Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 074

Thursday, October 28 1999

• kidra chaysa
• Tefilin
• Fw: Anonymity of RW
• A Tad of Perspective
• Nuclear Proliferation -- The Torah view
• daas Torah
• Re: Avodah V4 #73
• RE: Anonymity of RW
• RE: Bnei Torah and Tolerance
• RE: Anonymity of RW
• Re: Orthodox Activists
• Re: A Tad of Perspective
• Re: Rashi -Bereshis 18:4 (addition)

> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:04:36 -0400
> From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: kidra chaysa
> 
> No, no!  I believe that JHoexter's comment below is misleading.  It 
> makes no difference whether it's Yom Tov Sheni or Rishon.  On yt-erev
shabbos it *all* has to be cooked, at least to ma-achal ben drusa-ee,
before 
> shekiah plus time to eat some of it.  See MA(?) on SA in the
appropriate 
> siman.
> Any seconds on the above?
> NW
	This is correct velo meta'amei.  On Y"T rishon or sheni it needs to be
cooked and edible for the purpose of allowing cooking on Shabbos. Of
course if one made an eruv tavshilin this would not be necessary.  The
point of discussion is on a regular erev Shabbos, for the reasons given
i.e. that since we are not clear on when Shabbos starts you never really
have kidra chaysa.

Gershon

> From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
> Subject: RE: Pepsi Generation?
> >
> > What is the meaning of "tefillin dates."??
> >
> A date where the guy brings his t'fillin along (so he'll have them 
> in the morning).
	I was wondering....  B"H I never heard the term.

Gershon

Done, via BCC.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <Joelirich@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Anonymity of RW


> In a message dated 10/27/99 7:48:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
>
> <<
>  Normally, as RDG correctly critiques, I too have an aversion to anonymous
>  posts. I felt, however, that since the phenomenon is what it is and
>  RWingers will not identify themselves publicly, that Avodah would not get
>  the "extreme" RW perspective from its lurkers, in the Yo'atzot issue,
>  unless I was willing to forward their remarks anonymously. It is for this
>  reason that on these occasions I forwarded the anonymous material.
>
>  YGB
>   >>
> Perhaps you could ask your lurkers to comment on the anonymity issue
> (anonymously if necessary)
> Kol Tuv
> Joel Rich
>

Now that th Yo'atzos issue is mostly behind us and we are about to move on,
I feel a nedd to put a sense of perspective on the comparison of two issues
in which I took sides that were not necessarily agreeable to fellow Chaverim
la'Avodah:

Namely, compared to the R' Spero/Allegorization issue, this is a mere
tempest in a teapot. While it makes for stirring debate, the odds are that
no matter what happens, no one will be yotzei l'tarbus ra'ah as a result of
yo'atzos. There is a good chance that it will enhance shemiras mitzvos,
despite potential pitfalls, and definite reason for cautious optimism (with
a healthy dollop of trepidation and a drop of suspicion :-) ).

This, in contradistinction to the issue, never fully resolved, of course, of
allegorizing things like the Mabul. That, I regard as, a dangerous pegi'ah
in Mesorah, Emunas Chachomim, and Yesodei Ha'Das, albeit not necessarily
outright Kefira. I hope I made and make myself clear :-).

Yet, the debate over Yo'atzos stirred more within our collective Avodah
soul, as I have never seen anything approaching the volume of recent days
(Micha, please correct me if I am wrong). I understand that perfectly, don't
get me wrong.

But, again, I hope we keep matters in perspective.

BTW, an interesting thing about our debates, the silver lining, if you will.
I have noticed that so long as they stuck around (as opposed to those who
left or dropped down to lurker status), and contributed regularly after the
debate was over, most of my occasional  opponents and I have become
relatively good friends (in the virtual sense) in the long run. I think that
this is a very good thing, and wonder if it is unique to our forum, but,
"Ve'es vahev b'sufa".

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

   MSDratch@aol.com writes: 
   Why aren't we involved in these global issues?

   While some of it has to do with our limited time and the many demands
   on it, I think that there is a more fundamental issue: I am very
   sorry to say that to a large degree, we don't care about the larger
   world.  Consider: We do not daven for anyone except for ourselves
   (fellow Jews)?  Even the Tefillah for the Government is only in
   regard as it effects our own welfare.  Visiting the sick?  Only
   because of darkei shalom or mipnei eivah.  V'ahavtah l'reiachah
   kamocha is le'reiachah b'Torah u-ve'mitzvos.  Consider Orach Chayyim
   576:3.  Fasting for aku"m and chazeirim during a plague only because
   of the effect it may ultimately have on Jews.  Gezel Aku"m, Hafka'as
   halva'ah, hashavas aveidah...  I am not, chas ve'shalom, questioning
   the Halachos.  I am only considering the impact they may have on our
   sensitivities and attitudes.

I think that there are some other reasons, however.  For one thing, some
issues, such as nuclear proliferation, don't have any clear answers from
any perspective.  The Torah perspective says unjustified killing is
wrong, which to me implies nuclear weapons are bad, but that doesn't
give me a good non-proliferation strategy.  (Of course this doesn't apply
as clearly in issues of t'zar ba'alei chayim, for example.)

Secondly, I am not so sure we do a good job when we do get involved.
Take the abortion issue, for example.  The only frum Jewish activists I
see are hurrying to align themselves with the Christian right.
Personally I would rather keep abortion legal (and teach fellow Jews
what the Torah says about it) than to ban it in cases where _Christians_
believe it is wrong and chas v'shalom have Jewish women prevented from
getting one in a case where it is halachically permitted.

Finally, I think that, at least for issues of wide scope such as nuclear
proliferation, there is an important hashkafik point that Micha pointed
towards but didn't reach.  We believe that much of what happens to the
nations is intertwined with, and in fact dependent on, the status of
k'lal Yisrael.  This imples, to me, that the best way to assure that
nuclear weapons are never used again is through Torah and mitzvos.
Surely a world in which we uphold HaShem's Torah will not merit
destruction, but rather will merit bracha.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<daniel@cfd.ame.arizona.edu>
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

I had actually been happy that we had avoided for a while some of the =
Daas Torah polemics but they seem to have resurfaced, so I find it =
necessary to comment on Eli Turkel's posting.

1. I have no idea of whom he refers to when he states that the DT world =
maintains that there is only one correct way to view an issue in =
hashkofo.  This is so clearly false that I can't even imagine what Eli =
meant.  Anyone who knows Chassidim and Misnagdim, Brisker and Mirer, or =
who attends Agudah conventions is aware of the range of views on matters =
of Hashkofo.  Disagreements among Gedolei Yisroel, in both public and =
private (I have been at several public disagreements) are not uncommon. =
While it is surely true that there are some issues on which there is =
general agreement, it is simply false to argue that this is the defining =
characteristic of the DT camp.  One can even find articles arguing =
different viewpoints in the Jewish Observer, so that these disagreements =
can appear in print as well as orally.

2. Eli's second defining characteristic is that the "correct" way is =
decided by gedolim who have no need to justify their viewpoint.  There =
are several points to be made in response.  First, it is relatively rare =
to find pronouncements by groups of "Gedolim" on important issues that =
do not offer justifications of their position.  I have heard various =
tapes by significant figures in the DT world arguing for certain public =
positions and almost invariably they offer detailed justifications of =
their stance.  I would ask Eli to provide examples of what he means.  =
Second, the decisions arrived at by groups of leaders in this world =
(e.g. Agudah) are usually arrived at after discussion and debate among =
the leaders.  They obviously feel it necessary to justify to each other =
their positions and to defend them; these debates are often hot and =
heavy, according to reports I've heard from people present.  It is =
probably true that at least some of these figures would not engage in =
debate with laymen or the general Torah public, but that does not mean =
thay they can not or have not defended their position to their =
colleagues.  Third, it is not infrequently the case that even after =
debate Gedolim do not in fact come to a common conclusion and that =
people within the DT community will follow the lead of one group or the =
other.

3. Eli's third point is that the public pronouncements of these Gedolim =
are binding to those in the DT camp.  This statement could only be made =
by someone not part of that world, because it makes the mistake =
frequently referred to on Avodah of assuming that those we don't know =
well have a monolithic view.  A more correct statement of the position =
would probably be that when in doubt as to what is a postion consistent =
with Torah and good for the Jews, probability argues that we will on the =
whole be better off listening to the guidance of Gedolei Yisroel. =20

As to his argument from history, it is simply false.  The role of =
organized rabbinic leadership varied from community to community and era =
to era.  For example, the Vaad Lita was in fact composed of leading =
rabbonim and made political decisions for its communities, whereas the =
Vaad Arba Aratzos consisted primarily of laymen.  The statement that =
major actions were not issued by great rabbis alone is true even of =
Chazal, as witness the need for gezeiros to be accepted by the tzibbur =
and is hardly an argument about DT.  Of course, local rabbonim were =
usually the leaders of their communities, but the gatherings of rabbonim =
from the time of Chazal to the present or the issuance of documents =
signed by multiple rabbonim offering direction to klal yisroel are not =
inventions of the Agudah.  At times, single figures assumed roles =
similar to that ascribed by Eli to contemporary gedolim - Rav Saadia =
comes immediately to mind.

The question of whether one is bound to listen to the psakim of the =
Chazon Ish, Rav Elyoshiv, etc.. is not part of the DT debate but that =
among the rishonim and acharonim as to the authority in Halacha of the =
Gadol Hador, the Gadol Hair, etc.

I would generally assert that DT is more likely to mean that when one is =
unsure of what to do or when a situation is ambiguous one should follow =
the lead of a gadol or gedolim, and I believe that that would be the =
understanding of many of these leaders themselves.  Let me conclude with =
a maase rav.  When my wife and I were first married we were unable to =
have children for some years.  I went to Rav Moshe bick, zt"l, to ask =
about the permissibility of certain practices that might have enhanced =
our chances.  Rav Bick felt that they were assur and I argued with him =
that a case could be made for heter.  After a few rounds of debate back =
and forth, he stated that even if I were right that a case could be made =
for my position it was his daas Torah that it would be an unwise =
decision. (He did not insist that I must listen to him).  I accepted his =
guidance, even tho I remained unconvinced.  (We had our first child =
within the next year).  I can think of at least two examples where =
Gedolim offered their public DT but made clear that they did not regard =
it as unalterably binding.  Eli's stereotypes are simply not true of the =
real world.

Melech
M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Touro College
mpress@ix.netcom.com or melechp@touro.edu

>Re: Ortho activists?
>Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:35:20 -0500 (CDT)
>From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Ortho activists?
>
>I am known to use this argument myself :-).
>
>Sometimes, however, it rings false even to me.
>
>We do not seem to be making all thatmuch headway internally that we can be
>sure we are not falling victim to complacency, rather than focus.
>
>Besides, l'havdil, the Pope probably has enough to be concerned with re
>internal Catholic problems, yet he still finds time to be a moral
>(l'shitaso) voice on the world scene.
>
>Tzarich Iyun.


Yes, I agree it does indeed "Tzarich Iyun".  But perhaps people can spend a
few hours a month on the Net researching the issue so that a start can be
made.

Why is this important?  For both internal and external reasons.

While many are worried about internal matters, people don't realize how much
the envirom. issues in this world are already impacting on us, personally,
as jews.  I wish some of the rabbis here would join the COEJL list.  There
are 2 favorite issues there (jewish enviro.)  The first is vegetarianism as
a solution to most of the worlds ills -- as _the_ jewish solution.  The
second is ZPG (zero population growth) which is advocated davka by some
envir. concerned reform rabbis, and who love to quote jewish sources for
their views.

Another overview issue is that worldwide the view of the vast majority of
enviro. activists is that the solutions should be of the Shev Ve'Al Ta'ase
type:  don't use gasoline;  don't cut down trees;  don't... don't ... don't.
There is another kind of view called Permaculture (started in Austraila)
which advocates a mixture of Shev Ve'al Ta'ase - so you won't make things
worse but - Kum A'ase:  actively turn problems into sollutions, or in other
words:  Sof Ma'ase Be'Mach'shaa Techila.
 The second group have come up with many ideas that are interesting from a
jewish view:  how to create a society that doesn't need Ribit to survive
economically;  how to turn the idea of G'mach from a Tz'daka to a positive
force that increases economic and spiritual viability (called LETS for those
who wish to read about it on the Net);  how to turn the idea of Bal Tashchit
from a negative to a positive Mitzva by utilizing what Hashem gave us to the
true max (everybody here has heard about recycling <g> but I doubt you can
imagine a farm where the only trash they have is plastic containers - only
once a month!).

A very interesting (IMHO) story I heard happened in England.  A college (I
think in Oxford) needed to redo their roof.  To do so in a manner that would
be consistant with the building (approx. 500 years old) would require the
use of trees that were protected by law from cutting down.  So they were
faced with having to use modern materials - a very expensive and not ideal
sollution.  The secretary then came forward and told them that he discovered
that the college owned a plot of land in North England and he didn't know
why.  When they went to investigate -- they discovered there trees that were
500 years old that were the specific special kind needed for roofing the
college.  Apparently, when the college was built and the necessary trees cut
down 500 years ago - a new area was planted for future use.  "Sof Ma'ase
Be'Machshava Techila".

So, we as people enjoy our polluting cars;  our electricity (non-solar)
washing machines and refrigerators, and perhaps it's time we came out of our
cocoons and took notice of what's going on in the world around us.

Shoshana Boublil (nee Skaist)
Ramat Gan, Israel

>
> I do not know why the reticence. It may well be that some RWingers are
> afraid of being labeled apikorsim or harming their kids'
> shidduchim.

Why? If the paper is an *official* party organ, then writing for it has no
stigma attached. AdaRaba, it's a way of gaining a reputation within your
party.

> may be that so many of the essays are written by relatively few people
> that it gives the illusion of a larger number of writers.

This is true of the Yated for certain.

> It is also a long standing tradition in the Yiddish and Hebrew Eastern
> European press, even secular, to write under nom de plumes,
> perhaps (dan
> l'kaf zechus) to draw attention awy from the writer and to
> the concept.

Which still holds true today within the Yerusalmi community at least.

> RWingers will not identify themselves publicly, that Avodah
> would not get
> the "extreme" RW perspective from its lurkers, in the Yo'atzot issue,

Shouldn't that read "an extreme RW perspective" or "Several RW
perspectives"?

BTW, I don't suppose there's an official list definition of LW and RW? Is
Gush Etzion more or less RW than Toldos Aharon, for example?

(IOW, these labels seem, to me at least, forced and arbitrary).

Akiva


===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

> Litvishe Yeshivos. I guess I was reffering to the
> Agudah point of view which is promulgated to Yeshiva
> Bochurim all over, as monolithic in the sense that
> they are the mainstream and they are intolerant of
> non-maistream views.
>

In the US that may be true, but here in Israel (Aguda & Degel HaTorah are
very different)? Keep in mind that there are two different Agudahs, which is
why the US launch of the English HaModia was fought so strongly by the
English Yated.

Akiva


===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

> I noticed that all the anonymous postings in the yoatsot debate were
> right wing orientated. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to Avodah;
> open any chareidi newspaper and the letter pages are full of initials
> not to mention the pseudonyms of some of the contributors.
>
> Is it a fear to think? to step out of line? or by voicing an
> opinion do
> you run the risk of being labelled an apikoyres?

Maybe it's modesty? There *are* humble people out there in the Chareidi
community.

> PS My spell checker when confronted with chareidi suggested charade.
> Must've been exposed to Avodah.

Obviously your spell checker wanted to contribute to chareidi bashing...

Akiva

===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

On 27 Oct 99, at 21:01, Saul Weinreb wrote:

> I just wanted to add an interesting note to this discussion.  Although it
> is our general perception that Orthodox Jews are not heavily involved in
> causes other than Othodox causes, I have found a surprising statistic in an
> article by Jonathan Rosenbloom in the Jerusalem Post, October 25, 1999.  He
> quotes a 1999 study of the charitable giving of American Jews, by political
> scientist Raymond Legge. According to his study, "Orthodox Jews were even
> twice as likely as Reform Jews to contribute over $5,000 to a secular
> charity."

I think there's a big difference between giving and actually being 
involved. Fruhm Jews have the middos of rachmanim, bayshanim 
v'gomlei chasadim. I think that it's the gomlei chasadim in us that 
makes us give. But when it comes to our time and effort, as 
opposed to our monetary resources, we use the triage system and 
devote ourselves more to causes which are closer to our hearts.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:csherer@netvision.net.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 27 Oct 99, at 23:06, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:

 While it makes for stirring debate, the odds are that
> no matter what happens, no one will be yotzei l'tarbus ra'ah as a result of
> yo'atzos. There is a good chance that it will enhance shemiras mitzvos,
> despite potential pitfalls, and definite reason for cautious optimism (with
> a healthy dollop of trepidation and a drop of suspicion :-) ).

If you had put it that way to start with, I'm not sure we would have 
had much of a debate :-) 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:csherer@netvision.net.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

"Hot off the press" directly from Rav Bonchek author of "What's Bothering
Rashi"

Reuven

 
>
 I'd like to add to what | wrote you. I said the Torah is
stressing that Abraham didn't impoose himself on them by forcing them to
enter his house or come under his wooden lean-to. Support for this can be
found later. Lot's hachnasas orchim is similar to - but different from- that
of Abraham's. The Torah places many aspects of Lot's behavior in contrast to
Abraham's. In this point as well we see the contrast - see ch. 19: 8. There
Lot pleads to leave the men alone "for they have come under the shelter of
my roof." This phrase is in contrast to Abraham's serving them under the
tree. See how Lot had imposed upon them to come into his house and that's
where all the trouble began. By imposing himself on them, instead of feeding
them outside he inconvenienced them, and this lead to their troubles. Uncle
Abe fed them under the tree so they could eat "and then go. "
Vic
>
>

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


[ 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         ]