Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 084

Thursday, June 10 1999

• HALACHA: Land for Peace
• metzius and Chazal
• Re: Keviat Seudah (was: Halcoho and Metzius)
• Kiddushe taut
• Re: Kiddushe taut
• Chazal and Metzius, Apologies and Apologetics
• Metzius and chazal
• Repudiation of the Kula for Chalav Akum by R. Moshe
• Good things about haredim (fwd)
• Metzius and Chazal
• RE: Avodah V3 #83
• Re: Repudiation of the Kula for Chalav Akum by R. Moshe

Shannee wrote (on ISRAWORLD):
> If you think about the law that you fight over Kash Ve'Teven
> (straw!!!), which is 
> certainly a situation which doesn't threaten life - and yet you
> risk your life to 
> prevent it, you must conclude that "peace" is not something that
> enters the heading of 
> "piku'ach nefesh" in jewish sources.
> 
> The opposite is true - you are ordered to go to war and _risk
> lives_!!!
> 

I think that there is a subtle distinction here:

The general rule is that one may not risk his life to perform a
mitzvah ("va'chai ba'hem") and conversely that, except in the case of
the 3 cardinal sins (idolatry, sexual relationships, and murder) one
may violate a mitzvah in order to save one's life.

One exception to this rule is that one may risk one's life in a
milchemet mitzvah in order to achieve various goals (such as to
insure greater security for the Jewish people).  Such risking of life
is not necessarily an exception to the rule of pikuach nefesh. 
Rather, it may be a limited exception: one may go to war and risk
lives provided that the end result will be a *long-term* saving of
lives.  (In fact, this was US policy in confronting the Soviet Union
militarily; we did not adopt the motto of "better Red than dead.")

I agree that the Minchat Chinukh makes the argument Shannee makes. 
Nevertheless, Rav Hershel Schachter in Nefesh HaRav explains why Rav
Soloveitchik disagrees with the Minchat Chinukh (as I vaguely recall,
using an argument similar to mine).

Logically, it makes sense that the Land of Israel should not be one
of the cardinal principals for which we risk our lives *long term* . 
Semi-proof: Rav Yochanan Ben Zakkai's willingness to say "tain lee
yavneh v'chachame'ha" rather than (as desired by the
zealots--biryonim) fight to the death with the slight hope that the
Jews would beat the Romans.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

>>>
From: Saul Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu>
S

Reb Rich Wolpoe;  I know that you didn't mean it that way but you said, "It
is "arrogant" to assume that we have THE definitive understanding of the 
Gemoro and it is wrong."  If you read the quote from R' SR Hirsch, I guess
he would fit into the description of arrogant.  He was also being
"fallacious"  and I quote your words "I think it is fallacious to assume
that Chazal were  strictly making hard and fast scientific statements, or
historical ones, for that matter."
when he stated, "The greatness of his wisdom is in no way belittled if in a
later generation it is discovered that some of the things he maintained or
accepted on the authority of others is unreliable.  The same is true for
Chazal in these areas." Be careful when you use words like "fallacious" and
"arrogant"  If you disagree, that is your right, but don't start calling
people fallacious...you never know whom you are disagreeing with.
        It is very clear from R' Hirsch that he did not look for metaphysical
explanations for the divrei chazal that commented on scientific matters.
He simply felt that Chazal relied on the scientists of their time.  This
seems very logical to me.  And you are right, they did not "err", they only
used their sense of logic and the science of their time.  Any more than you
or I would be "erring" if we felt 100 years ago that space consisted of
"ether" or whatever other theories abounded at the time.
Shaul weinreb<<

Apoligies to RRSR Hirsch (or to anyone else for that matter).
I did not fully understand Hirsch'es point when he made it.

I would still postulate that he might have agreed with my point on a certain 
level.  THAT point being, halachic versions of metizus are not subject to 
scientific verification.  

I say, instead of revising Chazal's scientific statements in light of modern 
technology, let's revise HOW we see Chazal's statements as being in the 
spritual/halachic realm and not stritcly in the material realm.

Rich Wp;[pe 

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> Tangential to this thread...
> 
> Has anyone considered modifying Kevias se'udo in light of the
> metzius that 
> today's society is not koveia on betzius haPas - Except that this
> is a halachic 
> requirement to do so?
> 

My understanding is that bread is a requirement because the pasuk
preceding "v'achalta v'savata" has the word "lechem" in it.  If so,
it is a g'zeirat hakatuv and is not subject to change based on
changes in society.

While we are rabbinically commanded to bentch on a kezayit of bread
(and therefore one might argue that the rabbis of today should extend
this din to steak), the rabbis would not extend this to steak because
kol d'tikun rabbanan k'ain d'oraita tikun.

One case where R. Wolpoe's question does come up is in connection to
the Magen Avraham's chiddush that one must bentch on a meal which
consists of various foods (such as steak) eaten together with a small
amount (I believe, a kezayit) of pat ha'ba'ah b'kitnin (i.e. mezonot
food).  His rationale (as I recall; I haven't reviewed this recently)
is that m'd'oraita one must bentch when one is satiated and that can
be achieved by eating a [kezayit] of bread along with meat &
potatoes.  Similarly, if one eats meat & potatoes along with
crackers, the crackers take the place of bread and one has entered
into the realm of keviat seudah on pat haba'ah b'kitnin.

Query: in today's society, would eating a kezayit of crackers
necessarily indicate that one has been kova'ah seudah on those
crackers (considering the insignificance of crackers in today's
society)?

BTW, it is my opinion (from learning the sugyah a number of years
ago) that one can be m'dayek from the Rishonim that they disagreed
with the Magen Avraham.

Kol tuv,
Moshe



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Some questions to Rav Broyde about his excellent article about kiddushe taut.

What about if the defect is present as an increased risk or potential for
a defect?  For example, rav Broyde mentions that Rav Feinstein brings down a
case of a bisexual man. What about if the man  started acting bisexually only
after the marriage?  May we argue that the tendency to be bisexual was already
there,and therefore the kiddushim are kiddushe taut, or not? 

This would be highly relevant to the issue of abusive husbands, if one held that 
being abusive was somehow innate, even though neither husband nor wife
knew ahead of time that he was going to be abusive. 

Second, the discussions about how living together create the presumption of
marriage even if initial kiddushin were not valid.  

(4) The woman must discontinue marital relations with her husband either
    immediately or very soon after the discovery of the defect and her
    awareness that she can leave the marriage because of this.

This actually conflates two  times - the time of discovery of the defect,
and the time that she realizes that she can leave the marriage because of this. 
There is also the issue that she may not realize the kiddushin was invalid, as
briefly mentioned by Rav Broyde in his penultimate paragraph.  It would seem
that this issue would be at the center of whether kiddushe taut can be used more
widely.

Let me raise another issue.  The presumption of the Aruch Hashulchan is that if
the man continues in a sexual relationship after discovering defects, he is
stating that he does not care about the defects.  However, it is not clear that
this presumption is symmetric, and is also true that if the woman continues a
sexual relationship, it means that she does not care about the defects.  After
all, we have (in other contexts) the presumption that isha karka olam - she can
be assumed to be the passive recipient of unwanted sexual attentions.  The fact
that sexual relations occured, even in an angoing relationship, is not
necessarily proof that she truly consented.  (This would seem very relevant in
abusive relationships)  Does anyone apply this principle here?


Meir Shinnar

--- meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:
> Let me raise another issue.  The presumption of the Aruch
> Hashulchan is that if
> the man continues in a sexual relationship after discovering
> defects, he is
> stating that he does not care about the defects.  However, it is
> not clear that
> this presumption is symmetric, and is also true that if the woman
> continues a
> sexual relationship, it means that she does not care about the
> defects.  After
> all, we have (in other contexts) the presumption that isha karka
> olam - she can
> be assumed to be the passive recipient of unwanted sexual
> attentions.  The fact
> that sexual relations occured, even in an angoing relationship, is
> not
> necessarily proof that she truly consented.  (This would seem very
> relevant in
> abusive relationships)  Does anyone apply this principle here?
> 

Let me add to this question: what if she "actively" consented (i.e.,
she was not merely karka olam but was to'veah tashmish) but
psychologists would say that her "consent" was not true consent
because of battered women's syndrome (which, I believe, is considered
a psychological condition)?

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

David Glassner:>> am taking the Gemoro as it straightforwardly presents the idea
of 'kinah einah para v'rava" on the daf and as all (to my knowledge) Poskim from
the Rambam to the Mishnah B'rurah have understood that idea.  If you or R. Dovid
LIfshitz offer a hidush in your interpretation of the sugya and the meaning of 
"kinah ein para v'rava" you are saying that for 1500 years, the M'farshim and 
the Poskim who were deciding halakha l'maaseh based on that sugya did not 
properly understand the sugya.  When did this misunderstanding begin?  Why is it
less arrogant to impugn the interpretative powers of everyone since the time of 
Rav Yosef and Abaye or Rav Ashi, than to say that Rav Yosef was mistaken on a 
question of metzius?  Even if a reinterpretation of "kinah einah para v'rava" 
along the lines of R. Dovid Lifshitz could be logically defended, and b'm'hilat 
k'vod torato, I don't think that it can be, it does not eliminate what you call 
arrogance, it just aims it in another direction.<<

Good Point.

Question #1 :  Would you say dishes used in conjuction with the maggots heter 
are now to be deemed treif because of Chazal's (alleged) error in metzius? 

Question #2:  I heard that according to Rav Kook, Bayis Shlishi will be 
veegtarian and only korbon mincho will be offered.  Did Rav Kook advocte 
altering our tefillos and nusach to co-incide with his conviction?

Question #3:  Supposing we could show that Maase Bresihsi was taken 
literally for a period of 1500 years.  Would that mean that:
A) We must take it literally today
B) That taking it metaphorically is only bedieved, that it was ALWAYS meant 
literally but we are apologizing when taking it metaphorically? 

Permit me a few points:

If you yourself said X and it was widely understood to mean one thing and then 
that assumption is proven wrong.  And along comes someone who can reconcile your
statement from a different angle but it would invalidate the popular 
understnading of it. Would you prefer:

1) Your statment be rejected?
2) Your statment be modifed and reconciled with the newly found reality?

I would suspect that lechatichilo it would be preferable to take Chazal 
literarlly, but when faced with a compelling contradiction, I would prefer to 
punt Chazal into a different meaning than to simply reject them wholesale.  In a
real sense this IS apologetics.

David Glassner's point about rejecting 1500 years of tradition as to how to 
understand something hits home.  I have no easy answer.  However, we have often 
seen shver meforshim answered with elegant teirutzim many years later.  There 
are stories about the Meginei Shlomo and Rashi, that Rashi gave him a yasher 
koach for being meyashiv him.  Now what happened AFTER Rashi and BEFORE Meginei 
Shlomo? Did the velt assume:
1) we have THE definite pesaht in Rashi and Rashi erred 
OR
2) We have THE definite peshat in Rashi, Rashi is shver (but not quite in error)
and he
3) As we see it Rashi is Shver, but maybe we do not quite understand Rashi?

Now along comes Meginei Shlomo and says, wait a minute, I can be meyasheiv 
Rashi.  Wouldn't you be wiling to hazard a guess that by doing so he changed 
the popular undrstanding of peshat in Rashi now and again?  

Micha:>>Second,
you are assuming R' Dovid's motivation. Frankly, I don't recall if he gave 
one. Perhaps he was just stating emes --<<

Or perhaps both R. Dovid and I can both say that "Chazal did not mean to be 
taken literally?"  I think this supports my first thesis anyway.

R. Shaul Weinreb::
>>   It is very clear from R' Hirsch that he did not look for metaphysical
explanations for the divrei chazal that commented on scientific matters.
He simply felt that Chazal relied on the scientists of their time.<<

It is most probably that you are correct about RSR Hirsch's presupposition.  
But WADR, I do not accept it, and fruthermore I suspect that in a slightly 
different context, Hirsch would have agreed with my point. Which is:
It is largely (though by no means completely) irrelevant what the physcial 
metzius was then or now. That chazal's statements are (virtually) always valid 
on a halachic level (or at least binding) regardless of whether or not they 
comfortably co-exist with contemporary science.

Illustration #1: 
Bris mila was once considered barbaric. Later on hygenic.  Now the hygeine 
part is being questioned.  Chevra, it's all irrelevant.  Bris is about bris 
kodesh not about hygeine. 

Illustration #2:  If you asked me in history class how long was the Bayis Shinei
era, I would asnwe probably about 585 years but there is a tradition of only 
420.  However, if you asked mein Shiur or Halocho how long did it last I would 
respond 420.  In that dimension 420 is correct regardles of the historical 
metziuus.  (it beter be or we would need to re-adjust all of our calendars.  We 
PASEKN 420 legabie shmito, etc.)  420 is then NOT a metizus issue, it's an 
halachic issue.

Also, the CI and others tell us that regardless of  what erroneous assumptions 
were made, we can rely HALACHICALLY on Chazal.  That does NOT imply that Chazal 
are infallible on the material plane.  it does mean where are bound to their 
principles on the halachi plane.

Didn't the Rambam attemp to reconcile science with Halacha?  And despite Mich'as
objections, isn't that what R. Dovid was attempting?

Ok, R. Dovid, et. al. Come up with a comprehensive alternate theory.  When are 
we required to assume Chazal are right?  When is the TB authoritative and when 
isn't it?  When can halacho be altered on the basis of scientific findings?  How
does one decide that contemproary science has conclusively upshlugged the 
gemoro?  

And WADR to RSR Hirsch, Rav Kook, et. al. I would think that they would see 
being meysaheiv Chazal as a worthy endeavor, despite  their possible misgivings 
re: a few indifidual cases.

I also regret putting anyone down, and apologize again.

Rich wolpoe

Reb Micha wrote, "So, it's unclear if R' Hirsch would hold that
the p'sak is guaranteed to be correct even though he holds the science is
not....I would have been more comfortable with an expanded version of this
statement. Not only were they repeating the science of the day, but note
how they aren't repeating it qua science, but as a metaphor on which to
base "a mussar lesson." I would not assume that Chazal necessarily cared
whether or not it was true. It served as a handy mashal."
I was also bothered that R' Hirsch didn't carry his thoughts farther and
explain what halachic ramifications there might be as a result of his
philosophy.  In fact, most of the essay that I was quoting does indeed deal
with how to approach strange aggados.  However I did skip one paragraph
which I will include here for completeness' sake.  One might want to draw
halachic conclusions from what he says but I admit that it is not that
explicit.

Vezeh Leshono: "Imagine if a scholar such as Humboldt (a famous German
naturalist Alexander von Humboldt 1769-1859) had lived in their times and
had travelled to the ends of the world for his biological investigations.
If upon his return he would report that in some distant land there is a
humanoid creature growing from the ground (See Yerushalmi Kilayim 8:4) or
that he had found mice that had been generated from the soil and had in
fact seen a mouse that was half earth and half flesh (Sanhedrin 91a) and
his repost was accepted by the world as true, wouldn't we expect Chazal to
discuss the Torah aspects that apply to these instances?  What laws of
defilement and decontamination [this is indeed what the gemarah Kilayim is
discussing...SW] apply to these creatures?  Or would we expect them to go
on long journeys to find out whether what the world has accepted is really
true?  And if, as we see things today, these instances are considered
fiction, can Chazal be blamed for ideas that were accepted by the
naturalists of their times?  And this is what really happened.  These
statements are to be found in the works of Pliny, who lived in Rome at the
time the Second Temple was destroyed, and who collected in his books on
nature all that was well known and accepted in his day." Ad Kan Leshono

I wish he would have discussed halachah explicitly, but he does say that
Chazal can be expected to make Halachic observations based on the accepted
science of the day.  On can conclude, that if that is the case, if science
should prove that the original ideas were faulty, that we could change the
halachos on that basis.  However, I admit that his words were primarily
written regqrding aggadah.
Shaul weinreb

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Didn't R. Moshe recommend not tampering with the kulos that have been
> accepted, even if they might be questionable?


I would like to know the accuracy of the above statement.  If true, then 
it would seem that the last volume of Igrus Moshe which seems to 
indicate that R. Moshe recanted his original Kula regarding Chalav Akum 
(i.e. Cholov Stam). This last volume was published posthumously, I 
believe, by his grandchildren and I found it very suspect that R. Moshe 
would have written such a clear and beautiful heter (KULA) for Chalav 
Akum only to repudiate it later in life.  My gut feeling is that the 
last (posthumous) volume. was written with an agendized attitude. I am 
always suspicious of Halacha sforim put out by Talmidim etc. who only 
have anecdotal knowledge of psak halacha.  If the Niftar didn't publish 
those teshuvos in his lifetime than there was probably a good reason.

HM

Forwarded to me by two friends today. Worth sharing.

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:13:15 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
To: RGatNOVICK@aol.com, Pzk1@aol.com, ygb@aishdas.org, pgmjjb@ibi.com,
    jstern@netmail.hscbklyn.edu, ketivah@ix.netcom.com, dvunkannon@kpmg.com,
    EDTeitz@aol.com, EKatzenste@aol.com, greenreal@juno.com, JBURB@aol.com,
    Arvin.Levine@COMPAQ.com, MPoppers@kayescholer.com, mkamin@metlife.com,
    micha@aishdas.org, nishma@interlog.com, JTaragin@exchange.ml.com,
    Sewenjoy@aol.com, sf45678@aol.com, Sydney.Gordon@transamerica.com,
    Yehuda.Hilewitz@cor.dowjones.com, yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Good things about haredim 

        NOT PAGE ONE: Some good words about... haredim
        By SAM ORBAUM

        (June 8) Let's talk about the haredim.
        No, wait! I've got some nice things to say.
        It is easy to play devil's advocate with the haredim, because for all 
the justifiable harsh criticism they earn, there is so much goodness to 
report.  Strictly "Not Page One" stuff this is, for good news is no news.
        Every time a journalist writes a negative piece about them, we hear 
the same refrain: "Sure, bash the haredim. Why don't you ever write anything 
nice about them?"
        OK. Here goes.
        Their charity, social consciousness, good deeds, communal welfare and 
human kindness may be unparalleled among the communities of this country.
        From birth through to death, you can be helped by one do-gooding 
haredi concern or another. There's a wealth of well-established, nationwide 
organizations like Yad Sarah, providing free medical equipment for all who 
ask. Children with Down's go to Shalva, with cancer to Zichron Menahem.
        My sister was once laid up with a broken leg, and haredim came to her 
home with cooked meals. Free, of course - though they gratefully accepted a 
donation to keep the service going for others.
        The kindly folks at Ezer Mitzion run a fleet of more than 30 
ambulances - free, of course - to transport children suffering from cancer, 
from anywhere in the country to the Children's Hospital in Petah Tikva. While 
undergoing treatment, the patient and his family can stay at the nearby Ezer 
Mitzion Convalescent Home.
        The list of gemahim - free loan organizations - is endless.  And 
there are the little people.
        Yeshurun, a Habad-affiliated restaurant in Tel Aviv, feeds any beggar 
who walks in.
        Remember Bella Freund? A haredi woman, she leapt into an inflamed 
lynch mob attacking an Arab terrorist who had stabbed two boys in Jerusalem a 
few years ago. For half an hour she protected him with her own life, 
physically absorbing the assaults herself, motivated by her religious 
convictions.
        I'VE had occasion in the last few years to be in a hospital, and that 
is where the haredim are most outstanding. Making no noise about it, they 
simply go about helping people.
        They didn't ask first who I vote for, what shul I go to, or whether I 
write negative articles about their community.
        Every day, a happy haredi lady from Ezer Mitzion - she's fulfilling a 
major mitzva, which is why she looks so happy - goes room to room offering 
cooked meals to families attending patients. These ladies do not make a point 
of reminding their benefactors that the food is provided by those nasty 
haredim; they wish you "bon appetit" and "be healthy," and they're outta 
there.  Arab patients at Hadassah-Ein Kerem sometimes get upset when Ezer 
Mitzion passes them over - but why aren't
there Arab gemahim?
        Fridays are a favorite day for people scoring mitzva points. A bent 
old man distributes little hallot with a mumbled "Gut Shabbos"; someone 
brings around Shabbat candles for the women; performing the mitzva of 
visiting the sick, some haredim just make the rounds and offer a word of 
encouragement.  A couple of times I asked what group or sect they represent, 
and all I got was a shrug or a smile. Decency for the sake of decency alone.
        The highest form of mitzva is giving of yourself anonymously. With 
not even a thank you as payment, the reward is knowing you've helped your 
fellow man.  In my case, I was a fellow man who has been critical of these 
very people (but we agreed not to get into that). No matter: They had what I 
needed.
        PRECEEDING my bone-marrow transplant, the hospital requested several 
dozen donations of platelets (thrombocites). It's quite an imposition, to 
find that many people to go all the way to the hospital, get tested, and then 
return to be jabbed in each arm and thus kill an hour or so. Many 
acquaintances, religious and secular, responded to my need.
        As we struggled to fill the quota of donors, word got around, 
somehow, to haredi circles. Two carloads of yeshiva students went to the 
hospital and rolled up their sleeves for me.  I managed to contact one of 
them, and asked why.  "Oh, we like doing it," he answered cheerily. "We do it 
all the time."
        Absolutely unbelievable.
        The other day, I went to Kupat Holim Meuhedet in Ramot for a blood 
test. I was too late; Asher, a haredi man behind the counter, said I should 
return the next day, and told me until what time. But he erred, and the 
following day, I was again too late, by a few minutes.  It turned out, 
though, that he was more haredi than mindless pakid: "Oy," he said, 
crestfallen, "it's my fault." He asked the nurse to draw my
blood, and - get ready for this - he took the vials, hurried to his car and 
drove into town to get my blood to the laboratory in time.
        To a religious man, this was the right thing to do.
        It was mind-blowing.
        There's a common thread that runs through these tales of the 
unexpected, and it gives me an idea:
        Draft every single haredi, man and woman, old and young. Put them not 
in the army, where they're of little use, but in the hospitals. In that 
altruistic way, even the most anti-Zionist among them could justify serving 
the nation; the boiling resentment toward them would be stifled; the savings 
to the health-care system would be enormous; the sick would benefit from the 
world's most overstaffed, caring, devoted
hospitals.
        They could replace the legions of foreign workers tending to the 
frail and infirm. At no cost. To the benefit of everyone. To the betterment 
of Israeli society. Who, then, could say a bad word about the haredim?

>>>So what IS the category Chazal stated wrt to maggots?  Did they say this 
is a 
lesson in entymology? <<<

Yes.  Contrast your case - two estranged brothers testifying as eidim 
together - where the Torah never explicitely refers to any reason for the 
psul and it might have nothing at all to do with the reasons you or I 
suggest, with my case - the half mouse half dirt -  the Mishna explicitely 
refers to a physical phenomenon we know cannot and does not exist.  

I agree wholeheartedly that Chazal are not out to teach us science and the 
half-dirt/mouse case may be just a description of an animal that appears to 
spontaneously generate that way, not that in the laboratory of science it 
really exists that way.  Such an approach allows us to maintain halachic 
integrity by rereading gemeras to fit our own world view. 

 However, (and this is how I read the initial discussion) the historical 
question remains - without retrospective revisionism  - isn't it fair to 
assume that the original intent of Chazal was consistant with scientific 
views of their time and not consistant with any ultimate scientific truths of 
the universe and that Chazal were not privy to secrets of science or other 
secular learning that their contemporaries were unaware of?

-Chaim

Micha wrote:
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:35:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Goal of Yahadus

Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@mail.netvision.net.il> writes:
:> In the early days of the list, we established that current hashkafos revolve
:> around one of two different concepts about what the goal of Yahadus is:
:> d'veikus or temimus (to use my choice of terms).
....
: Instead of raising people to follow one path and forcing them onto it even
: if it doesn't appear to complement their soul, perhaps it is time to realize
: that different paths: Chassidut; Litvische; Dati Leumi; are actually all
: correct ...

Ein hochi nami. But how is someone supposed to know which derech best fits
his neti'os without clearly defining the different d'rachim? You seem to
want to avoid categorization, as it makes it less likely that people will
jump the border from one to the next. I was intending the reverse, clearly
defining the categories so that people can understand the choices they make
and make them consciously and after much thought.
------------end of first part of quote::

I don't want to avoid categorization so much as limitations.  By defining things as A 
vs. B, we unwittingly create a situation where people think that one way is _better_ 
than the other.  Also that there is either A or B while, as we are humans, we probably 
should perform different sets of Mitzvot - emphasizing either one or the other, or 
depending on the required action - some mixture of the 2 or more d'ra'chim.


Micha said:
Remember my test: Ask someone what the goal of observing mitzvos is. You
will get one of the answers from my previous post, and until you bring it
to their attention, the typical yeshiva graduate will not realize that they
believe both. Now how is that person, who isn't even consciously aware of
his beliefs, supposed to build a personal hashkafah?
____________________________________________end of quote::

Again, the problem is that of limits set within Judaism by people.  If you are raised 
Chareidi, but you relate better to Hashem through Mishnat HaRav Kook, and you wish to 
go to a yeshiva that follows this path - you will become an outcast among your family 
and original circle of friends.  The same if a Chassid becomes a Misnaged or vice 
versa.  Even transferring from one Chassidische group to another can bring on 
ostracization.  I have met youth who couldn't relate to chareidi yeshiva type of study 
and the families preferred that they completely "leave the fold" and become 
non-religious -- as long as they didn't go to the "zionistische yeshiva".

OTOH, there are small groups who are now allowing crossing over between groups, but 
only when the kids have been thrown out of every yeshiva their circle approves of.  
Things shouldn't be allowed to deteriorate so far.  We are advised "Chanoch LaNa'ar Al 
Pi Darko" -- I think it is about time that people spend more time discovering the 
_suitable path_ for their kids, rather than waiting for the kid to discover it hirself 
through trial and error.

Micha wrote:
How is this person (to rehash the rest of my email of nearly a year ago)
supposed to decide whether to daven bizman, or take the time to be mentally
ready and achieve greater kavannah? Misnagdim choose the former, since
temimus will place the greater value on zehirus. Chassidim (by nad large)
choose the latter, since it will afford more d'veikus.
--------------------------------------------------------end of quote::

First of all a person is raised by hir parents.  As you are a parent, I'm sure that you 
pay attention and you notice if a kid should be in a school where the emphasis is on 
Machshava or Halacha either in a Chassidische atmosphere or some other.  But how many 
parents of one group will allow their child to be raised in a yeshiva/school of another 
group - simply b/c they realize that it would be better for hir?!

Also, as adults, there are times, either days, weeks, months or years, where we are 
better able to become Karov LaHashem through dveikus - and other times when we find 
ourselves better connected to the idea and practices of temimus.  So, again, defining 
things is fine - as long as we don't create walls and limitations as we do so.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts.

Shoshana

-------------------------------------
Name: Shoshana L. Boublil
E-mail: toramada@mail.netvision.net.il
Date: 10/06/99
Time: 07:52:40 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.

Harry Maryles wrote:

> richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
>
> > Didn't R. Moshe recommend not tampering with the kulos that have been
> > accepted, even if they might be questionable?
>
> I would like to know the accuracy of the above statement.  If true, then
> it would seem that the last volume of Igrus Moshe which seems to
> indicate that R. Moshe recanted his original Kula regarding Chalav Akum
> (i.e. Cholov Stam). This last volume was published posthumously, I
> believe, by his grandchildren and I found it very suspect that R. Moshe
> would have written such a clear and beautiful heter (KULA) for Chalav
> Akum only to repudiate it later in life.  My gut feeling is that the
> last (posthumous) volume. was written with an agendized attitude. I am
> always suspicious of Halacha sforim put out by Talmidim etc. who only
> have anecdotal knowledge of psak halacha.  If the Niftar didn't publish
> those teshuvos in his lifetime than there was probably a good reason.
>
> HM

The above is - to put it mildly - slander. Gut feelings are not
justification for undermining the reputation of talmidei chachomim - or
anyone else. Furthermore you are publicly questioning the veracity of the
Igros Moshe based on your gut feeling.

Two points need to be made. 1) your reading of the tshuva in the 8th volume
is simply incorrect. Reb Moshe is not repudiating a kula. He is dealing with
those who have insisted on using only chalav Yisroel milk (without a hetair)
- while being fully aware of the hetair. He says that they should not change
practice so quickly merely because of economic considerations. He also
insisted - elsewhere -  that schools and camps use regular chalav yisroel
milk. In sum, a person's use of a kula is not mechanical and there are
clearly circumstances which militate against its use.

As to your gut feeling - I asked Reb Dovid Feinstein about the material
which was included in the 8th volume. He responded that it was simply a
question of whether the material should be lost or published with clear
indications of it nature. The family decided that it was better to publish
the material - carefully labeled as to its nature and relationship to
previous tshuvos - and leave it to the reader decide how to utilize it.

The Igros Moshe was not meant for baalei batim. Reb Moshe clearly states in
his introduction that his purpose was to provide poskim with his reasoning
on various issues - and it is up to the reader to decide whether to utilize
the material.

As to your accusation of agenda. One rosh yeshiva pointed out that if there
was an agenda - it was strange that there is such strong anti- college
material included. The main work on the 8th was done by Rabbi Shabtsai
Rappaport - son-in-law of Rav Moshe Tendler and Rabbi Mordechai Tendler -
the son of Rav Moshe Tendler. Both are more than anecdotally acquainted with
psak halacha.


In sum - your criticism is inappropriate.

Rabbi Rappaport's telephone number is .(02) -641-5579 Bayit V'gan Israel
Rabbi Mordechai Tendler's number is (914) 354-0498 Monsey New York

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]