Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 084

Sunday, October 31 1999

• RE: ETH vs AITH: Gen 20:16
• Is it a mistake Gen 19:2 with a Kamatz?
• Re: Rashi question, angles speaking Hebrew
• Re: Toward Tradition -- or Torah and politics
• Re: Ortho activist
• Re: What Else-Tzni'us in Material Acquisitions
• Re: Luxuries
• RE: Conspicuous consumption
• Conspicuous Consumption
• Re: Limudei Chol
• RE: Limudei Chol
• RE: Conspicuous consumption
• Re: Conspicuous Consumption
• Re: Avodah V4 #76- water
• Re: What Else-Tzni'us in Material Acquisitions
• RE: Tzni'us in Material Acquisutions
• Re: Conspicuous Consumption
• Re: Luxuries

Since various people brought up the ETH-AITH 
issue, Gen 20:16 is a good example.

--Some texts have SEGOL
--Some have TZARAY

The guidelines state that
--Between MSHARETH and MAKAF chose MAKAF
--Between MELECH and MAKAF chose MELECH

Hence the SEGOL reading (with a Makaf) is preferred

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.

In light of our previous discussoins on Avodah
on laining mistakes I suggest considering
a Baal koray who read Gen 19:2 with a Kamatz
Here are 5 opinions on the matter

--Rabbi Teitz--Correct him since he changes the
meaning from "my lords" to "my Lord"

--Moshe Feldman--COrrect him (as per
Rabbi Teitz reason)


--Rabbi Bechoeffer--Don't correct him 
since he did not add a letter (Yerushalmi)
(In passing Rabbi Teitz privately Emailed
me and asked if Rabbi B would hold this
opinion in a blatant change of meaning..
so Rabbi B should feel free to comment)


--Myself (According to Rambam)--Correct
him since it is a MINOR GRAMMAR point
(PATACH vs KAMATZ) 


--Myself (According to Shulchan aruch 
opinions that we don't follow Rambam)
Do Not correct him--for even though
he changes meaning the change COULD
ALSO be due to pure Grammar and not
meaning (eg at end of sentence it would
be Kamatz anyway and would not change
meaning).

This idea that PURE GRAMMAR without
meaning would change pronunciation is
my interpretation of DIKDUK KAL and
I would not correct mistakes made this
way

One final point: According to me according
to the Rambam if a person read MITZRAYIM
with a PATACH vs a KAMATZ at the end
of a sentence he would not be corrected as
the Rambam only held correcting dikduk kal
when there is a change of meaning. 

However on a dikduk kal that is there only
to beautify pronunciation I don't believe
the Rambam would require to correct him
For what value is it to correct the MITZRAYIM
to MITZROYIM -- the whole purpose was
to beautify pronunciation -- by correcting him
and making him go back you do not accomplish
beautification anyway

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.

<< however Bnidun Didan Bpashtus Haksuvim when he said that he loved 
 both of them is Mashma equal to Yitzchok (just like I have 2 sons, both are 
 Yochid Limoi).<<<

Just to add: the Bais HaLevi writes that that is why the din of 'am hadome 
l'chamor' - that if a yisrael has a child from a shifcha it is not miyuchas 
to him - is brought down precisely here.  Had Yishmael been equal to Yitzchak 
that would have detracted somewhat from the nisayon of the Akeidah - after 
all, even if Yitzchok were sacrificed there would be Yishmael.  However, 
since there is no yichus it shows that Yishmael is not really Avraham's 
lineage al pi din.  Avraham didn't know this when he heard 'bincha, 
yichidcha, asher ahavata'; only when they got to Har HaMoriya and he and 
Yitzchak saw the anan kashur al hahar and Yishmael and Eliezer didn't (al pi 
Midrash) was this din revealed.   

The kashe of sonei/ohev is asked by the MaHaRaL in Gur Arye, and one could 
perhaps be mechalek between anger b'sha'as tochocha and underlying love.  

Re: the discussion of angels and Ivri/Aramaic, this also relates to the 
parsha.  See the Targum Yerushalmi to 22:11 that Avraham responded to the 
Angel who called to him during the akeidah 'V'ani Avraham b'lashon bais 
kudsha...' specifically in Hebrew so the Angel would understand (however, see 
P'' Yerushalmi there).   

-Chaim

In a message dated 10/30/99 3:49:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< That having been said, it is of course true that, on issues
 of permissiveness and moral relativisim, we share more with the
 so-called religious conservatives than with the liberal-progressive
 camp. >>

What R' Eli says in this regard is true. My objection on this count is that 
we have no business getting into bed with the Christian right to deal with 
it. I have reasons for this, and I will be glad to discuss them off list.

Jordan

In a message dated 10/30/99 9:48:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< I'm not exactly sure what you mean by your response
 but if you mean there are certain things about the
 Religious Right that we can't live with it depends
 what you mean and who in the religeous right you are
 reffering to.  They are not a monolithic bunch
 regarding their attitude towards the Am HaTorah.
 
 In areas where we have common values and goals, such
 as cleaning up the airwaves,it behoves us to join
 forces say... in the arena of testifying before
 congress. 
 
 In many cases these Evangelicals are not the anti
 semite missionaries they used to be.  We just hve to
 be careful who we ally ourselves with.
  >>

R' Harry,
All I can say about this is that I entirely disagree. They are anti semitic, 
even if they don't realize it. We should not publicly ally ourselves with 
these people, whose goal is to convert the Jewish people to the worship of 
Jesus.

Jordan 

In a message dated 10/31/99 11:00:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
david.nadoff@bfkpn.com writes:

<< Basing our opinion on Torah sources in such matters is especially
 important because of the vanity of the very wealthy who keep raising
 the bar of social standards and expectations, and the powerful self-interest
 of the Frum wedding industry (caterers, mucisians, party planners, etc.)
 in the continuation of the obscene spending that puts ordinary families in
 intolerable debt. These groups are very influential and, scarecely uttering
 a word (but often helping out rabbis with their own simchas), seem to have
 intimidated most rabbanim into silence on the issue (not to mention inaction
 on R' Twersky's excellent proposal). These interests are well served by
 promoting >>


Watch what you say about Musicians in the Frum wedding industry. I am one. At 
no time did I advocate sumptuary laws of any kind. Believe, no musicians are 
getting rich in our business. Several are unable to make a living in the 
business alone. I only say this because we are popular whipping boys for 
people concerned about these issures. Sumptuary laws have to be handled with 
the utmost care, in order not to cut the rug out from under reasonable 
business people who have strong affiliations in the Frum community. This is 
not a topic for Avodah, but I would be glad to discuss this in detail off 
list. 

Jordan   

--- Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> > Obviously there have to ultimately be some limits
> as
> > to how one enjoys his wealth.  I suppose we can
> all
> > point to cases of conspicuos consumption. ( I
> recently
> > attended an Orthodox wedding that I assure
> everyone
> > cost in excess of a half million dollars - I am
> not
> > exaggerating.) But, who is going to draw the line.
> 
> 	The line has been drawn by gedolei hadoros since
> Yaakov told his sons
> "lama tisra'u".  When nonJews have their eyes gouged
> (figuratively) by
> the conspicuous consumption of some of our brethren,
>  that is where we
> draw the line.  Of course one could say that one
> person's tznius is
> another's conspicuous consumption  but I think that
> is disingenous.  
> 
> Gershon

You know, I was thinking about that half million
dollar wedding I attended, and it occurred to me that
I had a great time at and so did everyone else that
attended it (about 1200 people), at least that I spoke
to about it.  I did not feel my eyes were being gouged
out. I knew as did most who attended that this kind of
wedding is so far beyond my reach that it wasn't even
an issue.  I was very happy for the Kallah who is a
very close friend of my daughter's as I was for the
parents of the bride who are very big Baale Tzedakah
and Baale Chesed.  They do not have any "airs" about
there wealth.  Both parents come from very modest
backgrounds and the father was very(!!!) Matzliach in
business.  The fact that they enjoy their wealth makes
me very happy.  

Rather than try to reduce the ability to enjoy the
fruits of ones labor, shouldn't Klal Israel be induced
to better deal with the character flaw of envy?  Isn't
that the underlying priciple of being Sameach
BeChelko?

HM

=====

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

--- Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>(As for the Gerrer Rebbe,)
> Among other things, he put a strict limit on the
> number of guests at a
> wedding and he forbade newlyweds from buying an
> apartment in either
> Jerusalem or B'nei Brak.

I remember hearing about this edict at the time (I
believe it was at least 20, perhaps 30 years ago) and
thinking how unfair it was.  If I have enough mney to
buy a Dirah in Bnei Brak and that's where I want to
live, I should be able to.

HM

=====

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

> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:48:16 EST
> From: DFinchPC@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Luxuries

>  Nowadays, in this society, I'm not sure why we should be concerned 
> gouging 
> out the Goyims' eyes. We're all equal here.
	In other words, Anti Semitism and ch'v worse "can't happen here"?  I
would be most hesitant,  given historical perspective, before making that
statement.  I have personally overheard grumbling by nonJews about
specifically Jewish conspicuous consumption.  

	To us,  we are Americans and,  as you say,  all equal.  To "them" we are
Jews.

Gershon

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:

> 
> I think there is a common error
> with regard to the
> attitude of many Gedolei Torah toward Limudei Chol.
> Their opposition is
> generally not to the acquisition of knowledge of
> secular studies, but rather
> to the schooling therein. As we know, many Gedolei
> Torah who never set foot
> in an institution of secular study were far greater
> beki'im in those areas
> than others with quite advanced degrees. They were
> not against individuals
> becoming autodidacts (I believe that is the correct
> word). For many reasons,
> which one may or may not find oneself in agreement
> with, however, they were
> against formal education and schooling therein.

There in lies the problem. Just because R. Sh Z.
Auerbach had the genius to know and understand deep
concepts in physics w/o the benefit of a formal
education doesn't mean that everyone else can do the
same. For the vast majority of us, formal education is
the only way to acheive such knowledge.  Of course
knowledge of the physical nature of the universe, is
not against Torah, not even to such stalwart anti
college types as R.Baruch Ber Liebovitz.

Don't forget, that R.Chaim's oldest son, R. Moshe, was
meshadach with a woman who was brought up in a home
that at the very least, tolerated her interest for Leo
Tolstoy.  When asked, about it, R. Chaim, the Rabbo
Muvhak of RBBL, replied that it wasn't Secular
Knowledge that he was against.  He was only against
it's forcible entry into the curriculum of the Yeshiva
of Volozhin. 

It is the ATMOSPHERE (don't forget that all these
objections occurred in an era when no Frum Jews
attended college) and the apikoursus that may
disciplines in college entail that RBBL objected to.
Of course you were an "Oisvurf" if you went to
college.  When RYBS, R. .Yitzchak Hutner, R.Menachem
Mendel Schneerson, and Dr. Eliezer Berkovitz went they
were going against the tide, and probably got plenty
of flack for it.  Yet all of these people became
Gedolim (with the possible exception of one).

But you would never know this from the pronouncments
of R.Shach. If I remember correctly, R Shach Assur'd
secular education on a wholesale basis.  Therefore
there is none for boys attending Charedi Highschools.
There is absolutely no way that any of these students
have a chance of knowing any of the physical sciences,
or any other discipline that could help them lead more
productive lives in the future.

Unfortunately, all of these students run the career
risk of joining the swelling ranks of fundraisers (of
the greencard type).

HM

=====

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

> There is absolutely no way that any of these students
> have a chance of knowing any of the physical sciences,
> or any other discipline that could help them lead more
> productive lives in the future.

No way, except for the job training programs here in Israel, like
programming, computer repair, accounting, bookkeeping, electronics,
plumbing, locksmithing, carpentry, and so forth.

Not to mention the jobs as Sofrim, Batim Makers, Shoctim, Rebbes, Mashgicim,
etc.

Akiva

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

> I remember hearing about this edict at the time (I
> believe it was at least 20, perhaps 30 years ago) and
> thinking how unfair it was.  If I have enough mney to
> buy a Dirah in Bnei Brak and that's where I want to
> live, I should be able to.
>

You can -- after five years.

The point is, *everyone* wants to live there, and most of them can't
honestly afford it.

Akiva


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

In a message dated 10/31/99 1:59:16 PM US Central Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< 
    In other words, Anti Semitism and ch'v worse "can't happen here"?  I
 would be most hesitant,  given historical perspective, before making that
 statement.  I have personally overheard grumbling by nonJews about
 specifically Jewish conspicuous consumption.  
 
    To us,  we are Americans and,  as you say,  all equal.  To "them" we are
 Jews. >>


It would be ludicrous, from an "historical perspective," as you put it, to 
deny the fact of conspicuous consumption among Jews, as among most folks who, 
when they get a lot of money, are tempted to spend it on themselves. Anyhow, 
I don't much care if to "them" we are Jews. Jewish we are, and we get to 
define what that means.

"It" could happen here, it could happen anywhere, it's happened time and time 
again over the millenia, but not because some Jews wear diamond-studded 
Rolexs instead of Timexs. Why concede the Goyim one of their stupid excuses 
for anti-semitism? I don't much care if flashy materialistic behavior offends 
non-Jews. We should concentrate on when and why it offends us, and what we 
should be doing about it as a community.

David Finch

> > OK this is an avoda on a gashmi level but it's still Torah.
>
> I am not sure I agree with the last sentence.  If you are concerned with
> water availability for your personal convience and/or pleasure, then yes
> this is gashmius.  But what if you are motivated by concern for HaShem's
> creations who will suffer in the future if the water is unavailable?  Or
> because guarding HaShem's creation is an Avodah.
>
> I think the root of the problem is people being unable to see anything
> beyond limud Torah as Avodah.
>
> --
> Daniel M. Israel
> <daniel@cfd.ame.arizona.edu>
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ
>
The issue is obviously the availability of water for every one - (every
living thing) in the region.
My final sentence about this avoda being "gashmi" was very "precis" - and
didn't clearly express my attitude. I agree that any avodah concerning
issues of bal tashchis,  nishmartam meod benafshoshechem  and similar, are
mandated by the Torah, though they are often dismissed as alarmist,
irrelevant or involving too much hishtadlus. Too many respond - "why make a
fuss? Just have emunah and bitachon and Hashem will provide the water"-
(underlying denial of the alarming)  though I was very happy to get a call
from the Rebbetzin asking advice about recycling water for the washing
machine. There is hope!

Mrs. G. Atwood.

--- david.nadoff@bfkpn.com wrote:
 
> I don't think this is an issue on which the free
> play of subjective opinion
> is appropriate. Torah regulates how we should use
> our time, and, for
> example, does not leave mere subjective preference
> whether it is ok
> for a person whom Hashem has blessed with alot of
> free time to spend
> it lounging on a hammock, sipping pinya coladas.

I don't think anyone would advocate this. Bittul Zman
is a universally held ill. Although I kind of like
Pina Coladas:)

> The
> Torah also instructs
> us in the proper deployment of wealth and the
> correct objects of discretionary
> spending, not because it is a "social manifesto,"
> chas v'shalom, but
> because
> "haym chayaynu v'orech yamaynu..." That is why I
> cited mar'eh m'komos

The Mar'eh m'komos you bring are subject to
interpretation.

> The $500,000 wedding... 
 
> Basing our opinion on Torah sources in such matters
> is especially
> important because of the vanity of the very wealthy
> who keep raising
> the bar of social standards and expectations, and
> the powerful self-interest
> of the Frum wedding industry (caterers, mucisians,
> party planners, etc.)

I take strong exception to this. How dare you
characterize the Frum wedding industry as negatively
as you did.  My wife is a party planner and I am a
videographer. I know many fine and Ehrliche people who
are musicians, caterers, florists, photgraphers, etc.
These are major sources of income to all of us.
Although some would describe her as powerful:) no one
would describe my wife as being self-interested! Don't
forget by eliminating big weddings you are hurting the
parnasah of many Ehrliche individuals.

> in the continuation of the obscene spending that
> puts ordinary families in
> intolerable debt. 

As I said in another post, Klal Israel should be
educated on how to deal better with their own sense of
envy. No way should anyone feel that he has to borrow,
or put a second mortgage on a house, in order to keep
up with the "Friedmans"

>These groups are very influential
> and, scarecely uttering
> a word (but often helping out rabbis with their own
> simchas), seem to have
> intimidated most rabbanim into silence on the issue

This is an unfounded assumption and Laz on the
integrity of the many Kle Kodesh who have received
help from those who can afford to give it, as well as
it is on the very generous Ballei Battim. 


> (not to mention inaction
> on R' Twersky's excellent proposal). 

If this proposal was posted on Avodah, I missed it. 
could you state what it is?

HM


=====

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

david.nadoff@bfkpn.com wrote:
> > To this I would add only that the phenomena in
> > question involve more than
> > just breaches of tzni'us. The materialistic values
> > and acquisitiveness in
> > question
> > violate the isur of bal tashchis (Peleh Yo'etz,
> > erech Mosaros and erech Sipuk),
> > are inconsistent with what HKB"H requires of Jews
> > living in galus (Kli Yakar,
> > end
> > of parshas Vayigash) and constitute a hesech hada'as
> > in the anticipation of the
> > g'ula (Shal"a, end of M'seches Suka).

While I believe that material acquisition (1) may violate tzniut and (2)
often leads to materialism, RD Nadoff goes a step further in advocating
asceticism.  Certainly, there were periods in Jewish history when the
majority of Jewish philosophers advocated ascetic beliefs.  However,
generally in times of plenty there was less of such an emphasis. 

There are many ways to avodat Hashem.  One may worship Him through
self-abnegation, or through appreciating the plenty which He has bestowed
upon us.  In America, it is difficult to advocate asceticism to the average
person.  (I remember that Rabbi Yaakov Neuberger, in his Choson class,
suggested that the ascetic recommendations of the Shulchan Arukh regarding
lessening the pleasure one has during marital relations are not appropriate
in today's times.)  

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 10/31/99 2:59:16 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

>   To us,  we are Americans and,  as you say,  all equal.  To "them" we are
>  Jews.
>  
Halacha, Byodua Esov Sonei Lyakov, I once herad in the name of  Horav 
Hirsprung Teitching what Nafko Minah is it Lhalacha, and he answered it is 
Nogeia to eating milchigs and fleishig on one table since they are Achim 
Hamakpidim they are permitted.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

The question remains where do we draw the line and who
draws it. 

Should we really draw one at all? 

Is the motivation of the conspicuous spender to show
off how succesfull he is in contradistinction to his
fellow man, at the expense of making him jealous?  Or,
as in the case of the half million dollar wedding,
does he just want every body to have a good time? 
Perhaps it is a little of both. 

HM

--- DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/31/99 12:17:43 AM US Central
> Standard Time, 
> gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> 
> << Subj:     Luxuries
>  Date:  10/31/99 12:17:43 AM US Central Standard
> Time
>  From:  gershon.dubin@juno.com (Gershon Dubin)
>  Sender:    owner-avodah@aishdas.org
>  Reply-to:  avodah@aishdas.org
>  To:    avodah@aishdas.org
>  
>  > Obviously there have to ultimately be some limits
> as
>  > to how one enjoys his wealth.  I suppose we can
> all
>  > point to cases of conspicuos consumption. ( I
> recently
>  > attended an Orthodox wedding that I assure
> everyone
>  > cost in excess of a half million dollars - I am
> not
>  > exaggerating.) But, who is going to draw the
> line. 
>     The line has been drawn by gedolei hadoros since
> Yaakov told his sons
>  "lama tisra'u".  When nonJews have their eyes
> gouged (figuratively) by
>  the conspicuous consumption of some of our
> brethren,  that is where we
>  draw the line.  Of course one could say that one
> person's tznius is
>  another's conspicuous consumption  but I think that
> is disingenous.  
>  
>  Gershon
>  
>  
>  Nowadays, in this society, I'm not sure why we
> should be concerned gouging 
> out the Goyims' eyes. We're all equal here. Any
> American is free to make a 
> public jerk of himself. Conspicuous consumption is
> not so much a shonda fur 
> de Goyim as it is a shonda, period. Where in Shas is
> there any message 
> applauding loud materialism? Koheleth alludes to it,
> but not exactly with 
> approval. Of course, there are always those
> off-channel preacher shows on 
> Sunday morning TV, with titles like, "G-D Wants You
> To Be Rich!" or "If You 
> Believe, the Lord Will Buy You a New Cadillac!" Fast
> encouragement is 
> available for those who need it.
> 
> We believe that we believe differently. Perhaps the
> rabbis can teach us to 
> act differently.
> 
> David Finch
> 


=====

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

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


[ 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         ]