Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 227

Tuesday, December 28 1999

• Re: Moshe Rabbeinu's Free Will
• RE: Orthodoxy and return of land
• Re: Treatment of Arabs
• Re: Re[4]: Kollel support (was problem kids)
• Re: Orthodoxy and the Land of Israel
• Kollel and Sustenance -- a source (and a bit of nostalgia)
• Re: Schlessingers Proof of Gods Existence-Laymans Descriptio
• RE: MAZEL TOV
• RE: Prayer with insufficient Facts
• Ramban on Eretz Yisrael (was re: Orthodoxy and the Land of Israel)
• RE: Prayer with insufficient Facts
• Re: School visits/inspections
• Re: Avodah V4 #225
• Re: School visits/inspections
• Humour alert- cotel & AZ - thinking and caring

See RSR Hirsch's comments.

As I recall, the severity of Moshe's punishment was to demonstrate ledoros 
unequivocable that Moshe was properly transmitting retzon Hahsem and that his 
deviation could uundermine the validity on the mesorah hence hashem fel it 
necesary to mete out a swift and sever decree.

As I noted in a previous post, this exception proved the rule.  IOW, since Moshe
was punished swiftly when he deivated once, it is a tacit endorsemnt by HKBH of 
every other transmission he made.

In a sense this IS a form of removing behcira. HOW? When we sin our lives go on 
pretty much has is.  Certainl If Hahsem were to stirke us with a lightning bolt 
every time we deviated, we would soon be conditioned to lose bechirah.

Simlarly, Moshe Rabbeinu was deprived of Bechira.  Not that he was a robot, 
rather if he introduced any deviation on his own, he would face instantaneous 
negative feedback, (remember Nodov and Avihu!)

Now this point reminds of a joke about free speech in the old Soviet Union.  
That is everyone has free speech in the Soviet Union - ONCE!

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Moshe Rabbeinu's Free Will 

The Meshech Chachmah (Hakdamah to Shemos) asks how HaShem could say, 
regarding Moshe, "veGam Becha Yaaminu LeOlam." How can HaShem give Moshe's 
words the authority of law in advance, if Moshe has the right to decide one 
day that he wants to leave it all behind?

The Meshech Chachmah resolves the problem by saying that Moshe achieved the 
highest heights of purity, and so HaShem removed his Bechirah; thus, every 
time Moshe spoke from then on, it was without Bechirah, and HaShem could be 
sure that Moshe would not mis-speak.

So here's the question - how did Moshe come to hit the rock?

Mordechai

One of Avodah's contributors, Rabbi Shalom Carmy, wrote an interesting book 
review for the most recent Jewish Action (not yet on the web).  I think it is 
very relevant for the current discussion about Arabs - ayen sham.

I heard a great dvar Torah re: this weeks parsho

Ochein noda hadovor
See Rashi on Shoms 2:14

How does an act of Loshon horo bring up tzoros for an entire people

Rabbi Aderet quoted the Chofetz Chaim (who else? <smile>) who quotes the Zohar.

The kateigor can build a strong case against people.  But he is not permitted to
speak out unless/until those people are guilty of loshon horo.  EG, it is 
brought down: How could it be that Ach'av was so successful in battle when he 
was such a rosho?  The answer is that since they said no loshon horo the 
kateigor was silent.

This is a slightly differnt nuance than simply having Shalom and a lack of 
sin'as chinom as the cause of the sucess.  Rather, by avoiding and omitting 
loshon horo it's lemoshol like going to court w/o the cop who wrote the sppeding
ticket.  No accusing cop - even though a summons was issued - the case is 
dismissed.

By extension we should avoid loshon horo even on groups that are our enemies. 
Not that we shouldn't protect our backs - we should!  Rather it serves no useful
purpose to degrade and denigrate others, it only arouses the kateigor to examine
US.

IOW, we can legitimately say, the Arbas are enemies of Israel they engage in 
dangerous violent bevahavior.  It is NOT OK to make value judgements and speak 
ill of Arabs as being inferior etc.  Why not relax and let Hashem do the judging
for us?  do you think He'll mind doing His job instead of us taking it over from
Him!? <smile>.  And why arouse the kateigor?  Why not let him stay home instead 
of inviving him into Beis Din!?

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>
I am not defending any and every action done by Jews against Arabs. On an 
Arab list on the web I apoligised (without denigrating) for a Jew who wrote 
nasty things on their list which were unjustified. That said...

<snip>
Hashem yivarech et amo bashalom.

Moshe

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Though don't we all agree that the best soldiers are
> those tested in battle?

Yes but this is not exactly what I meant. Your analogy
implies that Poskim should be tested by Paskining
Shailos for real, while they are still learning to be
Poskim. That's OK as long as they are monitered by
their mentors.  OTOH that wouldn't be "testing them in
battle".  Or would it?  I'm not sure.

What I was reffering to was that the road to greatness
may not always be the "straight and narrow" path. 
Sometimes the troublemakers are the ones to succeed. 
I suspect the reason might be that those
"troublemakers' are often very bright, and often cause
trouble because they are bored or because they want to
be accepted by peers of lesser capability.  Sometimes
their brilliance makes them a little "odd" so they try
and fit in a little too much.  Sometimes the home
environment produces rebellion. Sometimes it's a bad
teacher.  When these individuals are guided back to
the right track by the right person or persons, they
then sort of "see the light" at some point in their
learning career, and very often outshine others who
have gone the straight and narrow.

I know a few people like this.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com

R. Carl Sherer wrote: <<
BTW - I think there may be as many Jews in EY today as there are
in golus, and with the rate of hisbollelus in golus R"L the
percentage of Jews who live in EY is likely to increase in the future.  >>

I think it would be more accurate to say that very shortly Israel will have
the largest Jewish population of any nation in the world, giving it a
*plurality*, not a *majority*.  But judging from the rates of assimilation
and low birth rates in the golah, achieving the latter won't be very far off
either.

KT,
Shlomo Godick

My last post lamented what I perceive as a trend in avodah away from
substantive discussion toward opinion.  In particular, this results in
posts that tend to rehash well-worn arguments rather than bring new
insights and new sources to light.  Sadly, the all of the dominant
threads of late confirm this trend.

Regarding the institution of kollel, I came across an interesting source
last night.  See Teshuvot ha-Rosh 15:8 (or 15:7; I was learning at
around 3 in the morning, so my recollection is not sharp), which deals
with the general exemption of talmidei hakhamim from taxes.  Ben
ha-yeter, the Rosh cites an important teshuvah of the Ramah (i.e. R.
Meir Abulafia).  But in the first paragraph, he describes a person who
learns all of the time and never engages in devarim betelim, "except to
pursue a livelihood."  I found this striking.  While everyone knows
Rambam's view on the necessity of a talmid hakham to support himself --
which Rambam did himself at great personal sacrifice -- it is equally
well-known that Rambam's view was never the majority one, not in his own
day, as he acknowledges (Perush ha-Mishnah, Avot 4:5), and not in later
generations.   In fact, most of Rambam's examples are drawn from the
Gemara, not from subsequent periods.  It is therefore striking to find
the Rosh describing someone following the Rambam's example in the 14th
century in (most likely) the Sefardic milieu.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I saw this in the archives and found it fascinating.  I'm not sure whether this 
was continued under a different thread name.

The key to this Bayesian "proof" is that if Ch"V Hashem did not exist then the 
probability of finding intelligent life is remote, which is a common argument.  
Schlesinger only wrapped it up in a fancy Bayesian wrapping.  When I posted this
to an actuarial website 
(http://forums.casact.org/forums/Thread.cfm?CFApp=39&Thread_ID=3922&mc=2) I 
generously assumed that the probability of finding intelligent life without a 
creator is 1 in a thousand.  The truth is that current estimates by 
evolutionists are much more remote.  However, such a small likelihood is what 
drives this equation.  I modelled this in Excel and tried different 
probabilities.


RRJ Hendel wrote:

>>IF God exists there is a HIGH (Certain) probabilityof finding INTELLIGENT 
LIFE>>

RM Berger wrote:

>>Assuming that we can assign a probability to G-d wanting intelligent life.>>

We could probably attach a 100% probability to it.  However, after modelling 
this in a spreadsheet I found that anything above a 50% probability is more than
adequate for this "proof."


RRJ Hendel wrote:

>>IF God did not exist (Rachmana Litzlan) the probability of finding INTELLIGENT
LIFE is VERY LOW>>

RM Berger wrote:

>>Doesn't this presuppose your conclusion? After all, the opposition believes 
that there are enough possible ways in which intelligent life can emerge, enough
possible venues in each of enough possible universes for the probability not to 
be low for it to emerge /somewhere/.>>

I think evolutionists claim that as unlikely as it is for intelligent life to 
develop it did.  Lightning sometimes strikes.



RRJ Hendel wrote:

>>The probability of God's existing is MODERATELY LOW.>>

RM Berger wrote:

>>Again, I have no idea how to assign a probability to this kind of thing.  I 
assume it can be demonstrated the probability is 1. I.e. a modal proof that G-d 
must exist, not just that He happens to.>>

The a priori probability that G-d exists is not particularly relevant.  Anything
above 2%, which is VERY low, yields acceptable results.


RRJ Hendel wrote:

>>Again, Bayes theorems tells you you may "believe in God">>

RM Berger wrote:

>>You also promised that it gets asymptotic to 1. That's the piece I personally 
was wondering about.>>

It does.  As the a priori probability of the existence of G-d increases, the 
posterior probability increases asymptotically.  I have a full mathematical 
example but I don't think it's appropriate for this list.  You can try the link 
above.

Above all, this is just the same old (and good) argument that the existence of 
intelligent life is so unlikely that there must be a creator.

I have been talking so much about agunoth that it is refreshing
to pray for something good (which is the way most of our prayers
should go).

Mazel Tov to the Jablons...may they live to experience all the usual
joys of a daughter---marriage, taking place in the community, being
known for her good deeds (translation my own!)

Russell Hendel; 
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Please find below answers to Richards questions
on prayer. The answers have nothing to do with Agunoth
Therefore if someone wants to change the topic (to
prayer in general) this would be welcome My answers
begin with ANSWER

Richard writes
Question: What if the agrieved party is "WRONG"?

EG what if almonoh X prays for the death of Landlord Y, but she has her
facts 
wrong and Y really only works for Z?

IOW how can a party pray for Judgement before all the facts are on the
table and
evaluated objectively?
'
ANSWER: The praying person is not trying to be God. The praying person is
simply saying "I am helpless God due what so and so did" She may continue
"Please help me", or "Please save me from him" or "Please remove such
people who hurt others from this world". The person is only PRAYING...if
the
person is wrong then God will not fulfill the prayer.

RE: Praying against landlord Y who really works for Z: This too is simple
It is Ys obligation to clearly state: "I work for Z who insists on such
and
such". Please also bear in mind that there is no "deputazation" for
a sin....if Y **is** doing something then Y is partially responsible
(unless
he is just transmitting positions on property). Finally recall the Rambam
Agents Chapter 2 who EXPLICITLY says that whoever creates a power
of attorney has violated "..and he has not done right in his nation..."
The commentaries explain "...because the power of attorney does not
have the right to waive debts...the designator had no right creating
such a situtation"  In these circumstances one should pray against
Z and not Y

Richard continues
2nd EG, what if a husband refuses to give a GET because he is following
the 
orders of his rebbe or his parents and furthermore he assumes that he has
not 
right to disobey THEM?   

ANSWER
A person who under advice from his Rebbe has placed a women in a living
agunah situation has done as much wrong as his Rebbe. A Rebbe doesn't
have the right to order you to torture someone and you can't blaim him
(alone)

Finally...Richard is avoiding the **issue**. The issue is that a women is
being
tortured. She has the right to take the torturer at face value and pray
against him
unless the torturer is a legitimate deputy. If the torturer is an
illegitimate deputy
she should pray against both.

Rich Wolpoe
RUSSELL
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:00:50 EST
> From: DFinchPC@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Orthodoxy and the Land of Israel
> 
> In a message dated 12/28/99 11:14:58 AM US Central Standard Time, 
> cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> 
> << See the Ramban al HaTorah in numerous places (I don't have a 
>  Ramban with me, but "zeh shaar hashamayim" in Parshas 
>  VaYetzei and the last Ramban in Acharei Mos come to mind) 
>  where he says that keeping mitzvos anywhere other than Eretz 
>  Yisrael is only for practice.
>   >>
> 
> I guess that's what we mean when some of us say we are "practicing" Jews! 
> 
> Do you think that in this context, the Ramban was referring to our exile from 
> the real estate that comprises Israel? 

Real estate? Is that all Eretz Yisrael is?

Yes, most emphatically, I think the Ramban is referring to Eretz 
Yisrael. Because unlike many Rishonim who may or may not hold 
that Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is a d'oraysa bizman hazeh, the Ramban 
fairly clearly does hold that way. See the Ramban on Bamidbar 
33:53 (S"V v'Horashtem) and in his Hasogos to Sefer HaMitzvos in 
Mitzva 4 "Harei nitztavenu b'kibush b'chol hadoros" (four lines from 
the bottom of Page 245 in the Mossad HaRav Kook edition), and 
"Im kein mitzvas asei l'doros mischayev kol yochid mimenu 
V'AFILU BIZMAN HAGALUS KAYADUA BATALMUD B'MKOMOS 
HARBEI" (top of P. 246).

Sounds to me like he's pretty worried about the "real estate." 

Or did he mean the state of exile from 
> which HaShem has promised us redemption based on repentence? My reading of 
> Ramban's commentary on "aph ani e'eseh zoth lachem" (Parshat Bechukothai) 
> suggests the latter. 

On what basis? I read that Ramban as trying to match up the two 
tochachos with the galuyos of bayis rishon and bayis sheini. And 
in light of what I quoted above, I don't think your reading shtims 
with the Ramban's shita on yishuv haaretz. See also the Ramban 
on Breishis 14:18 S"V u'Malkizedek ("ki meaz yodu hagoyim ki 
hamakom hahoo mivchar hamekomos" - sure sounds like the real 
estate is important), Breishis 28:17 S"V Ki Im ("Kol hamispalel 
b'Yerushalayim k'ilu mispalel lifnei kisei hakavod" - sounds like he's 
telling us - as in real estate - that location is everything), Vayikra 
18:25 S"V vatitma haaretz ("vihinei ha'arayos chovas haguf v'ainon 
tluyos ba'aretz... aval eretz Yisrael emtzaus hayishuv hi nachlas 
Hashem miyuchedes lishmo lo nosan aleha min hamalachim ktzin 
shoter umoshel" - sounds like location is kind of important here) 
and Dvarim 11:18 S"V v'samtem (he says that mitzvos which are 
chovas haguf are obligatory after galus everywhere, but the chovos 
karka are only in Israel, and the ikar of mitzvos is in Israel). See 
also Drush 22 in the Parshas Drochim of the Mishna LaMelech 
where he says that shitas haRamban is that the mitzvos are 
"mishpat Elokei haaretz." (i.e. only in Eretz Yisrael) (Brought in the 
footnotes in the Mossad HaRav Kook edition of the Ramban on 
Page 394).

Even in the Ramban's view, we're all still carrying out 
> mitvos "only for practice," even if we live in Mea Sharim. 

On what basis do you make that statement? And if you're going to 
bring the Ramban on Breishis 37:8, that is referring to before matan 
Torah.

Anyhow, this isn't 
> baseball. Our conduct during the warm-ups count. What else will redeem us?

It's one thing to say that doing mitzvos in chu"l will redeem us (and 
even then I think it's us as a nation and not as individuals, and then 
only if everyone does them - otherwise the geula comes only b'ita). 
But as far as getting schar individually for doing mitzvos, from the 
Ramban at least it seems that schar comes only for mitzvos done 
in Eretz Yisrael.

> As I understand the term, Yiddishkeit is an historical phenomenon. It 
> describes the way of life that evolved within Ashkenaz, the intellectual 
> foundations of which owe just about everything to the pain and yearning we 
> suffered in European golus. 

Don't tell the Sphardim that.

To the extent RW Orthodoxy sets out to preserve 
> the Ashkenaz way of life by warding off modern influences (be they Israeli, 
> American, British, or otherwise), there's still Yiddishkeit, but it is no 
> longer influenced by the evolution of place or time. So I'm not sure one can 
> say that Yiddishkeit has escaped golus. 

I think that much of life here (I have a .il address if you didn't notice 
:-) is not based upon the European way of life, but upon the 
foundation of the way Torah was kept in Eretz Yisrael until the 
churban. Sure there are things we cannot do today because there 
is no Beis HaMikdash and no Para Aduma. But we still take 
trumos and maasros, there are still many people here who keep 
shmitta, there are still ads every summer to participate in reishis 
hagez and peter chamor (I've never been to one of those, but they 
are supposed to be fascinating) - many mitzvos that are totally 
theoretical to the galus Jew are very real to those of us who have 
the zchus to live here.

OTOH there is a fascinating Kapos Tmorim in Succa 34b S"V shel 
maaser sheini, where he says (assuming I understand him 
correctly) that theoretically according to the Rambam we could be 
makriv korbanos in Yerushalayim even bizman hazeh without a 
Beis HaMikdash because the Rambam holds Kedusha Rishona 
kidsha leshata v'kidsha l'osid lavo!

In conclusion, no. You cannot dismiss Eretz Yisrael as mere "real 
estate" or deny its paramount importance even bizman hazeh over 
anything that goes on in the galus.

-- Carl


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 28 Dec 99, at 16:36, rjhendel@juno.com wrote:

> Richard writes
> Question: What if the agrieved party is "WRONG"?
> 
> EG what if almonoh X prays for the death of Landlord Y, but she has her
> facts 
> wrong and Y really only works for Z?
> 
> IOW how can a party pray for Judgement before all the facts are on the
> table and
> evaluated objectively?
> '
> ANSWER: The praying person is not trying to be God. The praying person is
> simply saying "I am helpless God due what so and so did" She may continue
> "Please help me", or "Please save me from him" or "Please remove such
> people who hurt others from this world". The person is only PRAYING...if
> the
> person is wrong then God will not fulfill the prayer.

But if the person prays that way then whether right or wrong, it 
causes Hashem to be m'ayen in that person's maasim! She may 
pray to Hashem to save her from her situation, she may pray that if 
she is not saved from the situation it should at least be a kapara, 
but the moment she asks Hashem to explicitly hurt someone else, 
she has caused Hashem to be m'ayen in her own maasim. I still 
haven't seen you cite a source that says otherwise.

> Finally...Richard is avoiding the **issue**. 

Actually, I'm sorry to say that I think you are avoiding the issue. 
You continue to tell us how people whom you designate are 
allowed to daven that bad things should happen to their 
oppressors. But you fail to articulate any rule as to when someone 
would fall into this oppressed class (which apparently now includes 
tenants, employees and agunoth, but why it does not include other 
oppressed people is beyond me). And you fail to relate to a Chazal 
which is brought in many places regarding praying for the downfall 
of one's enemies, which is quite explicitly opposed to what you are 
advocating. Praying against one's enemies is prohibited prohibited 
regardless of what they have done. See, for example, Mishlei 24:17-
18 and the Malbim in Pasuk 18 there. For that matter, see the next 
two psukim there as well, which tell us that one shouldn't worry - 
the enemies will get their just punishment for their improper 
behavior. 

The issue is that a women is
> being
> tortured. She has the right to take the torturer at face value and pray
> against him
> unless the torturer is a legitimate deputy. 

No she does not have that right, and she would be endangering her 
own well-being by doing so. 

-- Carl


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In a message dated 12/28/99 10:38:04 AM US Central Standard Time, 
gil.student@citicorp.com writes:

<< First of all, they freely introduce Christian and kefirah-dik concepts 
which are
 assur for most people to learn.  See the back-and-forth between Rabbi 
Yehudah 
 Parnes and Rabbi David Berger in the first few issues of the Torah U'Madda 
 journal.  Even RD Berger agrees that these topics are only mutar for 
yechidim 
 who are prepared to handle these issues.  RY Parnes assurs them entirely.
  >>

"Yechud" is a good word choice, especially to the extent it connotes a lone 
wolf. One would have to be a lone wolf to study secular history, philosophy, 
and theology to point that RD Berger and others like him would consider one 
"prepared" to handle these issues. Otherwise, assur leads to assur, which 
leads to ignorance, which is one big Catch-22.

<<In general, the authors use too much obscure terminology and references to 
appeal to the average (or above average) yeshiva bochur.>>

Maybe so. But the above-average yeshiva bochur doesn't represent the 
intellectual standard beyond which Judaism ought not reach. Many of the real 
Gedolim -- Ramban, Rambam, Duran, Crescas, Abravanel (despite his 
"heresies"), and modern figures such as R'Adin Steinsalz, R'Yosef B. 
Soloveitchik, R'Samson R. Hirsch, R'Menachem Schneerson, R'Aryeh Kaplan, et 
al. -- had broad secular educations that clearly influenced their Judaic 
thinking. Rambam is all about the integration into his thinking of Greek, 
Roman, and Christian concepts that today might be assured entirely. 

I can't help but thinking that if we turn our back on the Western thought 
generally, we will lose the intellectual edge that, as much as halacha 
itself, has kept us going all this time. We might also lose the capacity 
meaningfully to understand those concepts that are mutar in the eyes of even 
the most RW educators. 

As for the tendency of modern secular scholarship to sink into obscurantism 
and the never-ending search of the "new approach," well, we have to take that 
with a big grain of salt. But it can be Kosher salt.

David Finch

> 
> I agree with you. I don't think there is one correct route to produce
> a Gadol. But much of Israel and many quarters of the States are
> sold today on the Desslerian philosophy (or so it has been
> characterized here - does someone have a cite? Is it in the
> Michtav?) that 1000 go in for each one that comes out as a
> justification for not making a selection at some point in time.
> 

I find it hard to accept that that is the justification.
Even if one accepts Rav Desler it is obvious at some age
(lets say 30 though probably much earlier) who has a chance of 
becoming a gadol

Eli Turkel.

In a message dated 12/28/99 10:38:04 AM US Central Standard Time, 
gil.student@citicorp.com writes:

<< First of all, they freely introduce Christian and kefirah-dik concepts 
which are
 assur for most people to learn.  See the back-and-forth between Rabbi 
Yehudah 
 Parnes and Rabbi David Berger in the first few issues of the Torah U'Madda 
 journal.  Even RD Berger agrees that these topics are only mutar for 
yechidim 
 who are prepared to handle these issues.  RY Parnes assurs them entirely.
  >>

"Yechud" is a good word choice, especially to the extent it connotes a lone 
wolf. One would have to be a lone wolf to study secular history, philosophy, 
and theology to point that RD Berger and others like him would consider one 
"prepared" to handle these issues. Otherwise, assur leads to assur, which 
leads to ignorance, which is one big Catch-22.

<<In general, the authors use too much obscure terminology and references to 
appeal to the average (or above average) yeshiva bochur.>>

Maybe so. But the above-average yeshiva bochur doesn't represent the 
intellectual standard beyond which Judaism ought not reach. Many of the real 
Gedolim -- Ramban, Rambam, Duran, Crescas, Abravanel (despite his 
"heresies"), and modern figures such as R'Adin Steinsalz, R'Yosef B. 
Soloveitchik, R'Samson R. Hirsch, R'Menachem Schneerson, R'Aryeh Kaplan, et 
al. -- had broad secular educations that clearly influenced their Judaic 
thinking. Rambam is all about the integration into his thinking of Greek, 
Roman, and Christian concepts that today might be assured entirely. 

I can't help but thinking that if we turn our back on the Western thought 
generally, we will lose the intellectual edge that, as much as halacha 
itself, has kept us going all this time. We might also lose the capacity 
meaningfully to understand those concepts that are mutar in the eyes of even 
the most RW educators. 

As for the tendency of modern secular scholarship to sink into obscurantism 
and the never-ending search of the "new approach," well, we have to take that 
with a big grain of salt. But it can be Kosher salt.

David Finch

> >Actually, I do not think anybody treats the Kosel as an AZ

Today I saw a photo of a man  holding a pelephone to the cotel. His friend
on the other end apparently wanted to say a "tefila".

A friend suggested  "perhaps he wanted to connect to Morpheus?"

Yes, some primitive, sub-rational beliefs do persist. Let's none of us
confuse them with "lema'aleh min a sechel" hashkafas.

 I think pretty much all of us on this list agree that the faculties of our
mind should be in charge of our psyche.  The only point I ever tried to make
in the whole land issue-  obviously I didn't make it clearly enough-  is
that our emotions should be in line and connected with our highest hashkafas
and thoughts.  We should care, and we should be expressing that concern.

Much of Torah is not strictly rational.  Why do we wash netilas yadayim?
What is Tumah?  What is ratzon?  In purely intellectual terms, what is the
shchina in the ohel mo'ed?  We use our sechel to deal with the structure of
halacha and Torah she'ba'al peh, but their roots are le'ma'ala min hasechel.
I am in complete agreement with Rabbi Bechhofer that we should never abandon
our sechel,  and 'go with our emotions'.  We shouldn't be devoid of emotion
either-  and I see for many other issues closer to home
most members have the appropriate emotional response.

The fact the rational treatment of Carl Sherer and our hashkafic treatment
concurs pretty much 100% should tell you that our understanding of the
situation was processed thoroughly in our minds BEFORE rousing our hearts.
The point is that these inyanim should rouse our hearts-  and this should
lead to a hisorerus and improved avodas Hashem as well as a desire to
improve awareness in others.   Practically in a more direct way? Any
workable suggestions would be very welcome off list :-)  You'll probably win
a truly deserved nobel peace prize into the bargain.

I will respect our moderator's plea to drop the issue of Eretz Israel  (long
sigh) , but I do ask everyone here to use their sechels, admit humbly that
perhaps we- as a clal of thinking individuals-  might be mistaken and
re-examine all the available evidence.

A reality check a day keeps the delusions at bay.

Mrs. G. Atwood.

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


[ 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         ]