Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 153

Wednesday, August 4 1999

• Is all music value neutral? -- a Halakhic source
• Lights on Yomtov and R' Shlomo Zalman
• munkacz - source
• Josephus and Allegorization
• Re: authority of Sanhedrin
• MUNKACS
• Re: Lights on Yomtov and R' Shlomo Zalman
• Re: MUNKACS
• Dov Gruner
• Re: Dov Gruner
• Journal not Reader!
• Re: MUNKACS
• Re: Semichoh revival - Tangent
• Re: Semichoh revival - Tangent, minor oops.
• Rabbi: Titular kovode
• R' Aharon is ill

Both Barbara Gibbs and Jordan Hirsch bring their musical expertise to
the issue of Wagner's music.

I found a fascinating reference to Wagner in a teshuvah of R. Hayyim
David Halevi z.t.l. (Aseh Lekha Rav, vol. III, no. 4) while researching
an upcoming shiur on listening to secular music.  R. Halevi writes:

"Music composed by an evil person (like Wagner), if [the music] does not
itself express evil, i.e., a listener who does not know the identity of
the composer would not discern [any evil], it does not appear to me that
it should be prohibited."

R. Halevi clearly assumes that music can be value neutral and provides
an interesting test for such value neutrality.  I hope our resident
musicologists will consent to comment on R. Halevi's approach.  I wonder
if it has parallels in the literature.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Just before writing a correction to the statement that the Arukh Hashulhan permitted 
lighting lights on Shabbat, I decided to read my mail and found that RYGB had already 
corrected himself that it was Yomtov and not Shabbat.

While on the subject, I can comment and possibly start a new thread if anyone is 
interested. When I first heard of  the yomtov lighting heter some 70 years ago,it was 
still an accepted  halakha but shortly after it started to "go out of fashion". 

The posekim who concurred at that time with the Arukh Hashulhan based themselves 
 on what appeared to them to be good logic.  The first rabbanim to consider electric 
lights lived in a world where light could be only either sun or fire (Ur or Hamma). No 
other source of light existed. As it was obviously not hamma and they saw the fire in 
the power station, they concluded it was ur. It appeared that the fire in the power 
station traveled through the wires to the electric light bulb.  This meant that what we 
now call the transfer of energy by the movement of electrons through the wire was 
the movement of fire.  Closing the switch, therefore, was allowing the already existing 
fire to continue a bit farther into the bulb which is obviously permitted on Yomtov. 
(BTW, a conclusive proof that current is fire was that when the wire was 
disconnected the last drop of fire still jumped the gap.)

Electricity is halakhically fire if one is talking about the light in an incandescent bulb 
(gahelet shel matekhet). To consider the current itself as fire is not in accord with our 
understanding of the physical facts. One has only to put his hand on the insulated 
cable that one plugs into the outlet to see that it is cold.  Can fire or halakhic fire be 
cold?

The understanding that the current itself is fire was soon replaced by the concept of 
molid (Bet Yizhak) and then also by tikkun and boneh.  Activating  the device is the 
issur, i.e., imbuing the device with the ability to fulfill its function.

R' ET mentions that R" Shlomo Zalman Auerbach considers the issur of connecting 
electricity as no more than a custom. To avoid misunderstandings, I think one should 
add "unless the result of the action is in itself an issur".  I quote (in translation) from 
R'ShZA's Kovetz Ma'amarim page 22:  Basically, IMHO, there is no issur to actuate 
electricity on Shabbat other than the (forbidden) result such as bishul or hadlaka, etc., 
for which one is responsible as if he cooked or lighted directly with his own hands.

Did I start something?

Biv'rakha,

> >
> > 1. It appears that the letter by the Munkacser has been questionably
> > translated. For the benefit of those who have lost track: Please supply
> > the specific reference to the original and the translation.
> 
What I wrote was:

     The responsa is by Rabbi Hayyim Eleazar Shapira of Munkacs
(1872-1937) and was written in Solvakia, 1933. It appears in his
responsa Minchat Eliezer volume 5 #36. It has been translated into
English in the book "Rabbinic Responsa of the Holocaust Era" by Robert
Krischner, Schocken Books.  Below are selected quotes from the English
translation, see the original or the translation for more details.

I am not sure the translation is questionable. However, I have not
compared the original with the translation.

Eli Turkel

Let me clarify a few points:

1) I did not say Josephus discounts Krias Yam Suf.  What I did say was that he 
discounted the need to take it literally, IOW one may opt to see it as a 
metaphor, etc. and remain a good Jew

2) Granted, Joesphus's opinion carries little weight, however as a reporter he 
may cary a lot of weight as a meisiach lefi sumo of what others thought. As 
such, he is as reliable about his events as today's NY Times would be a thousnad
years hence re: today.

3) I do not see taking the Mabul as allegory as violation of any ikrei emuno.  I
do not necessarily concur with Spero's article, frnakly I haven't even seen it. 
My opinion is that every word of the Torah is siginificant, BUT the Torah is 
written in 2-dimensional script and cannot always fully describe 3-dimensional 
events.  If Hashem wanted to lay out a precise chronolgy and factual histroy He 
would have en better served by sending us a video instead of a book! <smile>  So
it is not only natural that different people interpret the Torah differntly, it 
is probably desirable. 

4) I apologize for any mis-understandings.  I attempted to be cautious and say 
things like Joesphus reported as opposed to he opined.  I wrote that Josephus 
(and Dr. Feldman's comments) suggested something - that meant TO ME it 
suggested.  It did not mean that it "necessarily followed".

5) OTOH, I confess to being a bit picqued at having certain postings 
misconstrued.  I also question the trend towards litmus testing people who 
express unusual ideas.  If someone is both loyal to halacho and accepts the 
ikkarim, I think it is counter-productive to label and attack, etc.  IOW, one 
can attack an argument, a thesis, an idea, w/o resorting to attacks on the 
person.

Rich Wolpoe

 >>>They are not general purpose universal truths amenable to an 
indiscriminate applicability.<<<

While I salute your erudition, in no way does anything you have written 
constitute a defense of the original post, which I requote - >>>If a  
Sanhedrin were constituted today, it could overturn vast parts of what was  
already accepted....  It is really all up to US.  What we accept is what we 
follow.<<<  Yes, we can define takkanot as limited in scope, duration, etc., 
we can say they were never ruled on b'minyan, we can even say there are needs 
which override them (as you noted), but NONE of these considerations are a 
function of reconvening a Sanhedrin, and NONE of the considerations you raise 
are a function of 'acceptance' of the authority of Sanhedrin.  I stand by my 
original criticism.

-Chaim

From Shlomo B Abeles  <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject: Munkacs

Lihaveh Yodua, I am not a Munkatcher Chosid
and only got involved in this  debate
because I felt the the Rebbe's name had been unfairly
besmirched  - a situation of Bemokom
Sh'ein Ish. Now that I am well and truly into the 'pekel',
I suppose I should try to complete  the job
(Hamaschil Bemitzva...).
But I am Moser Modo'ah that if any questions
remain unanswered, the chisaron is in me and not
C'V the Munkatcher Rebbe zt'l.
(I hope that the Rebbe - beginzei meromim -
is also reading my posts and appreciates what I
am doing and rewards me by putting in a good
word for me every now and then.
Hopefully the issurim issued
for the Internet - only apply to this world...)

>  Steve Katz wrote
> > Subject: MUNKACS: Fasting for German Jews
>
> Are not we all created b'zelem elokim?

Of course we are!

> Whatever happened to kol yisroel chaverim zeh lozeh?

I think you mean Arevim zeh lozeh. And it was this because of this
Arvus  that the Munkatcher was so pained when he heard
of a Yid anywhere breaking the laws of the Torah.

> From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Subject: Re: MUNKATCH: Fasting for German Jews
>
> Having now read the minchat elazar I have formed my own opinion ...
> Does anyone know historically exactly to whom he was referring (secular
> Zionists, mizrachi party members who weren't shomer tora umitzvot.....?)
>
> Joel Rich

He was known to publicly attack all political parties
including the Agudah.However on a private level
their was mutual courtesy and respect for the Rabbonim
and Rebbes who were the leaders of the Agudah
including Rabbi Meir Shapiro zt'l and the Gerer Rebbe zt'l
(I am told that it was exactly the same with the Satmar Rebbe
zt'l who used to be on excellent terms with the Gedolim who
led thh Agudah - even whilst denouncing the Agudah
in his droshos and seforim.)

> From: "Daniel B. Schwartz"
> Subject: Re: MUNKATCH: Fasting for German Jews
>
>  My father z"l told me he remmebered when that Miinchas
> Elazar came to Kisvarda... and began his Firday night derasha as follows:
> "Sheit di gemora ... At that point, Dov Gruner (who later was taken captive by the
> British.....

> took off his shoe and

> threw it at the Minchas Elazar, breaking a window in the kloiz.

I am sure that the rebbe was mochel Gruner's
actions. It was however standard fare for young zionists
to publicly attack, threaten and humiliate the Munkatcher wherever he went.
A rabbi who hails from Miskolc told me that he
remembers as a child -around 1933 - the Munkatcher was there for
Shabbos and in middle of the droshe in Shul a young lout
pulled out a gun and fired it into the air causing great
fear and panic. The rebbe's reaction was "Ich bin mich
moser nefesh!"

>

L'or our modern understanding of electricity and electronics, succinctly
summarized here, I think it is fair to state that if your clock radio goes
off on Shabbos, there is no question that you may turn doen the volume,
provided you do not turn off the radio altogether, nor cause any lights to
go on or off.

On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, D & E-H Bannett wrote:

> The understanding that the current itself is fire was soon replaced by
> the concept of molid (Bet Yizhak) and then also by tikkun and boneh. 
> Activating the device is the issur, i.e., imbuing the device with the
> ability to fulfill its function. 
> 
> R' ET mentions that R" Shlomo Zalman Auerbach considers the issur of
> connecting electricity as no more than a custom. To avoid
> misunderstandings, I think one should add "unless the result of the
> action is in itself an issur".  I quote (in translation) from R'ShZA's
> Kovetz Ma'amarim page 22:  Basically, IMHO, there is no issur to actuate
> electricity on Shabbat other than the (forbidden) result such as bishul
> or hadlaka, etc., for which one is responsible as if he cooked or
> lighted directly with his own hands. 
> 

YGB

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

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, SBA wrote:

> He was known to publicly attack all political parties including the
> Agudah.However on a private level their was mutual courtesy and respect
> for the Rabbonim and Rebbes who were the leaders of the Agudah including
> Rabbi Meir Shapiro zt'l and the Gerer Rebbe zt'l (I am told that it was
> exactly the same with the Satmar Rebbe zt'l who used to be on excellent
> terms with the Gedolim who led thh Agudah - even whilst denouncing the
> Agudah in his droshos and seforim.) 
> 

Havig read the ME's teshuva again, courtesy of RSBA, I think that the Em
ha'Bonim Semeicha was probably correct in his surmise that the ME, Ish
ha'Emes as he was renowned, he would, perforce have been chozer on his
perspecitves were he alive in 1944. 

Essential to his refusal to participate in an international fast was his
perspective that the problem was local and diirectly attributable to
Chillul Shabbos, and that, therefore, a fast sans teshuva was a futile
endeavor. (He also mentions the chelbono as one-tenth sevara, but that
seems to be more of a davar chidud).

But the Holocaust most certainly came to Hungary, bastion of Munkatch and
Satmar, and "me'tzafon niftach ha'ra'ah" on gelilos where the populace was
not Mechalel Shabbos - places that hitherto had been confident that they
would escape the gezeira - as the ME intimates.

So, it would logically follow that the ME regard of the problems as local
was mufrach. And that, therefore, the problems were global. And that,
therefore, the fasts and efforts to avert that global catastrophe should
have been global.

And, likely, that the problem was not one attributable to "KMZA" 
(gevaldige story from RDS!), but something more complex and more profound.

It would be interesting to hear from someone like our very own RMFrankel
his take on this, as he is me'beis the Satmar Rebbe. My impression is that
while the Satmar Rebbe retained anti-zionism - indeed, kept it alive in
the face of many seemingly compelling reasons to drop it - his cordial
postwar relations with the Agudistin were somewhat of concession that the
hard lines drawn by the ME before the War were simply too impossible to
continue thereafter.

YGB

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

	In V3 #152, Daniel B. Schwartz refers to an incident between the
Munkatcher and Dov Gruner. He characterizes Gruner as one "who later was
taken captive by the British during the raid on the prison at Latrun". For
those who may not know, Dov Gruner, a member of Menachem Begin's "Irgun" was
hung by the British as a terrorist for his partipation in the 1946 Etzel
raid on the Ramat Gan police station. He is known in Hebrew as one of the
"olei ha-gardom". For some chilling first hand sources, check out:

http://www.csuohio.edu/tagar/gruner.htm
http://www.csuohio.edu/tagar/hanging.htm

and for second-hand sources check out

http://www.etzel.org.il

The "olie hagardom" are revered as heroes across the political spectrum in
Israel. In particular, there are streets named "Rechov Gruner" in many
Israeli cities.

Saul Stokar

In a message dated 8/4/99 6:05:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
STOKASA@euromsx.gemse.fr writes:

<< In V3 #152, Daniel B. Schwartz refers to an incident between the
 Munkatcher and Dov Gruner. He characterizes Gruner as one "who later was
 taken captive by the British during the raid on the prison at Latrun". For
 those who may not know, Dov Gruner, a member of Menachem Begin's "Irgun" was
 hung by the British as a terrorist for his partipation in the 1946 Etzel
 raid on the Ramat Gan police station. He is known in Hebrew as one of the
 "olei ha-gardom". For some chilling first hand sources, check out:
  >>
He was (probably still is) used as an example to young Betarim(Brit Yosef 
Trumpledor - a "non-denominational" Zionist youth movement named for Yosef 
Trumpledor who was killed at Tel Chai in the early years of political 
Zionism) of what we would call msirat nefesh for klal yisrael. You can visit 
the gallows that the British used to hang Jewish boys - its quite a chilling 
experience.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

> are most areas - there are core beliefs that are immutable. (There was an
> essay in the Torah U'Madda Reader a few years ago that seemed intended to
> prove otherwise, but in my view proved davka how little deviation there
> really is from the Rambam's 13).

It was the Torah Umadda Journal NOT the Torah UMadda Reader.

Nafka minnot:

1. Journal is edited by Rabbi JJ Schachter; Reader by me.
2. Reader is an anthology; Journal is an annual (or as close as one can
get) publication.
3. Reader is devoted to one subject-- Torah uMadda: i.e. the place
of liberal arts in an education founded on the primacy of Torah; Journal
has devoted a lot of space to this, but has also moved on to other
questions.

SBA wrote:
> 
> >From Shlomo B Abeles  <sba@blaze.net.au>
> Subject: Munkacs
> 
> >  Steve Katz wrote
> > > Subject: MUNKACS: Fasting for German Jews
> >
> > Are not we all created b'zelem elokim?
> 
> Of course we are!
> 
> > Whatever happened to kol yisroel chaverim zeh lozeh?
> 
> I think you mean Arevim zeh lozeh. And it was this because of this
> Arvus  that the Munkatcher was so pained when he heard
> of a Yid anywhere breaking the laws of the Torah.

No, I did mean to write "chaverim," that was my point. We are all in 
this together. Some of us are frum and some are not yet. There has never 
been a selection (at least not in this world) based on frumkeit.
steve katz

RYGB writes:
<On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil wrote:
> by radbaz).  R. Yisroel was apparently caught up in the same messianic >
fervor which gripped the old yishuv of talmidei hagroh in the 1830s (and >
which was to end with such psychological catastrophe in 1840-41) and
> 
Actually, this past Shabbos at our Shul Kiddush we were wondering what
happened to the Chassidim under R' Mendel Vitebsker, R' Avrohom Kalisker,
and R' Chaim Chernovitzer that were oleh to EY. You also now allude to some
catastrophic disruption of the Talmidei ha'Gro aliya (is this the earthquake
in Tsfas-related?).
Could you fill us in on what happened to these movements and how much of the
old yishuv consisted of them?
YGB>

well, lessee. biqitzur nimrotz, i hope.
1. first the catastrophe.  wasn't referring to the earthquake, that that was
sure catastrophic enough.  that was a couple of years prior to 1840 and
involved "only" physical damage - with estimates ranging from 20 to 40% of
the entire yishuv in eretz yisroel losing their lives, with the vast
majority of casualties in tzifas. What i was referring to was the
psychological crisis which overtook the kollel perushim centered community
with the deflation of their messianic hopes for the year 1840.  this was no
small thing as the fervor and expectations had been building for years - may
well in fact have been the hidden engine, or not-for-prime-time-sod, which
drove the entire aliyah movement from the gra's circle which perceived that
former era restraints on active qiruve haqeitz had been lifted mi'shomayim.
indeed, the very appearance alei admos of the gaon himself, whose
extraordinary talent could only be that of a supernatural emissary, was a
sure portent of shomayim's inauguration of this new era.  As 1840 approached
things really got to a fever pitch.  There were changes introduced to the
nusach ti'filoh -e.g. the verse hisna'ari mei'ofor qumi was purged from the
qabbolas shabbos service some years prior on the theory that the shichinoh
had already gotten past the picking herself out of the dirt stage (and yes,
the very faint echo of  shabbatean era tampering with the ritual in
recognition of a new era does resonate.) When 1840 didn't work out, there
was terminal funk. To give some inkling of the depths of despair which
ensued we might mention that there were at least two conversions to
christianity, directly from members in good standing of the kollel
perushim.(again a faint historical resonance here). just try to wrap your
brain cells around an image of a couple of yidden in long beards and full
get up, maybe a gabai of a shul in williamsburg or binei brak, suddenly
deciding to sign up at the local priest's recruiting office.  it just won't
come. BTW, the circle of the gra's students had long maintained a lichoroh
bizaare, and much to the sephardim's disgust, very friendly social
relationship the local christian missionary establishment.

2. The chasidim and the individuals you mention:  The chasidim, and
proto-chasidim got there first.  with associates (not sure they should
really be classed as talmidim) of the besht arriving as individuals as early
as 1841 (R. nahum of horodenka).  The besht's brother-in-law, R. gershon
Kitover arrived about 1847 (via constantinople where he worked his way into
the graces of the politically potent sephardic leadership) and settled in
Chevron - turning down an offer by the ashqenazi community in jerusalem to
be their rov (and while r. gerson was universally appreciated as a talmid
chochom, his position as old and current buddy of the Nodoh Bi'yehudoh who
was not only respected but also feared in palestine as one of the key
mimunim of the vaad daled arotzos in charge of disribution of palestinian
tzidoqoh would have made r. gershon's agreement to settle in yeruslayim as
community leader quite a coup, a thought which could not have failed to
cross their minds when offering him the position.) Individuals arrived here
and there throughout the 1760s.  But indeed the first significant organized
aliyoh from the besht's circle was the expedition led by R. Mendel
Vitebesker and R Avrohom Kalisker who arrived in israel with three hundred
settlers about 1777. BTW this group settlement was extremely important, as
were the 30 year later group aliyos of the grah's circle, as they would
otherwise undoubtedly have simply been assimilated by the dominant sephardi
population.  As to what happened to them, the answer is nothing very
dramatic.  They basically succeeded in their goal of establishing themselves
in eretz. R. Menachem mendel settled in tzifas at first but shortly, due to
misnagdish inspired harassment, relocated the settlement to tiveryoh where
he built a shul. After his death in the early 1800s, the group leadership
passed to r. Avrohom kalisker who in turn was niftar in 1810, by which time
the chassidic community, reinforced by a steady steam of aliyos, was firmly
established.  R. Avrohom, from the circle of the great maggid, was also a
good buddy of the alter rebbe which had much practical importance since R.
Shneur Zalman (RSZ) was also very active in raising and distributing monies
for the settlers (maintenance of the palestinian settlement was of course a
major organizational thing back in the old country and in turn led to other
machloqisim, such as the famous feud between R. Shneur zalman and the
besht's grandson, R. Boruch of medziboh. kinda like a UJA vs local
federation tiff).  Indeed R. Avrohom bestowed the title of "nosih of eretz
yisroel" on RSZ. unfortunately for r. Avrohom he also had a falling out with
RSZ after the Tanya was published in 1796 (he didn't like it) which was not
a good tactical move as the alter rebbe controlled a significant flow of
cash to the community. but eventually things worked out and the community
endured.  The other fellow you mentioned, R. Chayim of Tchernovitz (the
Be'er Mayim Chayim), didn't get to palestine until a full generation after
R. Mendel and R. Avrohom's arrival. he settled in tzifas and was niftar
fairly soon (coupla years) afterwards.  I'm not aware of any significant
events or lasting mark on the yishuv associated with his aliyoh. 

3. You also ask <how much of the old yishuv consisted of them?>.
demographics are tricky and notably unreliable - however - it is estimated
that at the beginning of the 1800's there were a total of 5,000 jews in the
whole yishuv, which was itself resticted to the four holy cities of tzifas,
tiveryoh, chevron, and jerusalem.  of these probably 80% were sephardim and
20% ashqenazim.  Of the ashqenazim, in 1800 probably most were chasidim
since they had just completed a few significant waves of immigration while
the aliyah inspired by the gra's legacy didn't really start till a few years
later. there had always been an ashqenazi presence in palestine alongside,
but significantly smaller than, the sefardim. But these 'older' ashqenazim
were, by 1800, outnumbered by the chasidic greeners.  By the time of the
messianic crisis of 1840,it is estimated that the yishuv had doubled to
about 10,000.  With most of this increase now due to the influx of the gra's
followers, which picked up starting in the first decade of the 1800s and
continued, while the chasidic influx slowed down considerably.  A rough
guess then for 1840 would have the chassidic and grah populations about
equal, with a 1-sigma uncertainty about 50%. (but who's counting). 

4.  before closing this too long response (i see my hopes for nimrotz above
were in vain, but i really have been miqatzeir) i should like to note an
interesting bit of history (translated - i'm interested in it) touched on in
the second paragraph, whose lineal descendent survives to this day - and
that is the institution of the chaluqoh - the system by which monies were
raised and then distributed for the maintenance of the palestinian community
by the diaspora.  It was an institution which did almost immeasurable good
in providing tzedoqoh, saving lives etc. yet, like foreign aid - or UJA
donations today - was encumbered by a complexly structured penumbra that had
many negative, and familiar, elements to any modern - resentment on the part
of the recipients, political machinations, the 'social climbing" back home
through the charity organization infrastructure, territorial disputes and
turf battles, threats and agenda driven disbursments, etc etc.  We've
already mentioned the tiff between R. Avrohom K and his bursar RSZ.  A more
extreme example of the potential for corruption through the economic power
that comes with access to the levers of the chaluqoh, was the use made of it
by the chasidim who put R. Chayim Sanzer in cherem, with an endorsement from
a large number of israeli rabbonim who were frightened of being cut off from
the chaluqoh.  But above and beyond the question of abuse is the
(unpleasant) notion of a whole community relying for more than a 100 years,
on somebody's tzedoqoh. This is not of course completely accurate, there
were initiatives eventually to found self-supporting agricultural colonies,
hence petach tiqvoh, but this came later and was hardly the universally
preferred derech.  one fears that the chaluqoh mentality, poh vishom, may
still be with us. 

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil		H: (301) 593-3949

i noticed after pressing the send key, that i had inadvertently typed some
dates in my previous posting as 1841 and 1847. that should of course be read
as 1741 and 1747.  hope that wasn't too confusing. As a stream of
consciousness writer i really need to train to read what i've written, but
usually i can't stand rereading my own prose. 

Mechy Frankel

A very brief epicycle to a long somnolent thread related to titular kovode
which seems peripherally relevant again given some of the recent back and
forth, e.g. RSaul Stokar's observation that : <While the Maharshal indeed
has some fairly harsh things to say about ibn Ezra, he still maintains a
certain degree of respect for him (he refers to him with the honorific
"Rav") and says "since he was a great Sage and one does not contradict the
lion [after his death]".>  
At that time we discussed the appropriateness of referring to certain
individuals who, though by all accounts impeccable shomirei mitzvos and
talmidei chachomim with unimpeachable semichos, were later organizationally
affiliated, for whatever reasons, with a conservative institution.  Thus in
particular, RYGB and others who shared his convictions insisted on referring
to Saul liebermann davkoh as professor Liebermann, while - i think it was
others of the chicago school- took a similar tack by insisting on "Dr."
Lamm.  merely as an interesting datum/footnote, over shabbos i happened to
be reading a recently published collection of letters by the author of the
siridei aish, and R. Weinberg in fact refers to hagaon rav Sho'ul
Liebermann. and this letter was dated in 1960. 

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil		H: (301) 593-3949   

I was sent an email asking that we daven for haRav Aharon ben Pesha
Soloveitchik.

I'd appreciate someone letting us know as soon as they find out that the
tephillos have been answered. TIA.

Hamakom yirapei oso bisoch sh'ar cholei Yisrael,
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Aug-99: Revi'i, Re'eh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 347:5-11
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 17b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 11

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


[ 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         ]