Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 144

Friday, November 19 1999

• Re: Macho'o
• Correction
• [none]
• Re: Derech Eretz
• RE: RAW Derasha
• RE: RAW Derasha
• Re: Netiquette
• Mitzvos Ma'asiyos
• Re: Drush (was Down's Syndrome, hyperbole; Yitzchok had etc)
• Cost of simchas
• Re: Tzelem Elokim
• AAOA (Abbreviations and Other Acronyms)
• Retraction, etc.
• Simplicity
• Re: Drush (was Down's Syndrome, hyperbole; Yitzchok had etc)

In a message dated 11/19/99 1:08:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> I am intrigued how some zealously stand up for Yitzhock's honor. and 
> soemtimes 
>  for Hashem's honor too.  Intrigues because I figure Yitachok Ovinu and 
KvCH 
>  Hashem can pretty much stand-up and defend their own honor.

There is Halacha how one must react to Bizzui HKB"H and Taalmid Chochom etc.

Gut Shabbos V'kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Sorry, it was, indeed, it seems, R'  Avi Weiss who wrote the clarification
(and the original) and that R' Yitz Weiss just compiles the material.

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

___________________________________________________________________
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.

Rabbi Bechhofer wrote <<< Astute research by certain individuals
uncovered that this "mahalach" in Yitzchok Avinu was first brought into
the world in "The Reconstructionist" in 1990. >>>

I accept this at your word. And it is certainly *possible* that Rabbi
Saul Berman might have read that article, getting these ideas from there,
prior to passing those ideas to Rabbi Avi Weiss. However, you seem to be
presuming that this is Rabbi Berman's source, and I tend to doubt it.



I wrote <<< The original dvar Torah did NOT make a "great deal" of it,
but simply pointed it out. >>>

Rabbi Bechhofer says <<< That is "a great deal". >>>

Okay, fine. I apologize for this one.



Rabbi Avi Weiss wrote <<< The intent of the Forshpeis was to indicate
that from the perspective of drush, Yitzhak possessed some
characteristics that teach us something, not about Yitzhak, but about
Downs Syndrome. >>>

Rabbi Bechhofer says <<< I thought we agreed that Yitzchok did NOT
possess these characteristics? >>>

This certainly would be a critical factor to this discussion. But I do
not recall any agreement about whether or not Yitzchak Avinu possessed
those characteristics. I do know that a superficial reading of the
Chumash gives the impression that Yitzchak was naive and easily decieved,
and that many of the meforshim discuss this at length. But there are many
different ways to explain his true nature, and I never noticed any
consensus among anyone on it. Then again, Chumash is one of my many weak
areas, and I am open to new ideas. I'll try to review recent issues of
Avodah, looking for the agreement that you remember seeing.



Rabbi Bechhofer wrote <<< R' Weiss (BTW, this, I believe, is R' Yitz
Weiss, editor of  Toras Aish, not R' Avi Weiss) is ... >>>

I have not found even one post from Yitz Weiss to Avodah. Sorry for the
confusion. Every single time I wrote "Rabbi Weiss", I was referring to
Rabbi Avi Weiss, author of both the article in question, and the addendum
to it.



Rabbi Avi Weiss wrote <<< I was pained that some individuals, in reacting
to this idea, even went so far as to state that those with Downs may not
have been created in the image of God. >>>

Rabbi Bechhofer wrote <<< R' Weiss ... is denigrating those who tried,
unsuccessfully, to carry on an objective discussion of whether the
specific defintion of tzelem raised by the Nefesh Ha'Chaim and other
Mekubbalim applies to those with Downs. This is a very legitimate
question (without getting into the question of whether this is the forum
for its discussion). To clearly indicate that persons who raise this
legitimate intellectual query lack some sensitivity or humanity is,
truly, character assassination (not just of the individual who posted the
question here, but of R' Chaim Volozhiner). >>>

Yes, I see your point. But to me, those sources seemed to concentrate on
the philosphical question of what it was that HaShem gave to Adam
Harishon, which was described as "tzelem Elokim". I did not notice (and I
did have my eye looking for this!) any source which suggests that some
humans nowadays (i.e., descended from Sheis) might not have this Tzelem
Elokim.

It is one thing to say that tzelem Elokim refers to a certain kind or
degree of intelligence. It is quite another thing to say that people who
are below that level lack that tzelem Elokim. Yes, this is a "legitimate
intellectual query", and as part of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, we are
allowed and required to investigate that query without being labelled as
insensitive. To accuse those people of being insensitive could constitute
character assasination, I suppose. But the way I see it, it is reasonable
to presume that the child of a tzelem Elokim also has a tzelem Elokim of
his own.

By the way, someone recently asked (and I don't remember seeing anyone
suggest an answer)... --- If tzelem Elokim is dependent on a certain type
or degree of intelligence, then does a newborn baby have tzelem Elokim?



I wrote (in all caps) <<< Rabbi Weiss did not call anyone any kind of
names.... If anyone can find where Rabbi Weiss "stoops to name-calling",
please show me the words, and I will apologize. >>>

Rabbi Bechhofer wrote <<< Name-calling is not limited to saying "You are
an idiot" outright. There is name-calling by implication. Here, I will
highlight those implications for you: < I was pained that some
individuals, in reacting to this idea, even went > < For some,
spirituality is exclusively bound with the intellect. > >>>

Okay, here's my public apology: Sorry about that. Where I come from,
"name-calling" *DOES* mean things like "You are an idiot". Where I come
from, the examples you cite are referred to as "a difference of opinion".



Wrapping up, I now publicly and sincerely thank Rabbi Bechhofer for the
time and care which he took in responding to my points. This is a much
more productive method of discussion than quick one-liners.

Kol tuv,
Akiva Miller


..

___________________________________________________________________
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.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BF327A.F9F75C80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It seems to me that discussions of whether the RAW derasha is a good =
chap or not, or whether it teaches a morally valid lesson about people =
with impaired mental function is somewhat beside the point. That is a =
subjective matter of opinion that is useless to argue about.

The real issue, I think, is the boundries of good taste (or even heresy) =
when referring to our Avos Keddoshim. eg: Are they really any different =
than Joe down the block?

Perhaps tha following passage, taken from a transcript of a derasha that =
was delivered by a free-thinking Modern Orthodox Rabbi named  Rav =
Soloveitchik z"l might shed some light on this issue. He is referring to =
chachmei HaTalmud, rather than the Avos HaKeddoshim, but I think one =
might easily predict what the Rav might have felt about the Yitzchak =
Avinu derasha.

"A thought. Kabalas ol malchus shamayim -- which is an identical act =
with

talmud torah -- requires of us to revere and to love and to admire the

words of the chachmei hamesorah, be they tannaim, be they amoraim, be =
they

rishonim. This is our prime duty. They are the final authorities, and an

irresponsible statement about chazal borders on, I don't like to use the

word but according to Maimonides, the heretic. =20

.....

But moreover, even those who admit the truthfulness of the torah she =
b'al peh

but who are critical of chachmei chazal as personalities, who find fault

with chachmei chazal, fault in their character, their behavior, or their

conduct, who say that chachmei chazal were prejudiced, which actually =
has

no impact upon the halachah; nevertheless, he is to be considered as a

kofer. V'chen hakofer b'perusha v'hu torah she b'al peh v'hamach'chish

magideha; he who denies the perfection and the truthfulness of chachmei

chazal -- not of the Torah, but of the chachmei chazal as personalities,

as real persona as far as their character, their philosophy, or their

outlook on the world is concerned -- is a kofer."



Excerpted from the derasha entitled "Talmud Torah and Kabalas Ol Malchus =
Shamayim"  - available at www.613.org



David Hojda

Kiryat Sefer

Israel


------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BF327A.F9F75C80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>
<P><FONT size=3D2>It seems to me that&nbsp;discussions of whether the =
RAW derasha=20
is a good chap or&nbsp;not, or whether it teaches a morally valid lesson =
about=20
people with impaired mental function is somewhat beside the point. That =
is a=20
subjective matter of opinion that is useless to argue about.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>The real issue, I think, is the boundries of&nbsp;good =
taste (or=20
even heresy) when referring to our Avos Keddoshim. eg: Are they really =
any=20
different than Joe down the block?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Perhaps tha following passage, taken from a transcript =
of a=20
derasha that was delivered by a free-thinking Modern Orthodox&nbsp;Rabbi =
named =20
Rav Soloveitchik z"l might shed some light on this issue. He is =
referring to=20
chachmei HaTalmud, rather than the Avos HaKeddoshim, but I =
think&nbsp;one might=20
easily predict what the Rav might have felt about the&nbsp;Yitzchak =
Avinu=20
derasha.</FONT></P>
<P>"A thought. Kabalas ol malchus shamayim -- which is an identical act =
with</P>
<P>talmud torah -- requires of us to revere and to love and to admire =
the</P>
<P>words of the chachmei hamesorah, be they tannaim, be they amoraim, be =

they</P>
<P>rishonim. This is our prime duty. They are the final authorities, and =
an</P>
<P>irresponsible statement about chazal borders on, I don't like to use =
the</P>
<P>word but according to Maimonides, the heretic.&nbsp; </P>
<P><FONT size=3D6>....</FONT></P><FONT size=3D3>
<P>But moreover, even those who admit the truthfulness of the torah she =
b'al=20
peh</P>
<P>but who are critical of chachmei chazal as personalities, who find =
fault</P>
<P>with chachmei chazal, fault in their character, their behavior, or =
their</P>
<P>conduct, who say that chachmei chazal were prejudiced, which actually =
has</P>
<P>no impact upon the halachah; nevertheless, he is to be considered as =
a</P>
<P>kofer. V'chen hakofer b'perusha v'hu torah she b'al peh =
v'hamach'chish</P>
<P>magideha; he who denies the perfection and the truthfulness of =
chachmei</P>
<P>chazal -- not of the Torah, but of the chachmei chazal as =
personalities,</P>
<P>as real persona as far as their character, their philosophy, or =
their</P>
<P>outlook on the world is concerned -- is a kofer."</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>Excerpted from&nbsp;the derasha entitled <FONT size=3D3>"Talmud Torah =
and=20
Kabalas Ol Malchus Shamayim"&nbsp; - available&nbsp;at <A=20
href=3D"http://www.613.org">www.613.org</A></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>David Hojda</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Kiryat Sefer</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Israel</FONT></P></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BF327A.F9F75C80--

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BF3288.290B2300
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Joel Rich wrote:
>>"I was not offended by the dvar Tora and whether I "agree" with it or =
not=20
>>assumed that I was observing  the time honored rabbinic tradition of =
tying=20
>>what the particular Rav viewed as an important point to be made to =
parshat=20
>>hashavua"=20

=20
Too bad that you were not offended. The time-honored Rabbinic tradition =
is to relate to the Avos HaKedoshim ONLY with absolute awe and =
trembling.
=20
All I can suggest is, learn Chumash more deeply. =20

=20

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BF3288.290B2300
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3401" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Joel Rich wrote:<BR></FONT><FONT size=3D2>&gt;&gt;"I =
was not=20
offended by the dvar Tora and whether I "agree" with it or not=20
<BR>&gt;&gt;assumed that I was observing&nbsp; the time honored rabbinic =

tradition of tying <BR>&gt;&gt;what the particular Rav viewed as an =
important=20
point to be made to parshat <BR>&gt;&gt;hashavua"&nbsp;<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Too bad that you were not offended. The time-honored =
Rabbinic=20
tradition is to relate to the Avos HaKedoshim ONLY with absolute awe and =

trembling.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>All I can suggest is, learn Chumash&nbsp;more =
deeply.&nbsp;=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BF3288.290B2300--

On the subject of anonymity:

In general, it doesn't bother me. As someone else already pointed out, no
posting is really anonymous, as we know the name of the chaveir (lower case
C, Michael <grin>) who was willing to serve as middle man.

However, if the post is going to be about a person, I also find it wimpy (to
be frank) not to stand as an individual when doing so. Sniper fire is far too
easy to really evolve into more meaningful dialogue.

About acronyms:

We are a bit wild about acronym creation -- I guess many of us are lazy typists
or just poor at it. However, when discussing Rabbi Avi Weiss's article, I don't
think RAW is an overly cryptic set of letters. Unlike the same text appearing
out of context.

OTOH, I recently had problems following a dialogue that went roughly a week
before someone used the full form of AbG (avodah bigashmius?) and CC (chochmos
chitzonios? -- NOT Chafeit Chaim). Perhaps occasional reminders would help.

Then we have the people sited or who write to the list an average of more
than once per volume. Personally, I blame Rabbi and Mrs Bechhofer Sr who
named one of our more prolific chaveirim with a name that is too long for
us lazy typists <grin>. I think the floodgates opened with RYGB. You really
want confusion? We have two R' E. Teitz's. No acronym there.

So, what's the solution?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Nov-99: Shishi, Vayetzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 71a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Moshe Feldman <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> parenthetically comments in v4n139:
:                                                                Actually
: being forced to cramp our styles might have greater impact on our thought
: processes than mere drashot (after all, this is the whole concept of mitzvot
: ma'asi'yot).  Any thoughts?

I'd reduce that to half the concept. Mitzvos ma'asios are not only a tool
for learning particular concepts, but also the expression of that concept.

There are dirachim (perhaps the majority of those followed by Orthodoxy today)
that interpret all mitzvos in cuasal terms, that one should observe the mitzvah
because, through the laws of physics or metaphysics, that's the way to create
the right effects.

According to Dayan Grunfeld's into to Choreiv, haynu hach. RSRH's symbology
is an explanation of the metaphysical causality system. IMHO, this asserts
a very central role of mind in metaphysics, by saying that *the* vehicle
for metaphysical causality is learning. I'm not sure that this assertion
isn't itself the key divergence between RSR Hirsch and more mystical dirachim.
He eliminates mysticism (the glory of the unkowable) by replacing it with a
comprehensible system, a psychology. Or is that stating it too strongly?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Nov-99: Shishi, Vayetzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 71a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

What bothers me most about the whole thing is that everyone 
seems to agree that the "drosha" has no basis in fact, ie IS NOT TRUE.
If so, how can anyone defend it as per the following 2 examples:

From V4 #135
"(This reading of the text, and probably the whole "drasha"
would probably be very meaningful and useful at a Yachad
Shabbaton. It would go a long way in providing chizuk to our 
congnitively impaired co-religionists), I don't think the 
characteristics presented demonstrate it....
While I think R. Weiss is guilty of poor analysis (usually I enjoy his
comments), I think it unfair to overly castigate him.  After all, 
who hasn't "fudged" the sources a little in order to prove a 
valid point?"

From V4 #140
" I defend RAW for his "drasha" even though I think it is
a major stretch to read "Downs syndrome" features in
to his behavior, even if it acknowledges that Yitzchok
Avinu did NOT actually have Downs Syndrome. RAW's
intentions are honorable here...There are real sources that can 
do an infinitely better job at this."

I don't understand how anyone can argue that Torah is well 
served by sheker.
(I realize that calling this sheker may be too strong for some, but 
I don't know what else to call it at this point)

G"S
Sender Baruch

Most of what i wanted to say about this subject has been posted already.  Let 
me just add that many of the people who make the most lavish bar mitzvahs and 
weddings are among the biggest baalei tzedaka in their communities.  One does 
not preclude the other.  It's hard to fault someone who's making a lavish 
affair, when they are also giving major amounts of money to day schools, 
synagogues, and other charitable orginazations in their communities.

Michael Feldstein

RAW wrote:

>>For some, spirituality is exclusively bound with the intellect.  Those of 
lesser intelligence are not viewed as having the capacity to have spiritual 
depth.  The Forshpeis was an attempt to say that spirituality emerges from 
the whole being-not only from the mind, but also from the soul.>>

I think RAW vocalized the question with which I've been struggling 
throughout this discussion.  My understanding, which certainly can be 
flawed which is why I stated it so waveringly, is that according to many 
medieval Jewish philosophers the intellect is primary in yahadus.  I 
believe that it is an underlying assumption throughout the Rambam's 
writings.  For instance, in the Moreh Nevuchim (1:1) he defines a tzelem 
Elokim as "hasagah sichlis" (RY Kaffih's translation from Arabic).  Later 
(3:51) he discusses various levels of achievement in terms of intellectual 
grasp.  He even goes so far as to say that those without yedias Hashem do 
not have hashgachah pratis and are left to mikreh.  The Chovos Halevavos 
(beginning of intro) also defines man's task in this world in terms of 
intellectual grasp.  See also in sha'ar avodas Hashem (ch. 2) where he 
define a yetzer hatov as the "seichel."  What little I know of the Ralbag's 
hashkafah indicates that he whole-heartedly agrees with this.  The Sefer 
Haikkarim (1:11) defines a tzelem Elokim as a "koach sichli."  The way I 
understand it, according to these philosophers the tachlis of man's life is 
yedias Hashem.

That being the case, I am troubled in much the same way as RAW.  What about 
those mentally handicapped or even those with average intellect?  The 
average Joe does not have the ABILITY to understand difficult philosophical 
or lomdishe concepts and CANNOT reach yedias Hashem.  Where do these people 
fit into this Maimonidean worldview?  Granted, kabbalah offers other 
alternative philosophies but must we discard the great heritage of these 
philosophers?

My suggestion in my original post, that those handicapped have a tzelem 
Elokim (intellectual ability) but are unable to use it, explains how they 
have a tzelem Elokim but not how they fit into this worldview.

I am not accusing or denigrating but simply struggling to understand.  I am 
also bothered by the possibility that my refusal to accept the above is 
because of the influence of our democratic society towards egalitarianism.  
Do we have a need to say that everyone is equal in Hashem's view because 
the Declaration of Independence said it?  Needless to say, that should not 
play a part in our acceptance of Torah philosophy.

I am very much on RAW's side in not understanding those who claim that 
"spirituality is exclusively bound with the intellect" but I'm not as 
willing to outrightly reject them.

I know that there are those on this list who have a far better 
understanding of philosophy and I posted this question originally with the 
hope for some guidance.  I am posting this, hopefully clearer and less 
offensively, in that hope again.

Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:48:44 EST
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject: Netiquette

Rabbosai! Please!

<<< Even if the SS argument held >>>

<<I had to read this several times until I figured out that "SS" refers
to
the "Slippery Slope", and not Nazi Germany's organization, yemach
sh'mam.>>

	I apologize.  However,  I did use the full phrase immediately prior, 
rather than assuming you knew what I meant.

Gershon

From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject: Derech Eretz

<<Rabbi Weiss published an addendum to his article of last week. Via
Rabbi
Bechhofer, someone responded to that addendum. I must respond to the
outrageous charges made by that anonymous person.

Rabbi Weiss wrote <<< The intent of the Forshpeis was to indicate that
from the perspective of drush, Yitzhak possessed some characteristics
that teach us something, not about Yitzhak, but about Downs Syndrome. 
Specifically, that those who have Downs have the capacity to spiritually
reach the highest levels and to inspire others to reach extraordinary
heights. >>>

Anonymous said <<< What it actually demonstrated is that some people who
don't have Downs have the capacity to reach the highest levels of
stupidity and, through persistent and unintelligible "clarifications," to
attribute even greater stupidity to their audience. >>>

I say: Anonymous is not explaining WHY he thinks Rabbi Weiss is stupid.
What is unintelligible here? Perhaps you object to his use of the phrase
"highEST levels". Okay. Fine. Let's take out those three letters and try
it again: <<< those who have Downs have the capacity to spiritually reach
high levels and to inspire others to reach extraordinary heights. >>>
What's wrong with that?>>

	What's wrong with that is that we're dealing with the Avos.  The Avos
did not merely reach high levels of spirituality,  they reached the
highest levels.   Someone with Down's can reach high levels,  but to say
that one of the Avos Hakedoshim could have had Down's and still reached
the levels asher mipihem onu chayim,  is a perversion of the concept of
Avos in pursuit of making a point.

Gershon

BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il writes that "It's unfortunate that instead of
Chassidishe rebbes serving as role models (having extremely simple and
inexpensive simchas) they are in the vanguard of the ostentatious amd
opulent extravaganzas that have recently taken place in Jerusalem and NYC
with 10,000 guests."  Having been to two of these extravaganzas (Satmar's
Rebbe's granddaughter to the Alesker Rov's son in 1986 and the Bostoner
Rebbe's grandson to the Bobover rebbes granddaughter last week), I can say
that the only thing opulent and ostenatatious was the number of guests.  The
actual simchas were very, very simple.  Guests ate on plastic tablecloths,
from plastic plates and with plastic utensils, and had paper napkins.  The
service was by volunteers rather than professional waiters, and the food
itself was exremely simple.  There was no smorgasboard, just cake before the
seuda, and at the Bostoner-Bobover wedding, there was a one-man band.  The
weddings themselves took place either in the shul, or in the case of Satmar
in the Williamsburg armory.  Let's just say that if you or I made a wedding
on the same scale, we would be talking about a total cost of $15-20 per
guest for everything.

Levi Reisman

I am the author of the below quoted material (V4 #135)  and I beleive RAB
misunderstands my comments.  I was mainly addressing myself to what ought to
be an appropriate response to R. Weiss's statements.  Quite honestly, I
don't believe he deserves the witch hunt to which he has been subjected. I
believe that those most vehement against him at this time are actually the
same people who probably never liked him in the first place for a myriad of
reasons (some good and probably most bad).  His weekly message, is merely an
excuse to further castigate and seek his degradation.    Indeed R. Weiss
published a poor essay; for that he should be criticized.  Truth be told, I
was more amused by the piece's absurdity than I was horrified by the
theological ramifications of it.  He inappropriately manipulated sources and
read in that which is neither containied in nor implied by the text; poor
rabinic practice, but one which at times has happened as a result of
genuinely good intentions.  That is a slightly unfortunate consequence of
the imperfect condition called humanity.  We all make mistakes; we don't
always deserve to be racked over the coals for them.  My other pont was that
had R. Weiss made his comments in the context of a Yachad shabbaton, for
example, in an attempt ot bolster the spirits of the participants, he would
appear as culpable as he is being described.  He is guilty of taking Purim
Torah too seriously, and of presenting it in the wrong context.  I find
those two offenses unworthy of the type of vilification he suffered.  His
subsequent remarks did contain some amount of contrition for the mix up, and
at the same time were slightly defensive.  What can I say, he's human.
DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Baruch <Abaruch@SINAI-BALT.COM>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Drush (was Down's Syndrome, hyperbole; Yitzchok had etc)


> What bothers me most about the whole thing is that everyone
> seems to agree that the "drosha" has no basis in fact, ie IS NOT TRUE.
> If so, how can anyone defend it as per the following 2 examples:
>
> From V4 #135
> "(This reading of the text, and probably the whole "drasha"
> would probably be very meaningful and useful at a Yachad
> Shabbaton. It would go a long way in providing chizuk to our
> congnitively impaired co-religionists), I don't think the
> characteristics presented demonstrate it....
> While I think R. Weiss is guilty of poor analysis (usually I enjoy his
> comments), I think it unfair to overly castigate him.  After all,
> who hasn't "fudged" the sources a little in order to prove a
> valid point?"

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


[ 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         ]