Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 178

Tuesday, March 2 1999

• Re: Ma'achalos asuros b'ones for tzaddikim
• Re: Onein on Purim
• On Velikofsky, Kasher and Cassutto -- Thoughts on Methodology and the Price of Openness
• [none]
• Re: 420 years and Yechezkel 30
• Re: Bashing Albert E and Fooling Brilliant Men (&women for that matter)
• 420
• Re: 420 years and Yechezkel 30
• Re: Bashing Albert E and Fooling Brilliant Men (&women for that matter)
• lekoved pirim
• Faltshheim catalogue
• Re: lekoved pirim

In a message dated 2/26/99 1:23:31 PM EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

> How could the gemera (Megilla 13a acc. to rashi, see Tos. al atar who is
>  choleik) say Esther ate ma'achalos asuros - mah b'hemtam shel tzaddikim ain
>  Hashem mavi takalah l'yadam, tzaddikim atzmam lo kal she'kain (Gittin 7a) -
>  tzaddikim are never nichshal in ma'achalos asuros?  
>  
Perhaps there is difference of "Nichshal" and "Takalah" which means by lack of
knowledge, and where one eats Bheter because of Sakanah (especially Lshitas
HoRambam that one is not allowed to let himself be killed instead of doing
Issur only by the 3 things), something Bdugmas difference of Issur Hatoluy
Bizman (Tos. in many places).

Happy Purim!

Yitzchok Zirkind

>>>Shulchan Aruch 696:7 states that an onen is permitted to have meat
and wine. The Remah adds the onen is even more so obligated in reading the
megila and prayer and krias Shma. but it appears to me that is only at night
even if the mais is mutal lefanav but during the day.... <<<

I should have clarified - the chidush I saw quoted in a footnote in my Kitzur
Shulchan Aruch in the name of the Chayei Adam (and I haven't tracked it down
there, and thank N. Witty for his he'ora) was that the onein is chayav to wash
and bentch on the seudas Purim during the day.  Even were one to say the
mitzvas hayom are doche the chiyuv of being an onein, that should be matir
only perhaps basar v'yayim, not the extraneous chiyuv of washing and bentching
- e.g. is there an obligation for an onein who has maso mutal l'fanav to daven
on Purim morning?

Happy Purim to all!
-Chaim

I think it striking that, in recent posts on the famous missing 420
years (as well as the Zohar), one of the critical -- yet largely
undiscussed -- issues is that of methodology.  Thus, R. Eli Turkel
provides some evidence for the nontraditional chronology, but is
criticized by RYGB for not mentioning some of the countervailing
arguments that have been presented.  RYGB has gracefully absorbed some
good-natured criticism for citing Velikofsky, but notes that the man was
sometimes right.  And RDE states that "literary analysis" means
different things to different people.

Many have pointed out that the primary rival to emunah in the modern
period is not reason but science.  Yet, while the science vs. Hazal
theme has cropped up a few times on this list, the history vs. Hazal
theme seems to hold much more fascination for our members.  This is
doubly interesting considering that, whatever flaws have sometimes been
attributed to the scientific method, it is clearly more rigorous than
historical methodologies.  R. Daniel has repeatedly made the point that
the historical conclusions of "literary analysis" have not been
independently validated and, barring an unexpected expansion of the
historical record, are not likely to be in the foreseeable future.

Yet, it is clear that we live in a generation for which history is a
cultural need and, beyond this sociological fact, we are conscious of
the religious importance Jewish history has as it relates to our
understanding of Torah.  This stands in sharp contrast to the tendency
of our gedolim, noted by RDE, to disregard such matters.  And, on one
level, they are right.  It matters far more what the Sefer ha-Hinnukh
says than who wrote it.  On the other hand, when we are weighing the
opinion of the Hinnukh against other Rishonim, it matters a great deal
when it  was written and by whom.   And, of course, some gedolim did pay
attention to historical issues.  Besides ancient documents like Seder
Olam Rabbah and Iggeret R. Sherira Gaon (not to mention Sefer
ha-Kabbalah), we benefit from the philological work of R. Natan b.
Yehiel (the Arukh), the archival work of R. Yitzhak Lamperonti (Pahad
Yitzhak), the manuscript work of R. Betzalel Ashkenazi (Shitah
Mekubbetzet), and the bibliographic work of the Hida.  In recent times
(in response to heterodox Jewish historiography), we have seen some
attempts at developing Orthodox history, starting with Dorot ha-Rishonim
and continuing today in a variety of largely low-brow, popular works.
Nevertheless, we have never developed an "Orthodox" historical
methodology.

Hence, when confronted by the occasional conflict between historical
evidence and Jewish tradition, we have no ready response, no
methodological apparatus by which we can evaluate the evidence from the
historical record.

On the issue of the 420 years, for example, RET presents both literary
and archaeological evidence against the traditional Jewish chronology.
We have similarly heard some of the historical questions raised against
the famous story of the 4 shevuyim.  I have tried to present some of the
evidence on both sides of the Zohar issue.  How do we evaluate all of
this?

I believe it is necessary for these questions to be evaluated on their
own terms.  This means that the Orthodox community has to examine the
evidence and determine whether or not the conclusions drawn are truly
ineluctable or whether alternative conclusions may be drawn.  This is
precisely what R. Kasher did in response to Scholem (whatever one thinks
of his conclusions).  RYGB has referred to some pro-Hazal arguments
about the 420 years (yet, no doubt weighed down by pre-Purim
obligations, he has yet to review and present them for the benefit of
the list).  But I think it pointless to cite a pre-modern Gadol as an
authority on a historical issue where he was unaware of the historical
evidence or methodology employed by modern scholars.

For the same reason, I see no point in citations to Velikofsky.  It
seems to me irrelevant whether he was sometimes right.  The question is
whether he employed a valid historical methodology.  If not, his
conclusions do not have anything to add to our discussion.  If Hazal
have one position and the historians another, what difference does it
make if a non-histrorian agrees with Hazal?  Among non-historians,
Hazal's view already carries as much weight as they need.  Bu if we want
to evaluate the historical evidence that contradicts them, we should
focus on the analysis of those whose methods are sound.

An impressive model in these matters is Moshe David Cassutto.  A man who
put on tefillin every day, his response to higher criticism was not to
dismiss the analysis based on its provenance.  Rather he mounted a
thorough attack on the higher critics on their own terms, using literary
analysis and a thorough knowledge of grammar, philology and the
literature of ancient Near Eastern cultures.  As it happens, he toiled
in a very dangerous vineyard, one where I would not enter.  But the
happy result is a more persuasive response to the conclusions of higher
criticism.

Now it is entirely possible that Kasher's analysis of the Zohar -- and
Cassutto's analysis of Bereshit -- were "biased" to a certain extent by
their theological commitments.  This would certainly disqualify them in
the eyes of the academy.  What do we, the community of ma'aminim, think?
 Were they engaged in nothing more than Orthodox apologetics?  It is not
for me to say (though I have my own opinion); but I encourage every
listmember to study them and decide for him or herself.

There is no question that the approach I have described involves some
risks.  But I perceive equal if not greater danger in the fideistic
approach (espoused on this list by one poster).  With respect to many,
if not most, Orthodox Jews today, we cannot ask them to park their
critical faculties at the door.  Al ahat kamah ve-kamah, we cannot
approach the non-frum Jew today and ask him to disregard mah she-einav
ro'ot.  In addition to having emunah in Hashem, we must have emunah in
devar Hashem and derekh Hashem that it can withstand the challenges
posed by modern historical research.  If a few myths fall by the
wayside, so be it.  I, for one, sleep no worse with the knowledge the
Golem of Prague is a fiction.

I spoke before of risks, and these are real, though not I think
existential.  I categorically reject the attempts of one poster to turn
this into a black-and-white issue of emunah.  If one's emunah is
inextricably bound to, say, the historicity of the Zohar, that is a
serious problem in its own right, however one resolves that specific
issue.  But even if we are not dealing with ikkarei emunah, we are
clearly faced with a kind of sinister, creeping threat to the mesorah.
None of these issues, viewed singly, pose a substantial threat to the
shalshelet ha-mesorah.  But viewed cumulatively these issues began to
have a corrosive effect on one's view toward Hazal, Rishonim and the
mesorah as a whole.  We pay a price, both individually and communally,
for opening up our mesorah to scrutiny from without.  And I can
understand any individual or community that chooses not to pay that
price.  As RDE has written, for many Gedolim these issues were simply
irrelevant.  This approach has a long and distinguished pedigree.

But for those who can't or won't shut their eyes in the face of the
bright illumination of modern historiography, there is some initial
discomfort, but  -- oh! -- the glorious images one's eyes can behold!

Kol tuv and Purim same'ah,

Eli Clark

Subject: chazal

>>  RYGB and RDE have illustrated that there is no problem with
>> the gedolim/chazal approach to the Zohar and 420 years issue. 

So far I haven't seen any defense of the missng 165 years except to
call anyone who disagrees names. Everyone is picking on Herodotus
who was a contemporary of these events and ignores that many other
Greeks also spoke about these events. Are the Pelopynessian wars
a figment of their imagination? Are the archaelogical evidence all
forgeries? So far I am still waiting for concrete answers rather
than quoting some name.

>> Yet Albert Einstein, A genious yet a kofer, is defended because 
>> of his genious in his subject area from criticism which is historically true
>> This is just plain SHEKER. By the way, since I believe that Reishish Chachma
>> Yiras Elokim----It does give a right to comment, Al wasn't even a chacham.
>> With all those brains, he couldn't see HAshem. It must be Purim

The Rash claims that the Pythogras theorem is wrong. Who do you believe
a major baal hatosafot or a kofer greek?
(I vote for Pythagoras - sorry).

There is a debate among Poskim what to do about a 8 month old fetus.
The Gemara states that such a fetus cannot live and one does not
violate shabbat to save such a fetus. Modern medecine considers an
8 month fetus as better than a 7th month fetus. Dayan Weiss seems to
take the position that the Gemara is right and doctors are wrong.
I assume Elie would agree with this. However, most poskim disagree
and allow such a fetus to be saved on shabbat even if we were certain
that it was an 8 month old fetus. Those are the facts! How do answer the
Gemara is a different question, but we don't allow the Gemara to change
facts.

>> Also do we really believe that Tosfos who was made up of a
>> number of briliant people and had studied more tannaic work then can be
>> imagined didn't realize that the piyitum of R. Eliezer didn't seem
>> tannaic, was he overcome with a wave of stupidity. 

As to R. Eliezer haKallir as Mechy ably stated, Tosafot (chagia 13a)
state that it is R. Eliezer ben R. Shimon. Rabbenu Tam (quoted in
Shibolei haleket) says he is not sure. Rashba (1:469) dates him
earlier to R. Elizer ben Arach. Or Zarua also states that he is
certainly a Tanna. Nodah beYehuda states that he lived before Abaye
since they still numbered the days of the month according to wotnesses
in his day !.  The Ari (Shaar kavanot 50) agrees with tosafot. Rav Embden 
answers that he was a spark from the earlier Tanna and the Chida agreed 
with this.  There is a piyyut for the 7th day of Pesach signed Eliezer ben 
yaakov hakalir from kiryat sefer - so he had a different father than any
of the tannaim.

Shut Zichron Yosef assumes that Kalir lived during the Gaonic period.
Nodah Beyehudah complains - who gave him the right to disagree with
Tosafot and Rosh.
The Admor from Muncasz says he believes the Ari over all facts and so 
the Kalir and R. Eliezer ben R. Shimon were actually the same people 
and not just a spark. He explains the father's name of Yaakov as being 
another name that R. Shimon bar Yochai had!!

I am sorry but I have trouble with this approach even though it seems
popular to just call me names. I prefer to have an rational explanation
and not just have some authority thrown at me. I much prefer to see
Rav Kasher's defense of the authorship that simply be told that many
gedolim didn't raise the question and so that answers all objections.
Even a kabbalist like Ramban did not ignore facts. If the rainbow exists
in nature than one must explain G-d's promise to Noah, not simply call
the scientists names for daring to disagree.

Purim sameach,
Eli Turkel

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
>Seriously, thereare several issues here worth noting.

> 1. R' Avrohom Elya Kaplan, my hero, notes that his grandfather leant
> Tanach with the infamous "Biur" - if it was good it was good, regardless
> of the source. In this vein, I believe, R' Yisroel Salanter republished
> the Cheshbon HaNefesh regardless of its questionable origins.

Both of the above are not relevant to the discussion. The biur in and of
itself was viewed by many as a solid work of scholarship. Rav Kaplan (page
139) notes, however, that his zeide did not learn the introduction to the
Biur. The Biur was also held in esteem by many famous talmidei chachomim. Thus
the issue of the Biur was basically  the question of whether an objectively
scholarly work (which itself doesn't contain problems of kefira) can be
learned - if the author's hashkofa  is questionable. This would apply to such
things as Jastrow's dictionary. [this is also discussed in the Sdei Chemed]
Velikovsky is not viewed as a scholar - period. Your citation of Cheshbon
HaNefesh is also inappropriate - even though such scholars as Etkes (chapter
9) insist the author was a maskil - the assertion is questionable. The Kest
foundations edition of Cheshbon HaNefesh has an extensive discussion of the
evidence and concludes it is baseless. Even if it were - the issue again is
not the scholarship of cheshbon hanefesh but the hashkofa of the author. You
have already agreed that the hashkofa of velikofsky is not acceptable - the
only issue is his scholarship.

> Similarly, the point is not whether Velikovsky said something or R' Chaim
> Brisker said it. Chazal actually, as well, need neither V's support or
> that of RCB. But it enhances my understanding of an Halachic sugya to see
> RCB, of an Aggadic sugya to see the Maharal, and an historical sugya to
> see Velikovsky - or any other historical source. I may not choose to use
> this or any other tool - but it may enhance my understanding, and be
> meyashev setiros, to do so. I am not of the school that religious and
> secular worlds are distinct.

I find that an amazing statement. Do you mean to say that a historical
discussion by Rav Chaim Brisker carries the same weight as one said by
Velikovsky - that content is totally divorced of the source? Do you first read
a sefer to assess its contents or do you pay attention to who the author is?
There is an ancient saying that "an open mind has but one fault - it gathers a
lot of trash."

> I do not believe the GRO held that way - although I think RYB Soloveitchik
> possibly did.

Would appreciate sources.

>
> One more point. To iterate or reiterate which authorities secular sources
> find valid smacks of high school textbookism at its worst.

Even in graduate school there were sources that were considered to be more
valid than others. Are you asserting that all sources are viewed entirely by
their content by a mature intellect and that only high school students hold
that there is a hierarchy of which sources are more valid than others?

> Except for a casual swipe by RMF, I do not see, as of yet, someone openly
> discussing the Velikovsky model objectively and la'inyan. It boils down to
> merely a question of his authority in the secular world. Who cares?!

I do and I think a couple others on this list also care. It isn't as if
Velikovsky hasn't been seriously studied by the secular world. The rejection
of his scholarship is either because the secular world is populated by a bunch
of immature elitist snobs who can't recognize truth or because perhaps after
much study the world has concluded that he is a quack.

In sum - It does not enhance credibility to cite sources that are resting in
the trashbin of history.

                                          Purim Sameach

                                          Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 3/1/99 12:43:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, C-
Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< 
 about. Yet Albert Einstein, A genious yet a kofer,  is defended
 because of
 his genious in his subject area from criticism which is historically true
 (my source is the book Fingerprint on the universe--I think page 32). This
 is just plain SHEKER. By the way, since I believe that Reishish Chachma
 Yiras Elokim----It does give a right to comment, Al wasn't even a chacham.
 With all those brains, he couldn't see HAshem. It must be Purim
 (venahafochu) when people who make up psaht against the mesorah which
 degrade chazal are praised , and people who cite historically acurate
 criticism against a known Kofer are condemned, It was nice Purim Torah. >>

Elie,
Really, your senseless fulminating has gone on long enough. The assumption of
all the people on this list is that our goal is a deeper and truer
understanding of Torah and its beauty. 
That does not disqualify Einstein, ( Who said, incidentally, "God does not
play dice with the universe," a remarkable admission for a supposed Kofer)
from expressing wisdom, or being taken seriously. 
And it does not give to you a Heter to take irresponsible swipes at anyone who
fiddles with your preconceived notions. It is possible to call into question
the accuracy or the correctness of Chazal on a particular point here or there,
without compromising one's Yiras Hashem. 
I only post this to the list because I think the very nature of this list is
called into question when people don't post responsibly.

Jordan Hirsch

RYGB: >>1. This has nothing to do with infallibility issues. I have no 
theologicalneed to convince anyone of Chazal's being correct on this point. I am
simply bewildered why Chazal's dating on this - meisi'ach lefi tumam -
many times in Yerushalmi Bavli and other sources - should not be accepted 
as weightier than Greek accounts.<<

I think Chazal had a definite reason for 420.  the question reamins: is this the
literal span of Bayis Sheini from construction to Churban
OR
Is it something else, possibly all of the years Baysi Sheini was fucntioning on 
a "specific level" Eg not coccupied by Syrians, etc.

It's not that we dismiss Chazal as being untrue, ill-infroemd, erroneous, etc, 
rather it's that they sometimes were not being literal in our sense of the word.

Rich Wolpoe

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:


> HaNefesh is also inappropriate - even though such scholars as Etkes
> (chapter 9) insist the author was a maskil - the assertion is
> questionable. The Kest foundations edition of Cheshbon HaNefesh has an
> extensive discussion of the evidence and concludes it is baseless. Even
> if it were - the issue again is not the scholarship of cheshbon hanefesh
> but the hashkofa of the author. You have already agreed that the
> hashkofa of velikofsky is not acceptable - the only issue is his
> scholarship. 
> 

I am referring to its roots in Benjamin Franklin.
 
> I find that an amazing statement. Do you mean to say that a historical
> discussion by Rav Chaim Brisker carries the same weight as one said by
> Velikovsky - that content is totally divorced of the source? Do you

Yes, that is what I am saying.

> > I do not believe the GRO held that way - although I think RYB
> Soloveitchik > possibly did. 
> 
> Would appreciate sources. 
> 

GRO is the Hakdomo to Pe'as HaShulchan, RYBS, a 1955 speech to the RCA or
Chag Hasemicha, I forget which, on "Ramasayim Tzofim."

> Even in graduate school there were sources that were considered to be
> more valid than others. Are you asserting that all sources are viewed
> entirely by their content by a mature intellect and that only high
> school students hold that there is a hierarchy of which sources are more
> valid than others? 
> 

Yes.

YGB

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

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> Really, your senseless fulminating has gone on long enough. The

Mecho'o on Kavod HaTorah and Darkei Noam alert!!!!

R' Elie is an outstanding talmid chochom, and this is not a proper way to
address him, and does not add to the conversation!

> assumption of all the people on this list is that our goal is a deeper
> and truer understanding of Torah and its beauty. That does not
> disqualify Einstein, ( Who said, incidentally, "God does not play dice
> with the universe," a remarkable admission for a supposed Kofer)  from

Kofer, in REG's defintion, includes kefira in Torah me'Sinai. That is a
fair definition!

> expressing wisdom, or being taken seriously. And it does not give to you
> a Heter to take irresponsible swipes at anyone who fiddles with your
> preconceived notions. It is possible to call into question the accuracy
> or the correctness of Chazal on a particular point here or there,
> without compromising one's Yiras Hashem. I only post this to the list
> because I think the very nature of this list is called into question
> when people don't post responsibly. 
> 
> Jordan Hirsch
> 

I saw nothing irresponsible with his post, his source - in a text - saw
Einstein's error in that vein. To quote it may be quoting an inaccuracy -
but it is not "irresponsible!"

YGB

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

mesekhte pirim

tonu rabonon purim toyre min hatoyre minayin? How do we know that we
have to say purim toyres? detanye 'takhas pilpul yagia lekakh tov'.
meysvey 'detanye' iz mashma that it is a tane and reb eliezer hakalir
was only in the 4795 (rashi: centuries and AD are goyish and we have our
own system and we have nothing to sheym zikh from the goyim) omar reb
eli grintseyg has milehazkir it would be foolish that reb eliezer was
anything other than a tane because it's a befeyrushe toysfes and toysfes
aren't fools. omar loy reb david glasner v'ho anybody who participates
on avodah must have daled ames on the internet and reb eli uses his
father in law's address. kofats olov rugzoy shel yosef gavriel veomar
mno hane mile?! (rashi: marijuna) omar loy reb richard wolpoe vhaloy
gezeyre shove hu because it says by peysakh 'veovadeto es hoavoydo
hazoys' and this is called avodah so just like whoever doesn't have
daled ames in erets yisroel can't bring a korbon peysakh so on avodah.

(khidushei mariyeyt"s: according to the shlkhan orukh harav the daled
ames can be in shtokhim but the khazon ishnikes think it may be a shale
of gezulo and so reb melekh peres won't drink the wine of the galil
winery for khashash khabadniyes which is osur bemashu as well as osur
for daled koyses which is on peysakh so vdoy"k) 

omar reb yitschok zirkind vhaloy somukh a shulkhan oviv hu and we know
that if you are one of those you can use the flat in har nof for sukes
and we learn khamusho osor khamusho osor for pesakh and so we ken make a
kal vokhoymer that madokh pesakh which is osur bemashi kol shken the
internet. maskif alo reb daniel eiderdown that the internet has been
aserd by all the gedoylim alts uviarto horo and avoyde zoro is also osur
bemashu so we have a pirkhe on the kal vokhoymer (rashi: pirkhe, miam"i
bela"z). (toysfes: teyme if so we can't be yoytse limud hatoyre on the
internet because it's a mitsvo havo beaveyre? venire lreb eliyohu dmin
teyts that the rabonim allow the askonim access to the web to educate
the public and to vend op the apikorsim v'raye loze for otherwise how
would the hamodia and the yated ever fill their pages ale may they all
read what for their readers is banned. And with this said reb whoever we
can see the gevaldige mesiras nefesh of the askonim that they are
prepared to go through all the shmuts abi to help yieden)

goar boy reb David Glasner but we are digressing we are dealing with
whether the kalir was a tane or a talmid of the bal shem. behay shato
walked in reb moyshe shul man and said of course talmid bal shem because
the nefesh hakhyim never mentions the kalir and the shir hayikhud which
may or may not be by the kalir has shtiklekh which are similar to the
khasidishe derekh and so the kalir was for sure a rebe in moravia. omru
loy reb eli klurkel (sofek clark sofek turkel) leave off your khasidishe
mases this is not a mikve; there is conclusive evidence that the kalir
was in the 4th century lemisporom and we have a hekesh from three men in
a tub who were shipwrecked and so memeyle en hokhi name ipso mistabre et
seq ad nauseum we have to look at the historical facts and then see how
khazal is maskim with that.

meysvey alo reb why? gee! (hagoes hagro: YGB) (gilyon hashas YG) (reb
yosef engel: to B or not to B that is the shale) kakh hu darko shel
toyre???!!!)))&&&%%%*** history shmistory the ari and the gro knew as
much as plato and aristotle and anyway a famous sfardishe goen (aka
rambam) didn't halt of aristotle and he vends him op mikol vekol. And I
have a tane dimesaye in reb eli grintseyg so we have eli vs. elies so
yokhid verabim halokhe keyokhid when it's mamesh a khilul hashem to
think otherwise. teyuvte de'elies teyuvte. bokho al ze david from
arctic1 eli eli lomo azavtoni.

The rosh on the spot (typo, al asar) asks from vayelakh monoyakh akhrey
ishtoy and akhoyrey ari and so how can ygb sign shoshana and yg it's
likhoyre noyged to das toyre. v'na'l that reb yg doesn't need any musar
k'yodua and he's an expert on euthanasia and so hizoharu bedivreykhem
sheneshikhoson may be a death enhancing drug but if it is oykhet used
for refue it is ok but farshteyt zikh that this is not according to a
das yokhid of a sfardishe godel and here we pasken like the rabim.

Sorry Reb Russel Hendel' terets is too long but if the gedoyley hador
think he is like akheyr we can be oykhel his toykh and zoyrek his klipe
which will make it more manageable so consult your folk*LOR*e.

The following is the purim catalogue of the famous Faltshheim
publishers. All books have been checked by reliable ben toyres and have
a haskome of the bes din linyoney thought police in bney brak (rechov
orwell, 1984) with illustrations by yaffa quack.

Goldy and the 3 bears. In this fascinating new book we see how the toyre
codes reveal the geneyve of Goldi. Start counting at the G of loy
siGnoyv untill your'e lost in the forest, kiss the mezuze when you enter
the hut, make a brokhe on the porridge and prepare negel vaser before
you get into bed.

Goldy: The sequel. How the hatsole and the whole of lakewood and monsey
went searching for goldy, and how she was found leyning krishme and how
the new york times (op ed) reported that the porridge was untouched
because it didn't belong to her. An absorbing read. Yated.  Fascinating
insight. Hamodia. Suitable for mechanchim and mechanches and menahalim
and menahlos and packed with chinuch free from alien influences.

Humpty Dumpty: A dissertation by horticultural/biological expert who
never attended a university and is living proof that ponivitch beats
harvard and all khokhmes are in the toyre. Humpty Dumpty was a beye
shenolde beyomtev and all the king's men were mesupek if he had a din of
a ben noyekh or a yisroel and it really depends on whether we are
allowed to open a fridge on shabes. Absorbing (sorry we used that last
time. Fascinating this time)

Red Riding Hood: A thesis that RRH halted like the pri megodim where he
regreted his earlier psak and changed his mind over sheitels and so
covered her hair with a hood. (red? nu!) Her grandmother was a modern
orthodox of the mimetic tradition who had hair sticking out of her
nightcap and the woolf was a litvak who swallowed them whole and didn't
know that he should have chewed them so that they shoudn't be a berye.

Hansel and Gretel: Rabbi YGB gives us a musar haskeyl how kidushey
ketano by the meshane halokhes can lead to brothers and sisters being
taken away to forests to be engaged where they are caught and fatted
with khazir rakhmone litslon and all because their parents remarried
after a get from rabbi rackman. run our of superlatives, sorry must end.

The recycled evyoyn. In conjunction with the brisker friends of the
earth we have the illuminating story of the recycled evyoyn. parched
throughout (like a matse) split within (like a lulev) dragged on the
ground (like the tsitsis) this evyoyn was conserved in a bottle that may
not be opened on shabes and conforms to every trait needed in an evyoyn.
A lekhakhiledike mehuderdike evyoyn usable until tekhiyas hameisim.

On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, David Herskovic wrote:

> mesekhte pirim
> aren't fools. omar loy reb david glasner v'ho anybody who participates
> on avodah must have daled ames on the internet and reb eli uses his
> father in law's address. kofats olov rugzoy shel yosef gavriel veomar

I must commend david for a clever and sometimes funny piece. I wish I had
the free time in my life to do such things. However, I'm sorry to point
out that once again David has erred in his posts. My e0mail address
(c-maryles) belogs to my wife (cheryl (sari) maryles ginsparg) therefore,
whether you say isto kgufo or mah shekana isto kanah baalo it is clearly
my e-mail address which my father in law borrows from me. I guess to play
along I'd say tiyuvta reb glassner tiyuvta:)
I hope everyone had a great purim and in the spirit of the yom which
stesses achdus in klal yisroel I hope we don't forget we are all trying
for one goal, even if I strongly disagree with some of your approaches.
Elie Ginsparg 

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


[ 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 ]