Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 112

Friday, November 5 1999

• Reb Shlomo Carlebach and Carlebach minyanim
• Rav Kook
• Re: Reb Shlomo Carlebach and Carlebach minyanim
• Re: writing tora shbeal peh
• writing tora shbeal peh
• Rav Kook
• Re: Reb Shlomo Carlebach and Carlebach minyanim
• Re: Avodah V4 #111
• Rambam and Asceticism - The Subthread on Chasidus
• Reb Shlomo Carlebach and Carlebach minyanim
• Reb Shlomo Carlebach and Carlebach minyanim
• Re: Conspicuous Consumption, Luxury, Etc.
• Re: Paroh identity
• giving 'till it hurts vs. conspicuous consumption
• Conspicuous Consumption, Luxury, Etc.
• Re: Rambam and Asceticism

>>I'd like to think that our goal is to be completely rational and spiritual at 
the same time!

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich<<

I like this.  Here are my personal favorite role models on this:

Ramban
Maharal
Remo
Gro
R. Kook
R. Aryeh Kaplan

All of them had strong roots in either sciences or rationalism or philosophy, 
and became master Mekubbolim w/o losing their "rational edge".

Rich Wolpoe

Where do you see R' Kook as "rational"? Perhaps you had best explain what
you mean by "rational". If I understand what you mean by rational correctly,
that is not R' Kook. Unless you see R' Tzadok HaKohen and the Sefas Emes as
rational as well. In which case, who, pray tell, is "not rational".

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



----- Original Message -----
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 8:03 AM
Subject: Reb Shlomo Carlebach and Carlebach minyanim


> >>I'd like to think that our goal is to be completely rational and
spiritual at
> the same time!
>
> Kol Tuv,
> Joel Rich<<
>
> I like this.  Here are my personal favorite role models on this:
>
> Ramban
> Maharal
> Remo
> Gro
> R. Kook
> R. Aryeh Kaplan
>
> All of them had strong roots in either sciences or rationalism or
philosophy,
> and became master Mekubbolim w/o losing their "rational edge".
>
> Rich Wolpoe
>
>
>
>

From: Joelirich@aol.com
<<
>  What about a modified version taking less time than the standard
>  Carlebach minyan?  Would that compromise the experience?
>   >>
> Actually it was a compromise version (about 10 minutes 
> extra).  The challenge 
> is that when we run it separately most people who come are 
> into it and love 
> it but it's about 20% (my guess, I'll let you know after 
> tomorrow night what 
> the # is) of the davening population.  When we tried it 
> unofficially (the 
> gabbai asked a shanna bet boy who was in town for an 
> engagement of a sibling 
> to daven and he decided on his own to Carlebach it a bit) in 
> the main minyan 
> quite a few people just talked during the singing and it hurt 
> the atmosphere.
> 

Is it possible that because it was "unofficial" people weren't looking
forward to the experience?  I.e., they didn't know that it was a
once-in-a-blue-moon Carlebach minyan and just thought that the chazzan was
schlepping it out.  I would think (but maybe that's me) that people might be
interested in a "different experience" once in a while.

Also, it might be different in a community where a Carlebach minyan already
exists.  There, people may say to themselves, "I could go the Carlebach
minyan if I really wanted to; why are they forcing it upon me here?"  In
contrast, where I live (North Elizabeth) there is only one shul.  Perhaps,
when Shabbat begins really early, people won't mind arriving back from shul
10 minutes later.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Somebody queried this long standing "et laasot." The following recently 
appeared on the VBM from Rabbi M. Taragin's Talmudic Methodology(60-04) 
series. It's a great story but I'd love to understand how it fits within the 
parameter of et Laasot.


     A famous story is recounted that Rav Elchanan Wasserman
Hy"d visited Rav Moshe Soloveitchik zt"l (the father of the
Rav zt"l) in Warsaw and asked him why the Rambam did not
list the prohibition of transcribing Torah she-be'al peh in
his Mishaneh Torah.  (Though the Rambam discusses it in his
introduction, he never addresses it within the halakhic code
itself.)  Rav Moshe did not have an answer and asked his
young son to consider the question.  The Rav zt"l responded
that the prohibition is not a formal one, but rather it
demands that Torah be transmitted in a manner which would
best facilitates study.  Ideally, an oral transmission
should be delivered without texts because people are more
vigilant and precise regarding a text which is unwritten.
Similarly, the written Torah should be conveyed bikhtav
because many derivations stem from textual nuances (extra
letters and other textual phenomena).  Once, however social
situations demand altering the original formats of these
tracts (to better facilitate study under current
conditions), the original prohibitions no longer apply.  The
Sages did not have to rescind the biblical issur; rather the
issur itself is limited in its scope.


Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

I was told in Ner Yisroel the following:

bichsav is static and fixed, rigid, unbending in a way.

B'al peh is more flexible

To me this implies th mWhen Torah sheba'l peh was b'al peh, it was not subject 
to the literalism of textualists.  It was understood in a moreliving manner.  
(R. Aryeh Kaplan says that eg Tefillin was not learned by shulchan Aruch, but by
father-son transimssion or sofer to sofer transmission.  Torah seba'l peh was in
a sense in teh "olom ho'asiyo" you learned by obesrinvg living, shimush, etc.)

When Torah Seb'al peh was put on paper, ti became flat, fixed and layers of 
havono were really obscured.

Ironically the Rav himself was one of the greatest in being able to read between
the lines and reconstruct sugyos in such a way as to make them come alive.  
Instead of only concepts, you could feel some of the saliennt issues of that day
(ie.e Bovel circa 300)  brought forward in time.

Rich Wolpoe




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: writing tora shbeal peh 
<snip>
  The Rav zt"l responded that the prohibition is not a formal one, but rather it
demands that Torah be transmitted in a manner which would best facilitates 
study.  Ideally, an oral transmission should be delivered without texts because 
people are more vigilant and precise regarding a text which is unwritten. 
Similarly, the written Torah should be conveyed bikhtav because many derivations
stem from textual nuances (extra letters and other textual phenomena).<snip>

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

Rational and Rav Cook...

a few examples:
1) Rav Kook was said to have learned English by reading a King James Bible.  
That OTOH made him quite an erudite fellow, as well as one of the few people to 
speak Elizabethan English into the 20th Century!

2) His mystical love of EY brought about some very pragmatic "takkonos" in 
cluding his liberal views towards shmitto and teh secular settlers.  I see this 
as a sense of history that he was not hung up on the details of the lack of 
observance by the average secualr Zioniist because he took a long-range view of 
their being a hachshoro for what would become a Jewish cultrual and spirtiual 
Mecca (ok Mecca is not such a good word to describe Israel...<smile>)

3) His charismatic spekaing ability and hist activities in both Agudah AND 
Mizrachi suggest a persona that was above the fray.  A person of detachmentin 
from the political disputes yet and advocate for the goals of those 
organizations.

4) His Philsophy have been pulibshed by the Pualist Press as books on 
philososphy.  I take it (w/o being a scholar of philosophy) that that he had a 
philosphical basis for his world-view.

5) His writings have inspired many rationalistic YU types (EG R. Shlomo Riskin 
etc.)  I take it for granted that he must resonate with them in more than a 
mystical way, there must be an intellecutal/rational componenet that stirs up 
Torah Umdao types

To be hones, I am no expert in R. Kook's writings, etc.  Undoubtedly he was 
highly mystical, it is possible that rational would be mis-applieto R. Kook. 
Perhaps "pragmatic" or "wordly" might be a better way ot put it.  I find his 
overwhelming Ahavas Yisroel to be so inpsiring.  His ability to seek the 
positive (reminiscnet to me of R. Levi Yitzchok of Berdichev) as the kind of 
leadership we need so badly today.  Leaders whose sincer and charisma can breing
about achdus.

I would defer to RYGB as knowing far more about R. Kook's specific thought 
process, I have not a clue.  My general impression is that he fits in nicely 
with the rest of the list.

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Rav Kook 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    11/5/1999 9:25 AM


Where do you see R' Kook as "rational"? Perhaps you had best explain what 
you mean by "rational". If I understand what you mean by rational correctly, 
that is not R' Kook. Unless you see R' Tzadok HaKohen and the Sefas Emes as 
rational as well. In which case, who, pray tell, is "not rational".

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

I run a Carlebachesque minyan. I wouldn't call it a "Carlebach Minyan", though.
We have more than once not used a single tune written by Carlebach. Also, the
expression "Carlebach Minyan" is used by some "Jewish Renewal" types for their
prayer groups, to others, it means a group of Carlebach Chassidim. We're a
pretty yeshivish bunch, to too many people the expression wouldn't draw the
right mental image.

It's a great thing for me, avodas Hashem-wise. Well into Wed I'm still getting
spiritual koach from it, and by then I'm already getting ready (qua chazan
and/or organizer) for the next Fri night.

The minyan was a big part of the motivation behind Ashirah Lashem. Since I'm
investing that much time and getting that much out of that particular davening,
I wanted to make sure I can do it right without fixating on the dikduk, and
that I had peirush hamilim and some kavanos in order. Putting together the
siddur provided a goal for getting all three covered.

There are two such minyanim in our eiruv, with locii roughly 1.5 miles apart.
We use the same email system for organizing the minyanim -- the issue is
entirely walking distance.

Minyan by us take 1:15 to 1:30. Cutting the time would mean singing less of
davening, and/or less rikud by Lecha Dodi. I think either would lesson the
experience.

In terms of visiting other shuls... One shul invited the two minyanim,
fliers to the whole neighborhood, etc... It worked great, was well attended,
and VERY leibadik. But then, anyone who didn't want the longer davening, or
finds the singing too shleppy had ample warning to daven elsewhere that week.

Another time a less centrally located shul invited just the northern minyan
(the one I run, and is now in my basement as part of that beis medrash idea
we've discussed here earlier). The olam was not as well informed, and many
people showed up who viewed the whole thing cynically, with some heckling
among themselves. Won't do that again -- it interfered with kavanah, and
the whole thing didn't "gel" even for the rest of us.

This week the southern minyan is at a third shul, by their invitation.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-Nov-99: Shishi, Sara
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 64a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Please switch my address to "mrich@syndata.com"
Thank you in advance and shabbat shalom

Mitch

A lot has been posted in the last day or so about the role of pleasure in
Chasidus. This is a very complex subject that requires alot of study.
I don't want to oversimplify (as I'm sure none of the other posters do), and
the following is not intended to be a comprehensive or definitive statement.

The teachings attributed to the Ba'al Shem Tov on this are highly nuanced
and, without inconsistency, point in a number of directions. See, e.g.,
Keser Shem Tov  239, 249, 295 and 395. Misunderstandings of his
teachings sometimes also arise because of a few well known instances
in which he uses some sexually explicit analogies to explain spiritual
matters (e.g., to experience spiritual ta'anug one must first have
the spiritual equivalent of ayver chai; the movement of the body
in prayer is analogous to movement in zivug). This leads some to
believe mistakenly that he was shamelessly glorifying phisical pleasure.

Besh"t generally teaches the "salvage value" of worldly pleasures,
i.e., how the energy of the pleasure experience can be used to
transcend that experience and propel one back to Hashem. He also
believes strongly in the principle of mib'sari echzeh Elokim - that we
can draw spiritual insight and inspiration from phenomena of physical
pleasure that we encounter in life. All of this goes to the creative use of
our physicality, which is a given of existence, for spiritual ends.  I don't
understand him to be suggeting that we seek out or indulge in worldly
pleasures so we can get closer to Hashem, but that we use those pleasures
that are invariably part of life for that purpose. It is not a program of
serving
Hashem through physical pleasures and, though innovative, is not really
inconsistent with more traditional approaches, like that of Rambam in
Hilchos Dayos, ch. 3.

The Tzadikim who followed the Besh"t built on this in a variety of ways
and we find some pretty significant differences of approach to physical
pleasure between, for example, Kotzk and Izbitz. Nevertheless, it is my
impression that Chasidim of all types hold with the Besh"t that physical
pleasure has, at best, instrumental value for those who attach themselves
to a tzadik that can guide them in how to project out of the pleasure
experience toward Hashem.

The last point is very important. Many chasidic teachings were never meant
for people who have not attached themselves to a tzadik, and are viewed as
involving significant spiritual peril outside the context of that relationship.
A
good example is the Besh"t's concept of holding onto and elevating machshavos
zaros and hirhurim, rather than supressing them. [This particular practice
came to be viewed as so potentially dangerous that some of the later tzadikkim
limited it, even within the context of the Rebbe-Chosid relationsip, to only
exceptional individuals - mar'eh m'komos available on request.] I think the
doctrine
of pleasure in Chasidus is likewise meant for people who have attached
themselves
to a tzadik, not others [and that some of the later masters of Chasidus (e.g.,
R' Arele in Taharas Hakodesh) have limited their application even in this
context].

The point has already been made and bears repeating that the Chasidic doctrine
of simcha is distinct from and not to be confused with the Chasidic teachings on
ta'anug, although there are limited points of intersection between them.

It is not a good idea to "cherry pick" Chasidus for those of its ideas that,
taken out
of context and poorly understood, might enable us to feel there is some Jewish
basis for contemporary cultural "values" concerning pleasure to which we may
have fallen prey.

Shabat Shalom,
David

:Anybody ever try to make a special Carlebach minyan in a regular shul :just
:so that the shulgoers could see what it's like?  What were the reactions?

:Kol tuv,
:Moshe


In my shul (Shomrei Emunah in Baltimore), they have just instituted a
monthly "Carlebach style" Friday night minyan (every Shabbos Mavorchim).  So
as to accommodate everyone, there is also a separate "regular" minyan for
those who don't have the patience or desire to experience, IMHO, a spiritual
and meaningful Kaballas Shabbos.  When my shul has done this in the past,
the "regular" minyan was more crowded than the "Carlebach" minyan (similar
to R' Joel Rich's experience).

My six year old son loves the "Carlebach" minyan...it lets him know that
davening can be more than just saying words without (outwardly expressing
any emotion).  I also find that it gives extra meaning to the words of
Kaballas Shabbos, where we talk about "singing to Hashem" when, at a regular
minyan, we just say the words.

The "Carlebach" minyan only adds an extra 25-30 minutes, which is not a big
deal on the winter shabbosim.

:Anybody ever try to make a special Carlebach minyan in a regular shul :just
:so that the shulgoers could see what it's like?  What were the reactions?

:Kol tuv,
:Moshe


In my shul (Shomrei Emunah in Baltimore), they have just instituted a
monthly "Carlebach style" Friday night minyan (every Shabbos Mavorchim).  So
as to accommodate everyone, there is also a separate "regular" minyan for
those who don't have the patience or desire to experience, IMHO, a spiritual
and meaningful Kaballas Shabbos.  When my shul has done this in the past,
the "regular" minyan was more crowded than the "Carlebach" minyan (similar
to R' Joel Rich's experience).

My six year old son loves the "Carlebach" minyan...it lets him know that
davening can be more than just saying words without (outwardly expressing
any emotion).  I also find that it gives extra meaning to the words of
Kaballas Shabbos, where we talk about "singing to Hashem" when, at a regular
minyan, we just say the words.

The "Carlebach" minyan only adds an extra 25-30 minutes, which is not a big
deal on the winter shabbosim.

david.nadoff@bfkpn.com wrote:

I wish I could agree, but the number of someone elses with big weddings
has given rise to some significant social problems in frum communities
that are the business of all of us. What we need from our g'dolim are
takonos that address the issue head on, not just their examples as role
models. [As an aside, Jordan's point in his post earlier this week is very
well taken - g'dolim must consider the economic and other side effects of
their takonos so that they don't inadvertantly just trade in one set of
problems for another.]

At a question and answer session at an Agudah convention several years ago,
the Novominsker Rebbe and R' Shmuel Kaminetzky were asked why the Aguda
doesn't institute takonos regulating weddings, bar mitzvahs, kiddushim, etc.
The Novominsker answered that, while this is an important issue, it wasn't
the job of the Agudah, a "lay organization" to set up these kinds of
guidelines.  And he also noted that it is much easier for the Gerrer Rebbe
to make such takonos since he had control over his kehilla, while the Aguda
has no such control.  He suggested that individual Rabbonim set guidelines
for their own kehilla, and that, we, as individuals, take it upon ourselves
to have modest simchas.

R' Shmuel suggested that Rabbonim, Roshei Yeshiva, etc. should refuse to be
masader kiddushin if a wedding is going to be too ostentatious.  

~ Aryeh

Hi Micha and Moshe,

Pardon me for replying to this even though I'm not on the Avodah list.  A
friend sent this to me, and I thought I'd answer what I could.

>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:27:05 -0500 (EST)
>From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
>Subject: Re: Paroh identity
>
>See http://www.ncsy.org/chagim/pesach/whenex.htm, an article by Brad
>Aaronson originally published in Jewish Action. Alternatively, you can see
>http://members.tripod.com/~lifsha/history/ -- Lisa Liel's home page. Both
>are the same theory, possibly at different stages of development.

Well, actually... what really happened was that Brad had agreed to write a
second article for them, and after more than 6 months of writer's block and
several calls from one of their editors, he asked me to write something for
him.  So I'm the ghostwriter.  And the two articles (unless there are
changes on the NCSY and OU and Aish HaTorah sites) are identical.  He gave
me permission to post it and take credit for it, or I would have left it as
it was.

Also, I have it in the Judaism section of my site:

http://www.bigfoot.com/~lisabeth/judaism/exodus.html

and not the History section.  It was a borderline call, but I thought it
suited that section better.  I was really surprised to see how many places
have posted that article.  It makes me think there might be more of a call
for similar material than I'd realized.

>Liel brings evidence to Velikovsky's dating of the period, and concluded
>that the pharoa of the Exodus was Malul and Pepi II -- who most historians
>believe to be two different people, but under this chronology is one. It
>also does much to explain archeological findings about the bayis rishon
>period.

Most historians actually would be unlikely to believe there ever was such a
person as Malul.  Malul is only mentioned in Jewish midrashic literature.
But the description does fit historical sources (ancient Egyptian
inscriptions) about Pepi II.  And I tend to doubt that there were 2
pharaohs who reigned 94 years from the age of 6.  So either they were the
same person, or one source copied from the other.  And since the ancient
Egyptian material hadn't been uncovered at the time that the midrashim were
being written down...

Or maybe it's just a really strange coincidence. <grin>

And just as a minor point, I'm not backing Velikovsky's dating.  He put the
Exodus at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, for example, which is a major
difference.  But from the standpoint of conventional historians, any
radical redating of the archaeological record is pretty much the same:
"crackpot".  And as convinced as I am of what I wrote, "crackpot" really is
a legitimate description of any theory that hasn't gained widespread
acceptance.  And this one hasn't.

>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:13:56 -0800 (PST)
>From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: Paroh identity
>
>You brought these articles to my attention at an opportune time.  I had
>just read an article by Ze'ev Herzog, a conventional historian, explaining
>why the biblical account of the conquest of Israel made no sense in light
>of archeological findings.  (The article may be found at
>http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/scripts/article.asp?mador=18&datee=10/31/99&i
d=60241
>.)

I looked at the article.  It reminded me of a similar article that appeared
in a Brandeis alumni magazine.  I went to a friend's house for Shabbat, and
the moment I walked in the door, my friend, who had gone to Brandeis,
shoved the magazine into my hands and told me in this tone of anguish that
I *had* to write a rebuttal of the article in the magazine.  I looked at
it, and all I could tell her was that if the archaeological levels, or
strata, are dated correctly, the physical evidence really does support all
the conclusions that were in the article.  The people in the north and
south of Eretz Yisrael during the Iron Age really were two completely
different nations.  The ones in the north really did come from Syria and
not from Egypt.  The ones in the south really were of the same culture as
the people who'd lived there during the end of the Bronze Age.  If the
Bronze and Iron Ages are really to be dated when conventional historians
say, this means that the people in Judah were of the same exact culture as
the Canaanites.  Just a little more beaten down.  On the other hand, if the
strata are to be dated as I've suggested in my article, it only means that
the people in Judah *after* the Assyrian invasions (Sennecherib and
company) were of the same exact culture as the people in Judah *before*
those invasions.  Just a little more beaten down.

It's hard to fault the historians who draw these conclusions, and it's
absolutely *not* true that they're all haters of religion out to disprove
the Bible.  Many, if not most of them, would *love* to be able to show
harmony between the Bible and the historical record.  But the dating of the
strata is something that's been so accepted for so long that it's hard to
really question it.  It's something that's been around since before there
was any real science of archaeology.

Sometimes you can change one underlying assumption, and all the conclusions
change.  That's what happens in this case.  If you look at the chart at the
end of the Exodus article, you can see how both the Bible and archaeology
describe the exact same sequence of national movement.  They both describe
the same three nations that lived in Eretz Yisrael between the first city
building and the rise of the Persian Empire.  They just ("just") give
different names to the nations.

It doesn't help, of course, that history books will use "the beginning of
the Iron Age" and "the 12th century BCE" interchangably.  If pottery is
discovered that clearly dates to the Middle Bronze II B,C period,
historians will refer to the pottery as dating to c. 1550 BCE without
blinking.  They will do so with no intent of deceiving, fully believing
that they are simply making their words easier to understand.

If a historian says that there's no evidence of an Exodus from Egypt in
1476 BCE, what he means is that there's no such evidence in the Late Bronze
Age or the 18th Dynasty in Egypt.  And that's inarguably true.  But what if
1476 BCE was the end of the Early Bronze Age and the end of the 6th Dynasty
in Egypt?  Does the archaeological/inscriptional record contradict the
Exodus having happened?  One of the things I tried to show in my article
was that it doesn't.

>Question: from a professional historian's perspective, how mainstream is
>the position described by Aronson?  Have professional historians
>considered it and found it wanting?

No, but that's mostly because they haven't considered it at all.  I've
spent a lot of time trying to think how to write a book that would put
forward this idea without sounding so outrageous or religion-driven that
it's immediately dismissed.  I think I know how to do it, but I haven't had
the opportunity.  It's a difficult proposition.  I don't want to write the
kind of "history" books put out by Artscroll.  But I think about people who
have seriously left frumkeit because of the conflicts they perceive between
Judaism and history.  There's someone on soc.culture.jewish right now who
is engaged in a campaign against Orthodox Judaism because of this very
issue.  It's tragic, the more so because it's unnecessary.

Anyway, I apologize for butting in when I'm not even on the list.

Shabbat Shalom,
Lisa

P.S., if the thread continued longer than this and you think it's worth
anything, feel free to repost this.

Gad Frenkel writes:

> Conspicuous Consumption - Not having been given the Nisayon (if
> someone doesn't like my transliteration - too bad) of wealth I can
> only speak from the outside.  While I don't advocate taking away
> anyone's Jaguar I still find it obscene when I attend lavish weddings
> and think of all the other causes that that money could go to.  It's
> hard to justify spending a half a million on a wedding, no matter how
> big a Ba'al T'zadaka the spender is, when there are children going to
> bed hungry, Yeshiva payrolls not being met etc.

I definitely hear what you're saying. But I often find myself saying "why
don't those people do [whatever] instead of [whatever]?", when it probably
would be more to the point for me to say, well, do I really need another
shirt from Lands End, hardcover book, paperback mystery novel, or should I
give it to tzedaka?

Freda Birnbaum, fbb6@columbia.edu
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"

Did anyone in this thread refer to takkonas Rabban Gamliel wrt to levayos?

Rich Wolpoe 

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" 
> But I do not know of Chassidim that pushed "pleasure". 
> Certainly not in the
> realm of OC 240, and not even in inyanei achila, except in 
> the context of a
> tisch etc.
> 
> While we are on the topic, leaping to a related thread, I was 
> most amused by
> R' Lamm's contention that his model of  TUM was a Chassidic 
> one. Chassidim
> themselves would be abhorred by the comparison. They would 
> find it analagous
> to arguing that one should serve bacon at a tisch.

Until now, I too was bothered by R. Lamm's finding a basis for Torah
U'Maddah in Chassidism.  After all, in reality TUM as it developed did not
look to Chassidism for inspiration.  But in answering your question I think
that I will answer mine as well.

Chassidim certainly will look askance at the study of secular studies.  (I
know this first-hand, as my mother is a first cousin of R. Raphael Blum, the
Kashauer Rov, and is very close to him as she lived in his house after the
Holocaust.)  But their reasons for looking askance at these studies do not
derive from a different understanding of Avodah she'begashmiut; rather they
derive from other attitudes (antipathy towards the Goyish world, reaction to
Haskalah, etc.).  The concept of Avodah She'begashmiut makes sense, and the
fact it was never applied to secular studies before should not stop its
application now.

In his excellent article in Torah Umaddah Journal v.6, Rabbi Mayer Schiller
(a practicing chassid) discusses these issues.  Here are some salient
quotes:

<<[p.80]  Outside of those various segments of Orthodoxy who seek to
recreate largely authentic models of Eastern European Jewish life either in
Israel or America, every other approach within Orthodoxy embraces the
pursuit of worldly knowledge, beauty and experience to a certain degree.
However, there is little in the philosophy which they have inherited from
their Eastern European predecessors that can legitimate these pursuits.
Thus, what emerges is an assent to the value of general knowledge as well as
the pursuit of non-Torah activities among those who, in theory, should
reject both.  "Torah-only" advocates generally are trapped by their
instinctive reaction to the value of the non-explicitly sacred.  They feel a
"positive attitude" towards "wisdom", art and other forms of human
achievement, yet, their world view is helpless when it comes to explain the
significance of these phenomena.  What, in their opinion, is G-d's response
to one who explores the intracacies of biology or chemistry?  Or to
Beethoven? . . . .>>

Stopping here for a moment, let me just note that this is the answer to my
question, above.  TUM did not develop as an outgrowth of Chassidism.  But it
did develop because of an instinctive reaction to the value of the
non-sacred.  R. Lamm has merely concretized our instinctual reaction.

Continuing on with R. Schiller:
<<Recently I sat with a prominent mitnagdic Rosh Yeshiva who waxed rhapsodic
over Ebbets Field, Happy Felton's Knothole Gang, "Campy" and "Pee Wee" and
yet, felt obligated to declare those wondrous memories of his youth
"shtusim." 
[f.n. 26: . . . when reminded of the Abbot and Costello routine of "Niagra
Falls", he laughed so hard he could barely catch his breath.  I asked him
what he thought G-d felt about the joy he experienced at that moment and he
was at a loss to answer.]
.. . . .

The ultimate guarantee that knowledge, beauty and experience of a
non-explicitly sacred nature is good (provided that it is no way sinful) is
that they are from G-d who has chosen to create the world and imbue it with
its particular qualities.  To reject this notion would be to maintain that
G-d created the vast expanses of the universe only to tempt us, that all
beauty that inheres in nature and all the joys of life are lies, and that
all the seemingly limitless banquet of being is a snare calculated by the
Creator to attract us while, in truth, leading us astray.  Actually, isn't
the profusion of beauty in nature the clearest proof that G-d wished to
bestow upon us more than the blessings of prayer and study?

Of course, these other blessings must be pursued with a spirit of gratitude
and reverence.  They must forever be leading a Jew back to the Creator, back
to the Gemara, to prayer, to an assent to every nook and acranny of Halakhah
regardless of the spirit of the times.>>

I note the fact that in a subsequent issue, RYGB wrote a letter to the
editor taking issue with R. Schiller with regard to the joys of baseball,
noting that many highschoolers are more enthralled with sports than with
learning.  R. Schiller answered that this was an abuse but did not undermine
the essence of the argument that Hashem in His beneficence grants us
pleasures.  I wonder whether RYGB was satisfied with R. Schiller's response.
Maybe he could write our Avodah list what he would have written in response
to R. Schiller.

Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]