've become immune to improper hirhurim.  And 
that, after all is what it is all about. Most people of that era simply 
would not have had hirhurim then.  My father went mixed swimming.  I 
went mixed swimming. And the fact is, some, who would be considered 
Gedolim of previous generations went mixed swimming.


The fundamental point is conceded.  The halachic (not sociological) notions of
zniut were violated in the past.    All the multiple issurim that other posters
bring were applicable back then. I am familiar with Rav Feinstein's tshuva, and
it was just as applicable in the 1930s -50s. However, in spite of that, many
gdolim saw  no problem in this behavior.    The question raised is whether the
lower zniut levels today make this less of an option.  (By the way, at many
family oriented places, the zniut level is not  different from the 1950s.  My
father comments that in Miami, the pool at the hotel is far more zniusdik than
walking on the Boardwalk).  This point can clearly be argued, as I said in my
original point, but the fundamental point is not that back then, halachic zniut
was observed, and today it is not.  This seems therefore something for the posek
of each community to decide, but it is by no means as clearcut as described and
generally assumed. (Yes, a MO posek in the 1970s verbally allowed and practiced
mixed swimming)  One other point of your post is that hirhurim are socially
determined (as Rav Epstein suggests for hair covering).  The MO community,
accustomed to greater mixing, may perhaps be more immune to these hirhurim.

> But that was 
>then...This is Now! Today,anything goes and the issues of Tznius go way 
>beyond even Ervah. The fact that  Anachnu, VeAvosenu Chotanu does not 
>give us license to do so now, and please lets consider the standards of 
>the fifties versus the standards of today.

While I am willing to say chatati, I am not so willing to say avotenu chat'u,
especially giving their stature.  This willingness to assume that because we are
more machmir in some areas than the past, that they were baale avera, is
problematic, to say the least.

> The same is true of women covering their hair.  There were no 
>Heterim in the twenties and thirties.  Women in the Lithuaniun 
>communities just stopped doing it and R. Yechiel HaLevi Epstien laments 
>that fact in his famous Teshuva on making brachos in front of a woman 
>whose hair is uncovered. 

I am familiar with Rav Epsteins's position.  The point is that while this may
have been true of the amcha, it is hard to say this about   the  families of the
gdolim.  While I do not know the basis of the heter, many gdolim allowed their
wives to have their hair uncovered.  How can you therefore criticize someone as
being lax when they are as observant  as the gdolim?  There are  legitimate
points of criticism of the MO, as of other communities, in their avodat hashem,
and many MO are "sociological" rather than ideological. However, areas where we
follow the practices of gdolim of previous generations do not seem to me to be
the right areas of attack.

The point is not just mixed swimming.  Many of the practices of the MO are not
based on written heterim, but a tradition that was followed by communities and
rabbanim.   The assumption of many here is that people fell into lax observance,
and the rabbanim lacked the power to change them.  Rav Epstein suggests this for
hair covering.  However, this is not always true, and the lack of a written
heter does not invalidate the practice. One has to look at who followed the
particular practice.  When the practice was followed by rabbanim and gdolim we
are obligated to assume that they thought it acceptable. 

 Thus, another poster mentioned going to the movies as something obviously
assur, and the (not MO) principal of one MO day school on LI tried to ban the
boys from going on their annual trip to a Broadway show.  While the issue of
going to such shows may be problematic on a purely textual basis, it is clear
that it was the custom of western Ashkenaz in the last century, including the
rabbanim, to participate in the theater and opera.  There were limits (opera ok,
Folies Bergere probably not), but such participation was viewed as having
positive value.  I don't know of a specific written heter, but yes, the fact
that gdolim went to the opera and movies is sufficient for me, and I don't think
it is just to satisfy basic taavah.  To say otherwise is to be motzi la'az on
gdolim and whole communities.  

The lack of written heterim for practices sanctioned by the rabbanut is
illustrated by the tshuva of the Seride Esh on women singing zmirot.  He related
that in Berlin, he was surprised to find that women would sing zmirot in the
presence of male guests.  however, he was told that Rav Hildesheimer and Rav
Hoffman had approved, and he then agreed. There is no written documentation for
the approval by Rav Hildesheimer and Rav Hoffman, as there is no written
documentation for many other practices.  If, however, the practice was clearly
condoned and practiced by the rabbanut, this provides an adequate heter for many
of us.

One last point.  Another poster makes the remark that observance and knowledge
are far greater today than 30-40 years ago.  I think that observance today is
far easier than 30 years ago, so now we can expend our energy worrying about
mezonos rolls.  However, back then, the commitment to observe was far greater,
because the sacrifices required were far more.  While there is increased
observance and knowledge, it is not clear that we are better than those who
fought to observe  back then.   We should be careful of a smug sense of
superiority.


Meir Shinnar

<<
 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.
>>

Actually I thought the name of the sefer was M'shaneh Halachos, as we say in
Pitum HaK'tores, "kol ha-m'shaneh halachos b'chol yom."

But that is besides the point.  I do not want to get into name calling here,
but I shall make one comment:

There is an apocryphal story told of the Chafetz Chayim who was once accused
of theft.  Many character witnesses came on his behalf, each with a more
amazing story about the honesty of the Rav.  The judge called the lawyers to
his bench and asked if they thought there was truth to all the stories.  The
defense lawyer is said to have replied: I don't know if I believe them all,
but people aren't saying those things about me and you.

If there is a constant and unremitting sh'mu'a about someone, one has to
suspect that there is something there.  The g'mara in Kiddushin discusses
l'shon hara and being suspicious.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

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


[ 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 ]