Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 147

Monday, February 1 1999

• Orthodox Terminology
• Bekiyus, The Gro and the Rav
• Revoking Semichos
• Loshon harah?
• Re: Irv Greenberg
• MO & Heteirim
• Volozhin and Musar
• Re: Loshon harah?
• Tur
• Shelo kibdu ze ese ze?
• Re: Judging actions, judging men
• kisui rosh
• Titles
• R Yisroel Salanter/the Jewish Center
• Litvak view of learning
• Re: Bekiyus, The Gro and the Rav
• Re: Litvak view of learning
• Re: Rabbinic courtesies

Davdi Galssner writes:<<The problem with "modern" as a modifier of "orthodox" is
that it suggests that
"modernity" has some independent moral or ethical or religious value.<<

I do not like the term Orthodox, either (it's actually borrwoed from the Goyim 
irony of ironies <smile>) Observant or Halachic is a bit better...

Re: Modern, Avi Weiss prefers the term Open Orhtodox.  Open to the world - or as
you say "cosmopolitan".

I also like to think of it as Westernized Orthodox. As in the German, Dutch, 
English style, as opposed to Eastern European or Asian/North African.  This 
Westernized includes the Sephardim of Amsterdam who helped to found the Jewish 
community in NYC in 1654.  They, too, were observant and yet wordly.

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe

>>From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> 
Subject: Re: More on the Rav's Hashkofo on TT

I must admit, as one who teaches DY - both Bavli and Y-mi - I am nogei'a, 
but, R' Rich, on the very same page in Even Shleima (Chap. 8) where the 
GRO comes out against kitzurei dinim he comes out pretty strongly 
pro-bekiyus learning!<<

It's interesting you say that.  I was never totally comfortable with an 
anti-Bekios stance.  So here is MY spin on what the Rav meant (but may never 
have said)...

The Rav seemed to say that bkios was not learning.  My spin is that it is not 
learning GEMORO as defindd by the Rambam's as Dovor mitoch Dovor.  Bekios would 
seem to lack the dimension of analysis or analogy.

BUT 

The Rambam does hold that there is such an inyon as learning Mishno without 
Dovor mitoch dovor.  (And the TB says l'olom hevey rotz achar hamishno)

So this is my Hashkfo loosely based upon the Ramabam and the Rav:
1) learning any Torah SBP peh sefer, EG KSA, Mishno, TB just for Bekios or 
Yedios, but without any analyticial intent, is yotsei yedei Mishno but not yotsi
yedei Gemoro.
2) learning any TSBP sefer with a Dovor mitoch Dovor approach IS learning 
Gemoro, regardless of the text.  Don't forget, the TY and the TB themselves used
Mishnon as their text but what they were doing was GEMOOR not Mishno.

Back to my earlier postings, the text is not crucial, i.e. it is not WHAT that 
is learned it is HOW it is learned.

Leraning TB by passively observing what Rovo and Abaye argued about, is not 
Gemoro, it is Mishno.  To be yotsei Gemoro one must eithe:
1) associate oneself actively with the arguement, (personally argue as Rovo or 
As Abaye) 
 or
2) Analyze, compare and contrast those arguments, i.e. dig deeper..

So what the Rav MIGHT have said is: learning TB Bekiyos is not learning -  
GEMORO. (That is because it lacks the criteria of Dovor mitoch dovor.)  But 
learning it is, and it could fall under the rubric of learning Mishno.

This how I've made sense all along of what the Rav said. I don't know what the 
Gro said, or how he meant it.

Re: KSA  I do not think that it's is a waste of time, but I will concede that 
using any kitsur (eg maareches hashulchon) as a definitive source could be 
dangerous.  IMHO these are to seen more as tools, rather than as finished 
products.

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe    

I was challenged yesterday on several points, to which I will not respond
now, not because I am not itching to do so, but because of my respect for
the listowner's wishes.

POI, however, re revoking semichos.

Concerning a well known case, in which, to the best of my understanding,
the Posek in question who issued the ruling:

1. had a far greater basis in Halacha,

2. and, again, to the best of my understanding, was one whose consequences
for Kedushas Yisroel were far less potentially devastating

3. and, again, to the best of my understanding, was a far greater talmid
chochom than the individual we have discussed here,

The Gedolei Horo'oh of the time wrote, for example:

"In regard to this we hereby proclaim that his findings are totally
invalid - Rabbis Y. Abramski, C. Shmuelevitz, M. Chevroni and S.Z.
Auerbach."

"We therefore do declare that all judgments rendered by this man are
totally void and one is forbidden to rely on them in any way - Rabbis E.
M. Shach, Y. Kanevsky, Y. S. Elyashiv, Y. Veltz, Y. Adler, S. Z. Friedman,
S. Y. Jakobovitch."

"We therefore join in the Da'as Torah of HG"R Y. Abramski... reaffirming
that all halachic decisions are null and void - R' Moshe Feinstein."

"Under such circumstances... is not responsible for the halachic decisions
he issues... and are totally meaningless - The Lubavitcher Rebbe."

More detailed information may be found in the December 1972 issue of The
Jewish Observer.

As R' Shach said at the time - again - in far less severe circumstances:

"There are times when we must speak up. Now we must cry out for fires are
raging and the Sefer Torah itself is being threatened. We must cry out -
Save it! The Torah is being ripped into shreds and we cannot sit by in
silence..."

YGB

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

     It was suggested that it might have been LH when a Rosh yeshivah said
there was no limud zchus for women not covering there hair.  I am wondering
is it really LH for a RY to tell his talmidim in a shiur that something was
wrong?  How else are talmidim to know?  Isn't there a toeles in teaching a
halacha?  I fully agree that little old me can't decide that I know someone
else is doing something wrong, but isn't that part of the role of a gadol?
History seems to point that this was a traditional role of the adam gadol -
so unless they were wrong (or our gedolim aren't gedolim) ...

     Moshe Luchins

P.S.      There has been some references to whether imitation Judaism is a
"right wing" or MO thing.  Perhaps it would be easier to understand by
using Ebenstein's model of political philosophy that the right and left are
not a straight line - but rather a circle  (lihavdil elef alfei havdalos
Hitler & Stalin are so far to the extremes that they end up with similar
systems).  (Though since I was informed that I am right wing I guess I
shouldn't know about this.)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BE4DC8.A75ADB60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I rarely comment on this list, bit I do very much enjoy the dialogue here.
This post however is rather irksome to me.  Ha the author nothing better to
do than to attemtp to intelope himself into the goings on of a schul where
does not worship?  Aside from doing so in a manner most insulting to both
the congregation as well as it's rabbi, the issue is none of the author's
business.
DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ ESQ: SPECIALIZING IN ALL AREAS OF
COMPLEX, COMMERCIAL AND MATRIMONIAL LITIGATION
                         INQUIRE AT
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
-----Original Message-----
From: LIPPYESQ@aol.com <LIPPYESQ@aol.com>
To: avodah@aishdas.org <avodah@aishdas.org>
Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Irv Greenberg


>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
>

------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BE4DC8.A75ADB60
Content-Type: text/x-vcard;
	name="Daniel B. Schwartz.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Daniel B. Schwartz.vcf"

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Schwartz;Daniel B.
FN:Daniel B. Schwartz
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:schwartzesq@worldnet.att.net
REV:19990201T145253Z
END:VCARD

------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BE4DC8.A75ADB60--

>>From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu Subject: MO and heterim<<

IMHO this goes to the root of the Dr. Chaim Soloveichik's article re: 
mimetics...

It's not that MO is simply looking for heteririm, it's more that MO often takes 
a "pook chazei "approach to Halocho and Mesora as opposed to Book Learning 
alone.  I think the yeshivishe velt relies more heavily upon certain specific 
texts.

Lemoshol:  Chazzonim repeating words.  Frumme chazzonim such as Yossele 
Rosenblatt,  did it, as did others.  I haven't found any text that backs this 
up.  Chazzonim in a way have their own Mesorah that didn't make it into 
traditional halachic texts.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

>R. Eli goes on to say that   <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.>

>This is highly unlikely since R. Yisroel salanter was only a year or two (if
>that) past bar mitzvoh when R. Chaim was niftar.  it is highly doubtful that

Rav Eli is probably referring to the story in Ish HaHalacha.  It involves Rav
Chaim Brisker and Rav  Blazer, the talmid of Rav Salanter.  (I am sure R Frankel
is not disputing the argument over over introducing mussar into Litvishe
yeshivot, just the individuals)

Meir Shinnar

In a message dated 2/1/99 10:46:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, mluchins@Zweig-
Dimenna.com writes:

<< 
      Moshe Luchins
 
 P.S.      There has been some references to whether imitation Judaism is a
 "right wing" or MO thing.  Perhaps it would be easier to understand by
 using Ebenstein's model of political philosophy that the right and left are
 not a straight line - but rather a circle  (lihavdil elef alfei havdalos
 Hitler & Stalin are so far to the extremes that they end up with similar
 systems).  (Though since I was informed that I am right wing I guess I
 shouldn't know about this.)
 
  >>
Dear Moshe,
Actually as the pure "right wing" philosophy was explained to me by one of my
son's friends, you should have known Ebenstein's model, not the name, since
you should not have been exposed to it from "outside" sources but should have
deduced it from you're involvement in "tora based" sources. If this is
incorrect, I'd welcome a more elegant definition.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Eli Turkel Writes:

>>Subject: Tur

>> By co-incidence, last Shabbos while learning the Tur, 
I once heard that in Europe they made fun of the Chazon Ish because he spent 
a lot of time studying the Tur rather "really" learning.
As the rabbi pointed out history has determined which side was right.<<

See my other post re: limud Mishno and limud Gemoro.  The way we learned the Tur
was analogous to learning Mishno, while the BY as demanding greater iyyn, was 
more analiogous to Gemoro.

This same parallel could be made to a relatively easy gemoro that has a very 
difficult Tosfos.  When it comes to the Tosfos one must role up one's sleev.  Of
course, one could say, well if Tosfos is so involed, one could put their own 
effort into the Gemoro text itself and be mechavein to Tosfos.  As mere mortals,
we might not challenge ourselves to do this, but Tosfos will.

In a sort of machismo way, "real men" learn Tosfos, BY, etc. <smile>.

Now this leades to a kasho re: the Gro's negative comment abbout "kitsur" 
halocho seforim; coulnd't that be applied to the Tur and the SA?  Aren't they 
simplified Halocho Pesuko Seforim?

BTW, IMHO, learning the Tur with the BY is THE single best limud in Halocho.  
The MB says something similar in his hakodomo where he implies that if people 
regularly learned the Tur/BY he wouldn't have needed to author MB...

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe      

Eli Turke writes: <<We seem to live in an era where everyone a step to the left 
is an apikorus and being in the same room with that person is a support of his 
position.<<

IOW why should we behave any better than Talmidei Rabbi Akivo <sarcasm>?

I think I heard a very wise approach - kabdeihu v'chashdeihu.  We can respect 
someone and suspect them, too.  This is not self-contradictory. 

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe

> In this vein, note the German, Roedelheim Siddur version of
"V'La'Malshinim": "V'kol osei rish'a k'rega yoveidu." <
You apparently want to display an example in t'filla of our speaking to the
sinner rather than to the sin.  However, that quoted nussach is, in all
likelihood, a censored version of the original "v'chol *ha'minim* k'rega
yo'vaidu" (see Siddur Avodas Yisroel), and keep in mind the actual history
of this b'racha: tz'dukim and minim are not equivalent to any
garden-variety "o'sai rish'a."  We're not asking for HKb'H to eliminate the
RaMBaM-Hilchos T'shuvo "rosho," an appelation that you may wish to apply to
certain Jews whose names have recently been bandied about.

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
"There are lies, damn lies, and quotes taken out of context."

Moshe Luchins wrote:

<<<
     Also I heard from a major Rosh yeshivah (name available to the
moderator on request) that there exists no limud zchus for the fact that
some women in the old days did not cover their hair.  Before we start
naming names I guess it's just like there is no heter  to speak LH, but
people do.
>>>

Excuse me, but I don't understand your reticence in naming the major Rosh
Yeshivah from whom you heard that there is "no limud zchus" for the
conduct of those women who did not cover their hair in the old days.  If the
issue is as cut and dried as the major Rosh Yeshivah whose authority you are
invoking on behalf of your own position, why the hesitation in identifying him?
 Would you have any hesitation in repeating in his name a d'var Torah that
you heard from him?  Kol ha-omer davar b'shem omro meivi geulah la-olam. 
Perhaps there is some other basis for your reticence, in which case, I will be
happy to withdraw this comment, but as I read your posting your reticence
about identifying the Rosh Yeshiva belies your position that there is no room
for ambiguity on the issue of hair covering.

What I am about to say, may strike some as being offensive (though I do not
mean it to offend anyone).  I would therefore just like to point out that every
female ancestor of mine of whom I am aware covered her hair and I have no
doubt that the ones of whom I unfortunately am not aware also covered their
hair.  I venerate them and their yirat shamayim and I do not mean to miinimize
their tzidkut in having kept their hair covered.  With that caveat, I would
argue that everyday practice confirms the halachic ambiguity concerning hair
covering.  I know that Gedolai Yisrael have decided that a women who
wears a wig made of human hair is considered to be covering her own hair.  I
have not studied the reasoning by which they justify this kulah.  (Clearly, this
kulah is not accepted by all Haredim.  Women who venture forth in public
with uncovered wigs are routinely denounced in certain Chassidish circles,
and R. O. Yosef was quoted in the Yiddish press some months ago as having
said that women who wear uncovered wigs were placing their immortal souls
in jeopardy (or words to that effect).)  But a kulah it certainly is.  Simply as a
matter of common sense, I cannot understand how one can distinguish in
any reasonable way between the tzniut of a women who appears in public
with her hair uncovered and a women who appears in public with her hair
covered by a wig that, to the untrained eye, cannot be distinguished from her
own hair.  Now if hair covering were a matter of the surpassing religious and
moral significance it is made out to be by those for whom it is nearly a
yeihareg v'al ya'avor issue, I cannot understand how it would be possible to
be meikil to the extent of allowing women to cover their hair in a manner that
made it difficult if not impossible to discern whether their hair really were
covered or not.  Can you imagine a posek allowing one to put a Christmas
tree in one's house as long as it was plastic not real?  So I find it more than a
little odd that those who accept a rather large kulah in the halachah of kisui
rosh are so quick to denounce others who accept another kulah that differs
from their own kulah primarily in one dimension:  the absence of ha'aramah.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Now that the list is obsessing over titles, I've decided to come 
out of the closet.  I thank R' Beilin (and others) for the smicha,
but I haven't had any formal yeshiva training since high school.
That's not to say that I don't learn regularly, or that I don't
read lots of stuff on Jewish topics, but I'm not a rabbi.  

Personally, I don't think it's worth while to obsess over titles.
I see "rabbi" as a professional degree, as is "doctor". Just as
one wouldn't go to a Conservative rabbi for questions on gittin,
one would not go to my uncle Dr. Richard Wisan (a philosophy
professor) for advice on treating cancer.  If they're rabbis, they're
rabbis, be they R' Yitz Greenberg, R' S. Z. Auerbach, R' Alexander
Schindler, R' M. M. Schneerson, RYGB, R' Wolpoe, or even R' Mordechai
Kaplan, who had individual smicha from R' Jacob Reines, the founder of
Mizrachi.

If it's already well known why you disagree with this or that person,
why go the extra step and insult them by putting "rabbi" in quotes or
parens?

R. Mechy Frankel writes (with reference to a purported story I mentioned
involving R. Yisrael salanter and R. Hayyim Volozhin):

>This is highly unlikely since R. Yisroel salanter was only a year or two (if
>that) past bar mitzvoh when R. Chaim was niftar.

I would be happy to concede that the story is apocryphal.  However, it
seems possible that R. Salanter did campaign for the teaching of musar
in Volozhin and that he was rebuffed by the then-Rosh Yeshiva.  In other
words, I may have simply muffed the story.  Second, even if the story is
not historical, I believe it fairly represents the conventional Litvish
attitude toward musar.  Finally, this is not relevant to the issue, but,
according to an unimpeachable historical source (the comic strip on the
back of Olomeinu some 25 years ago), R. Yisrael of salant was given
semikha at his bar mitzvah.has certainly feel no have no des

RMF writes (regarding rabbinic courtesies in general and the Jewish
Center in particular):

>are there some secret orgies going on there or something?

Coincidentally, I found myself in Manhattan this past Shabbat and in the
Jewish Center in time for Shaharit.  On the basis of this first-time
experience, I can report: Besides the bimah in the front of the shul
(which R. Moshe wrote is now permitted), there were some very shocking
things: gabbaim wearing silk top hats, the sight of R. Norman Lamm (a
longtime member), a mehitzah that is high on the men's side, but low on
the women's side, and a derashah that mentioned "modern orthodoxy."
There is also a kiddush club, but nothing more bacchanalian that met my
eye.

Incidentally, for those who are interested in the history of Orthodoxy
in America, the establishment of the Jewish Center is a fascinating
episode.  Briefly, it was begun by Mordechai Kaplan (anyone think I
should be putting an R. in front of his name? I think was a certified
apikores) as an Orthodox shul.  Kaplan had been educated at YU, but had
begun embracing a host of un-Orthodox ideas.  Nevertheless, he was one
of the few educated and articulate English-speaking Orthodox rabbis in
America, and the wealthy Orthodox ba'al ha-batim apparently did not take
his radical reputation seriously.  Kaplan insisted that the institution
be called the Jewish Center, because he wanted to move away from the
old-fashioned idea of a synagogue to an all-embracing center for Jewish
living.  In any case, fairly shortly into his tenure, he managed to
shock a majority of the congregation with his radical ideas, and they
booted him out.  He was replaced by R. Leo Jung, who presided over the
shul for over 50 years.  Kaplan moved to a new location, bringing with
him some wealthy lay supporters and founded a new shul, called (I think)
the Society for the Advancement of Judasim.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Joel Rich asks:

>Would the classic Litvak view be that you should be learning in the zchut of
>the choleh or just that you should be learning. What about time spent in
>prayer-how much should that be minimized in favor of learning? Does this also
>assume that the person wastes no time during the day?

Caveat: I do not believe that my training (or my genealogy) warrants my
becoming the authority on all things Litvish.  An intellectual tradition
can only be described by way of generalization and abstraction.

Your first question deals with the merit of learning, that is, the "why"
of learning.  This is very different from the "how" of learning, which
has been addressed in previous posts.

The immediate goal of talmud Torah, as for any mitzvah, is not the
anticipated sakhar.  This principle dates to pirkei avot and, so far as
I am aware, was not rejected by any of the leading representatives of
the Lithuanian derekh.  However, I think it fair to say that the Litvish
worldview strongly de-emphasized the issue of zekhuyot for the
performance of mitzvot.  This may be illustrated by the story about the
Vilna Gaon, who came upon a particularly mehudar etrog.  The owner,
however, was willing to sell it only for a very unusual price: he
demanded the Gra transfer to him his reward in olam ha-ba.  To the
amazement of his students, the Gra willingly entered into the exchange.
(Disclaimer: there are different versions of the story.  It may be
apocryphal.  Perhaps R. Mechy knows that actual birthdate of the etrog
merchant :).)   Similarly, in Ish ha-Halakhah, R. Soloveitchik (the Rav)
identifies the this-worldly focus of avodat hashem as a distinctive
feature of the ideal "man of Halakhah."

To return to your question, the Litvish type would, I believe, be more
than willing to learn on behalf of a holeh and would not see such
learning as lesser than "just" learning.  The key is that the learning
go on, with the zekhut going where it will.  Of course, I think our
prototypical Litvak would prefer learning for  the holeh, than reciting
Tehillim, giving tzedakah, or reciting a mi she-berakh.

Which leads to your other question: learning vs. davening.  It goes
without saying that the Lithuanian view of tefillah is worlds apart from
the Beshtian conception of prayer.  In Litvish circles, spare time may
be seen as better spent learning gemara berakhot be-iyyun, than being
ma'arikh in tefillah.  If we were to look again at the Rav's Ish
ha-Halakhah, we would see tefillah as a halakhic construct -- shevah,
bakashah, hoda'ah, to be performed within certain specified zemanim,
raising issues of shome'a ke-oneh, hefsek berakaha, hovat yahid and
hovat rabbim, etc.  -- rather than a primarily spiritual experience.

My rebbe R. Lichtenstein once related that the Rav, in his vigorous
years, was sometimes so involved in a sugya on Shabbat afternoon, that
he would not go back to shul for minhah, but would daven be-yehidut,
because the walking time would take away from his time for learning.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Not to introduce an old bais tefilla issue, but did the Rav learn the way
you describe from the begining or did he first have to go through shas in
a bekius fashion. IOW is your version of the RAv the eventual way (or
goal) to learn
or the only way to learn. By the way if it's the only way to learn then
The RAv needs to deal with Rava on  17 (i think) in Avodah Zarah. Let me
know because I really find the derech halimud discussion rather
interesting.
Elie Ginsparg

In a message dated 2/1/99 1:55:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< 
 Which leads to your other question: learning vs. davening.  It goes
 without saying that the Lithuanian view of tefillah is worlds apart from
 the Beshtian conception of prayer.  In Litvish circles, spare time may
 be seen as better spent learning gemara berakhot be-iyyun, than being
 ma'arikh in tefillah.  If we were to look again at the Rav's Ish
 ha-Halakhah, we would see tefillah as a halakhic construct -- shevah,
 bakashah, hoda'ah, to be performed within certain specified zemanim,
 raising issues of shome'a ke-oneh, hefsek berakaha, hovat yahid and
 hovat rabbim, etc.  -- rather than a primarily spiritual experience.
 
 My rebbe R. Lichtenstein once related that the Rav, in his vigorous
 years, was sometimes so involved in a sugya on Shabbat afternoon, that
 he would not go back to shul for minhah, but would daven be-yehidut,
 because the walking time would take away from his time for learning.
 
 Kol tuv,
 
 Eli Clark
  >>
Dear Eli,
Interesting- I just "mused" on the topic (this Shabbat) of the Rav's feelings
on learning and tfila, both of which were subjects that he dealt with at
length.  These writings combined with the fact that he did not try to write an
encyclopedic philosophy indicate that these were topics that were of great
importance or interest to him.  My point of departure was R' Schachter's
mention in nefesh harav that when the Rav started taking the train to NY to
give shiur at YU he often had to daven b'yachid which was interesting to me
due to the emphasis the Rav put on tfilat hatzibbur(otherwise known as the
reader's repetition). This seems consistent with your R' Lichtenstein story.
I often wonder though about the "this worldly" statement. If you really
believe learning is what you should be doing all the time and everything else,
including mitzvot, should be done btzimzum, how do you skip certain mitzvot on
the basis that someone else will do them? Don't you have some responsibility
to tell the others that they too should really be learning all the time?
As to the issue of the spirituality of prayer  and the Rav- while I agree that
he viewed prayer(as all of life) through the looking glass of halacha, one who
heard him speak  about prayer would be hard pressed to say that he didn't view
it spiritually.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Mechy Frankel writes "Merely as a point of information, let me inquire of one
poster who, after
defrocking R. greenberg, inter alia referenced the <..(so called) Jewish
Center> which individual was observed to be exiting.now a bit further in the
posting reference was made to Rabbi J J Schachter, spiritual leader of that
institution.  Should not consistency mandate that one refer to him as (Rabbi)
J
J Schachter, or perhaps (so called R), or perhaps just JJ S.? .I do recall -
my
mechtonim live on 86th and daven there when not hiking down to the SP - that
they don't have a bimah in the center but am otherwise puzzled by the swipe. 
are there some secret orgies going on there or something?"

My opinion of the Jewish Center is based on my own experiences of the few
times I  davened there. Besides the fact that the Mechitza is sub par at best,
there are countless things wrong with this shul. I can recall 2 situations in
the few times I davened there, where the Gabbai publically embarassed someone
for walking in during the Rabbis speech. While Im sure Rabbi Shachter is not
100% in favor of dealing with people this way, he has done nothing to stop it,
as far as I know. If you ever step foot in the Jewish Center for just a few
minutes, it becomes quite clear that it is all ceremony and no circumstance.
As far as the secret orgies go, I have no first hand knowledge of anything
like that going on (but seeing what some of the people who exit the building
are wearing on Shabbos, I wouldn't be suprised), but it is well known, in fact
documented in a recent New York Times article that the building that is
adjacent to the (so called) Jewish Center is a brothel. NYPD closed it down a
couple of months ago and it was all over the news. You know what they say "Ohy
L'Rasha Ohy L'Shchaina"

Finally, I recognize J.J. Shachter as a Rabbi, as I do most every Modern
Orthodox Rabbi. But no one can put any of these Rabbis in the same class as
Irv Greenberg. We are talking about a man that has the audacity to publically
say that Hashem has  broken the covenent. Mechy, my friend, apikores is the
least of the words I can think of to use for a person like that. But out of
respect for RYGB and others, I will limit myself to using only that word. I
would go as far as to say that is almost as a big of a chutzpah to defend
Greenberg from being called an Apikores as it is for him to say the stupidity
that he does.

Thank You, Id be interested in any comments.

Daniel Lefton
New York City, NY

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


[ 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 ]