Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 025

Tuesday, October 5 1999

• New Bar Ilan CD Rom
• RE: Avodah V4 #24
• The Demise of Mizzrachi? Was, RE: Avodah V4 #24
• Re: The Demise of Mizzrachi? Was, RE: Avodah V4 #24
• Gematria
• Re: The Demise of Mizrachi? Was, RE: Avodah V4 #24
• Re: Avodah V4 #24
• Tikkun Soferim
• religious zionism
• Rabbi B and I finally agree (On What Rav Hirsch Says)
• The demise of Mizrachi

--- Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> I also understand that the next edition of the Bar Ilan CD is due
> out in the 
> US within the next 2 weeks (per TES)

When version 6 came out, they asked $100 to upgrade from version 5
and $200 to upgrade from version 4.  My guess is that they'll
maintain this policy (and charge $200 to upgrade to version 7 from
version 5).

If they do, I'm planning to e-mail them saying that I'm not planning
to upgrade until they change their pricing policy (to something like
$125 for two upgrade levels).  I invite others to do the same.

Basically, my reasoning is: considering that I paid $700 for the
original program, I don't consider the new program to increase the
utility (and certainly not the amount of materials) of Bar Ilan by
nearly 30%.  They may argue back that otherwise everyone will wait a
number of upgrade levels before upgrading.  But I would argue that
anyone who upgrades immediately has the benefit of using an upgraded
product for a longer period of time.  In fact, most software products
which I'm aware of do not charge twice as much to someone upgrading
two upgrade levels.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

--- On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:04:55 -0500  Avodah <owner-avodah@aishdas.org> wrote:
>Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:22:06 -0500 (CDT)
>From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>Subject: The Demise of Mizrachi?

First of all, people have been declaring the "Demise of Mizrachi" since the first time 
Rav Reinus got up and named it.<g>

Now to the questions/comments:
>There was a symposium in the recent issue of Jewish Action on Religious
>Zionism (RZ) that was moderatelly interesting, but, in my opinion,
>stunningly incomplete. I have a few unordered random comments that may
>provoke some discussion here: 
>
>1. Is it not time to re-evaluate RZ based on Rav Kook (RAYK)? In the first
>place, the premise that RAYK was a RZ is debatable, but to the extent that
>his theology serves as a basis thereto, after all is said and done, his
>premise, that Secular Zionism was a precursor, harbinger and first step of
>of or towards massive Teshuva, seems to have not been borne out, IMHO
>actually disproven, by history. Secular Zionism has generally, it seems,
>led to diminished participation in and regard for Yahadus rather than the
>reverse.
 
Without RZ there wouldn't have been the massive Teshuva that is going on in Israel.  
Without RZ you wouldn't have had a Jewish State where everyone knows what a Rabbi is.  
Yes, there are many problems and Teshuva won't happen in a day or a generation.  But 
without the RZ who went to the army wearing their kippot, side by side with the 
non-religious - there would have been no meeting place that would have allowed any 
Teshuva to take place.

Secular Zionism built up much of Israel.  Without their actions of settlement - we 
wouldn't have the peripharies (sp?) and townships where much of the Teshuva is 
happening.  

It's also true that the media in Israel are, for the most part, anti-religious which is 
a problem, but without RZ you wouldn't have had regular jewish/Torah related radio and 
t.v. programs on secular t.v..
 
I could go on, but this is sufficient for now.

>2. The JA series gave short or no shrift to RZ that once existed in the
>persons od almost forgotten individuals like RYY Reines, R' Wolf Gold. R'
>Meir Bar Ilan, and later political leaders such as Wahrhaftig and Burg
>that are not, to the best of my understandimg, at all of the same cut as
>the Schools of RZ that emanate, somewhat indirectly, me'beit midrasho shel
>RAYK.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying:  are you discussing the political 
leadership or the spiritual leadership? Of today or of yesteryear?  

>3. Taking that thought further and linking back to the title of this post,
>I found it fascinating, to take an example and extrapolate therefrom,
>that, just as a "Torah Me'Tzion" RZ Kollel was founded recently in
>Detroit, I am told, the local Mizrachi chapter was declared officially
>defunct and its remaining funds disbursed.

In the recent years Mizrachi has become more and more a political party and has had, at 
least in Israel, less and less connection with the educational system and youth 
movements.  While supposedly the spiritual leadership should be guiding the political 
party, we all know that that isn't exactly <g> how things have been.  But this has 
nothing to do with the Rav Kook and RZ.

Shoshana

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

-------------------------------------
Name: Shoshana L. Boublil
E-mail: toramada@mail.netvision.net.il
Date: 04/10/99
Time: 06:09:36 PM , 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.

On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 toramada@netvision.net.il wrote:

> >1. Is it not time to re-evaluate RZ based on Rav Kook (RAYK)? In the first
> >place, the premise that RAYK was a RZ is debatable, but to the extent that
> >his theology serves as a basis thereto, after all is said and done, his
> >premise, that Secular Zionism was a precursor, harbinger and first step of
> >of or towards massive Teshuva, seems to have not been borne out, IMHO
> >actually disproven, by history. Secular Zionism has generally, it seems,
> >led to diminished participation in and regard for Yahadus rather than the
> >reverse.
>  
> Without RZ there wouldn't have been the massive Teshuva that is going on
> in Israel.  Without RZ you wouldn't have had a Jewish State where
> everyone knows what a Rabbi is.  Yes, there are many problems and
> Teshuva won't happen in a day or a generation.  But without the RZ who
> went to the army wearing their kippot, side by side with the
> non-religious - there would have been no meeting place that would have
> allowed any Teshuva to take place. 
> 

All this is true, but, I believe, not relevant to the point that I am
focused upon: RAYK's philosophy, to the best of my understanding, stated
not that Secular Zionism (SZ) was to provide a wonderful milieu in which
RZ would flourish, but rather, that SZ, as a movement and ideology, would
lead directly, as an initial step in a teshuva process, to further
teshuva. It generally does not happen today that way. Relatively few, it
seems to me, are those who as a direct result of ampification and
expansion of their SZ philosophy come to teshuva sheleima.

> Secular Zionism built up much of Israel.  Without their actions of
> settlement - we wouldn't have the peripharies (sp?) and townships where
> much of the Teshuva is happening. 
> 

Actually, that kind of statement is reminiscent of RYBS's statements in
"Five Addresses" a kind of "realpolitik" RZ, not the kind based on RAYK.

> >2. The JA series gave short or no shrift to RZ that once existed in the
> >persons od almost forgotten individuals like RYY Reines, R' Wolf Gold. R'
> >Meir Bar Ilan, and later political leaders such as Wahrhaftig and Burg
> >that are not, to the best of my understandimg, at all of the same cut as
> >the Schools of RZ that emanate, somewhat indirectly, me'beit midrasho shel
> >RAYK.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying:  are you discussing the
> political leadership or the spiritual leadership? Of today or of
> yesteryear? 
> 

Both and all.

> >3. Taking that thought further and linking back to the title of this post,
> >I found it fascinating, to take an example and extrapolate therefrom,
> >that, just as a "Torah Me'Tzion" RZ Kollel was founded recently in
> >Detroit, I am told, the local Mizrachi chapter was declared officially
> >defunct and its remaining funds disbursed.
> 
> In the recent years Mizrachi has become more and more a political party
> and has had, at least in Israel, less and less connection with the
> educational system and youth movements.  While supposedly the spiritual
> leadership should be guiding the political party, we all know that that
> isn't exactly <g> how things have been.  But this has nothing to do with
> the Rav Kook and RZ. 
>

Exactly what I think. As such, the symposium was incomplete: The Mizrachi
has been superceded, it seems, by something else - and the
socio-philosopho-historical development of that something else is
something I, as an amatuer history and sociology buff, would love to see
explored (here on Avodah, if not on in JA).

YGB

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

In a message dated 10/4/99 12:59:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 All this is true, but, I believe, not relevant to the point that I am
 focused upon: RAYK's philosophy, to the best of my understanding, stated
 not that Secular Zionism (SZ) was to provide a wonderful milieu in which
 RZ would flourish, but rather, that SZ, as a movement and ideology, would
 lead directly, as an initial step in a teshuva process, to further
 teshuva. It generally does not happen today that way. Relatively few, it
 seems to me, are those who as a direct result of ampification and
 expansion of their SZ philosophy come to teshuva sheleima.
  >>
I don't claim to really understand RAYK's philosophy but I agree that 
reevaluation is always appropriate. One question we might ask ourselves is if 
the orthodox world had followed RAYK's philosophy, would the result you 
describe have occurred.  Is it possible that our actions have been somewhat 
responsible for the tshuva not occurring?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In V4#24, Russell Hendel writes:

>Just a quick follow up on David Nadoffs observations

>1) David seems to agree with me that Gematrias are never or
>rarely used In halachah (Which is what we are discussing).

>2) A 2nd point is that while I can follow other rules (eg I can
>ask why a KLL=PRT=KLL is not generalized) there is no known
>way to DEALING with Gematira (you can do anything you want)
>which amounts to Davids statement that Gematria is used rarely
>in Halachah (which is why I cited RSRH who tries to explain away
>the few rare cases where it occurs)

>3) Regarding its use in Agaddah,  I have tried on My rashi website
>to show that most gematrias really have some other solid grammatical
>source for their reference and only use gematrias to dress up the agaddah

>Let me put it concretely this way. I challenge David or anyone else to
>bring a significant number of Agaddahs based on Gematriah that can't
>also be explained using Grammar (But then David is agreeing with me
>that the real midrash is from the grammar not the gematria?)

My posting wasn't meant to take sides in Russell's pending debate. I just wanted
to give those
participating in the discussion the benefit of a few apparently overlooked
primary sources
in Chazal and the rishonim that are directly relevant to the issue. Russell, you
seem to be more interested in whether I agree with you than you are in whether
your view is consistent with
Chazal and the rishonim. 

My opinion is really unimportant, but I think the sources I cited speak for
themselves:
G'matria is is explicitly included as an hermeneutic principle in the b'raisa of
the
32 midos shehaTora nidreshes bahem found in the hakdama to Midrash Hagodol on
B'rayshis
and quoted by the Shalo"h (Torah Sheba'al Peh, Klal 1). It is generally used for
agadic purposes, and there seems to be general agreement that the few halachik
uses constitute
asmachtos or mnemonics (see Shalo"h, ibid., Payrush Haro"sh to Nazir 5a and
Payrush
Hamishnayos of Rambam on the Mishna there). I agree with Chazal and the
rishonim.

I have no idea whether agadas based on g'matria can generally be explained by
grammer,
as Russell contends, but if they can, I wonder why Chazal bothered to enumerate
g'matria as
an hermeneutic principle -- grammer alone should suffice.  Rather than issuing
challenges,
I think it would be more constructive for Russell to formulate a reasonably
complete list of
ma'amaray chazal that employ g'matria and demonstrate his a priori assumption
that each g'matria derivation is directly inferrable from grammatical
principles. 

As to Russell's point #2, I believe the Ramban discourages independant use of
g'matria,
and takes the position that one should only use g'matrias which have been handed
down
by tradition. (I think he says some g'matrias are halacha l'moshe misinai.) I
will, b'lee neder, try
to find the source for this. Obvously, there are those (e.g., R' Avraham
Abulafia) who disagree
with this. 

Kol tuv
David  

On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> << 
>  All this is true, but, I believe, not relevant to the point that I am
>  focused upon: RAYK's philosophy, to the best of my understanding, stated
>  not that Secular Zionism (SZ) was to provide a wonderful milieu in which
>  RZ would flourish, but rather, that SZ, as a movement and ideology, would
>  lead directly, as an initial step in a teshuva process, to further
>  teshuva. It generally does not happen today that way. Relatively few, it
>  seems to me, are those who as a direct result of ampification and
>  expansion of their SZ philosophy come to teshuva sheleima.
>   >>

> I don't claim to really understand RAYK's philosophy but I agree that
> reevaluation is always appropriate. One question we might ask ourselves
> is if the orthodox world had followed RAYK's philosophy, would the
> result you describe have occurred.  Is it possible that our actions have
> been somewhat responsible for the tshuva not occurring? 
>

Again, to the best of my understanding, the process was supposed to be
organic, i.e., without any reference to the concurrent progress or lack
thereof in the Orthodox world, the non-Orthodox SZ world was supposed to
inevitably and inexorably in and of itself progress towards teshuv
sheleima.

As I responded previous to RSB, alternate philosophies are fine with me,
but I think that this line of thinking, as well, is a legitimate
alternative, but not the thinking and theology of RAYK.

YGB

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

> 
> Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 21:10:23 -0400
> From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com>
> Subject: Kri Ktiv
> 
> Reuven asks
> >>>>>>>>
> In todays Daf Yomi Megila 25b there is a mention of kri v'ktiv in 2
> places
> in the Torah.
> It seems to me from the mahalach of the Gemara as well as from the
> lashon of the Rach and of the Maharsha on the daf that the change is
> from Chazal.
> 
> Is this correct?
> Are there sources that discuss this topic?
> 
> reuven
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> Chazal never changed anything in the Torah (it is not allowed).
> 
> There are several Minchat Shais documenting this..the most famous
> one being those in Tray Asar (Roughly speaking the MS deals with


We are not discussing changing something in the Torah but rather making a
takana that eg the written word in the Torah yisgalena be read yiskavena.
(See Davorim 28:30). Since our k'riyas haTorah itself is the Rabbanan it
is certainly "allowed" for those same Rabbanan to "change" the reading
without of course changing the text.

Again it might be helpful to see the source in Megila 25b as well as the
Rach and the Maharsha there before deciding that Chazal never changed
anything.

Again I am not discussing any other kri and ktiv (as in Nach) but only
the two in Devorim 28

reuven

Russell Hendel:
b) The so called 18 "emendations of chazal" were not emendations at
all. They were just texts that LOOKED as if CHAZAL had "fixed them"
but in reality they were always this way. The Masortes simply
enumerated them to prevent further error

Russell<<

I am not sure if these are identical to "tikkun Soferim or not".  If it is, I 
have some corroborating testimony....

FWIW, One Professor (I am 90% sure it was MS Fedlblum) stated that Tikkun 
Soferim was indeed not literally an emendation, rather it was a type of phrase 
that was sort of a euphemism or a something like a sagi nohor.

So when the Torah sometimes said one thing, but meant another, THAT
literary device that it employed is termed a "tikkun soferim". It is not meant 
to imply that Soferim actually tampered with the text.

Rich Wolpoe

RYGB writes

<< Taking that thought further and linking back to the title of this post,
I found it fascinating, to take an example and extrapolate therefrom,
that, just as a "Torah Me'Tzion" RZ Kollel was founded recently in
Detroit, I am told, the local Mizrachi chapter was declared officially
defunct and its remaining funds disbursed.
>>

From my viewpoint American Mizrachi is basically dead. There is something left
to Bnei Akiva but i get the impression that NCSY is where the action is today
in MO youth. In Israel, Mafdal, Emunah, Amit (never understood the difference
between Amit and Emunah) are political organizations though the women do
charitable work.

In Israel, in general, there is a debate about what is zionism in these days
and many speak about a post-zionism in Israel. For Gush Emunim/Rav Kook zionism
was expressed by settling yehuda/shomron/gaza/golan heights.
With the various agreements almost everyone agrees that that era is also over.
I don't see any push to do something about the negev or the galil.

The kolel miTziyon is run from Israel with local help. They have many branches
around the world (my son was in Moscow for several months). It is not an
American group and in any case has no connection to any local mizrachi organization.
In most cases the personnel is post-hesder boys while the funding is local
or through fundraising.

R. Meiselman had a recent article in tradition in which he claims that Rav
Soloveitchik was not a zionist. He was attacked in many letters and also privately.
In my opinion it comes down to the defintion of zionism. In Israel RZ is frequently
connected to Rav Kook and disciples like Rav Shapira. This what I would call
messianic zionism. It is clear that Rav Soloveitchik was not an advocate of this
approach. On the other hand he strongly insisted that the modern state was a
miracle from G-d and stressed the importance of the state mor ein line with
Rav Reines etc.

Again, the problem is what is left from this approach other than saying the prayer
for the state, the army and possibly Hallel (thats another issue).

There was an interesting comment concerning the recent turbine fight in israel
that Mafdal downplayed the issue while it was the Agudah that left the government.
In the past it was mafdal that insosted on a government that at least in public
adhered to halacha while Agudah was dismissive of all government activities.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

Rabbi YGB writes

>>At a loss here to follow you!

>>Are you saying that RSRH asserts that R' Akiva did not make a derosho
from
>>the extra MY"M?

Yes. Exactly correct. (Of course you are free to disagree with Rav
Hirsch..but
then I would ask why or more precisely What have you accomplished)

My understanding of Rav Hirsch's commentary on Nisuch Hamayim is
PRECISELY what Rabbi B says above---this has 3 parts--namely


1) EVEN though the Talmud DOES appear to derive the derash from
the 3 extra letters nevertheless

2) There is a more logical derivation using grammar (The verse speaks
about LIBATION**S** --the plural S indicates two types of libations)

3) The Talmud really meant number 2 not number 1. That is, they may
have employed a picturesque way of stating the derash but the real
logical point was the grammar.

I don't believe that Rabbi B and I disagree on 1) and 2). I also believe
that 3) is Rav Hirsch's point---namely that we override the literalism
of the Gemarra and replace it with a grammatical derivation.

As I commented last issue such an approach encourages talmud torah
since the derivations are logical/reproducable and invite study (Rabbi
B called this observation cute but contrary to the Talmud's method and
Rav Hirsch's position seems to be that it IS the Talmud's method)

At any rate I must now look up the YERUSHALMI for Rabbi B

Russell

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

RUGB writes:

>There was a symposium in the recent issue of Jewish Action on Religious
>Zionism (RZ) that was moderatelly interesting, but, in my opinion,
>stunningly incomplete. [snip]

>1. Is it not time to re-evaluate RZ based on Rav Kook (RAYK)?[snip]

>2. The JA series gave short or no shrift to RZ that once existed in the
>persons od almost forgotten individuals like RYY Reines, R' Wolf Gold. R'
>Meir Bar Ilan [snip] ,

>3. [snip]I found it fascinating, to take an example and extrapolate
therefrom,
>that, just as a "Torah Me'Tzion" RZ Kollel was founded recently in
>Detroit, I am told, the local Mizrachi chapter was declared officially
>defunct and its remaining funds disbursed.

I did not read the Jewish Action symposium.  I find that generally such
symposia often pose uncontroversial questions to a fairly homogeneous
group of people who each must find a fresh way to express the
conventional wisdom.

Regarding religious Zionism, there is much to be said, and most of it is
being said, but not in the US.  In theory there remain two schools of
religious Zionism, which, for brevity's sake, I shall dub the
"messianic" and "non-messianic."  In reality, however, the non-messianic
school has been overshadowed by the messianic school for some 25 years.
The reasons for this are, I think, non-controversial.  Before 1948,
there was a  hotly contested debate within the worldwide Orthodox
community (as well as within the Jewish community generally) whether or
not to support the Zionist enterprise.  In this debate, Mizrachi was the
ardent defender of settling the land and agudah took the opposing view.
The Mizrachi leaders were generally non-messianists who were dedicated
to the notion that Torah Jews should -- indeed, must -- participate in
the re-building of Eretz Yisrael.

After 1948, the terms of the debate changed significantly.  Except for a
very small minority voice, no one in the organized Orthodox community
opposed the existence of the Jewish state or questioned the need to
support it.  Hence the ideological debate between Mizrachi and Agudah
narrowed considerably to issues of participation in the Israeli
government, army service (and giyus banot), celebration of Yom
ha-Atzmaut, etc.  In Israel, each party worked to develop its own school
system, youth movements, yeshivot.  Outside of Israel, Mizrachi
continued to voice its philosophical commitment to the Zionist
enterprise, but its primary function was reduced to fund-raising and
encouraging aliyah.

The same thing happened to other Zionist organizations outside of
Israel, such as Hadassah and ZOA; once the state was established, the
Jewish debate over Zionism effectively ended and with it part of their
raison d'etre.  What remained was financially supporting the building of
the State and, for the secular groups, defending Israel kelapei hutz.

In the first 20 years of Israel's existence, Mizrachi continued to be
led by the non-messianists who had led it before 1948.  Many of these
were brilliant visionaries who founded important institutions, and some
articulated a distinctive religious Zionist vision, but, after a point,
there was nothing really new to be said on the subject.

The Six-Day War changed that.  The Jewish capture of the Ir ha-Atikah
and Har ha-Bayyit in a seemingly miraculous victory inspired many
religious Zionists to see this as signs of an imminent bi'at
ha-Mashi'ah.  R. Kook's romantic vision was dusted off by his son and
presented anew to an eager and receptive audience, this time married to
a clear political agenda.  For obvious reasons, bringing Mashi'ah is a
more inspiring mission than building a school system, and the leaders of
the messianic  school seized the reins of religious zionism.

Since the election of Yitzhak Rabin (or, if you will, since the
mahteret), the messianic school has suffered a number of challenges and
crises.  But none have deflated the movement.  History -- both ancient
and recent -- shows that messianic movements tend to shake off
disappointments; hence, a "re-evaluation" is not likely to come soon.
Many of these events have spurred the few non-messianist religious
Zionists left in Israel to find their voice.  Nevertheless, they remain
a small minority within the religious zionist camp; for the most part
the non-messianist school does not act but reacts, voicing measured
support for the peace process and criticizing the messianists' excesses.

In sum, within Israel and without the non-Messianist school is a
minority voice.  Outside of Israel, the messianists spend their time
raising money and disseminating their ideological perspective.  The
non-messianist religious Zionist has almost no role.  In the ideological
realm, the importance of supporting the Orthodox community in Israel is
not in question.  Hallel with a berakhah is not an issue upon which a
movement can sustain itself.  Even the fundraising role has diminished,
as most religious Zionist institutions do their own fundraising in the
US.

The only important message the non-messianist religious Zionist has is
that religious Jews should move to Israel.  And aliyah is no more
popular with this affluent and upwardly mobile Orthodox community in
America as it was with the Jews of Bavel in the time of Ezra (or with
Reuven, Gad and hatzi shevet Menashe).  And conversely, those who heed
that message leave, making it that much harder for a movement to sustain
itself.

Note too that a substantial number of Orthodox olim from the US are not
religious Zionists, but yeshivaleit.  Thus, even aliyah is not an issue
that religious Zionism can make its own.

It is therefore unsurprising that Mizrachi in America is disappearing
and that religious Zionism in Israel is dominated by messianists.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark 

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


[ 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         ]