Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 231

Wednesday, December 29 1999

• Re: Jews of yesteryear and wigs
• Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Re: Re[2]: School visits/inspections -humor
• Re: Modernity - Reality check
• Re: Avodah V4 #230
• Re: Moshe Rabbeinu's Free Will
• Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Re: Modernity - Reality check
• Re: Moshe Rabbeinu's Free Will
• Re[2]: Orthodoxy and the Return of Land
• Re[2]: Moshe Rabbeinu and Klal Yisrael
• Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Re: Academic scholarship by Orthodox Jews
• Re[2]: Modernity - Humor check
• "I live in Israel and therefore..."

Me:
: Actually, #1 and #2 suggest that #3 is false. Head covering is di'Oraisa, 
: and therefore unfathomable.

On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 09:03:35AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: Does head covering d'oraisa ipso facto make it unfathomable?
: I don't think so.

I wasn't sufficiently clear. What I meant to say was that when it comes to
di'Oraisos, we don't pasken from aggadita. Even when the aggadita supports
a chumrah we could follow it qua chumrah, qua minhag, qua diRabbanan, etc...
but not as a di'Oraisah. HKBH knows about any loopholes he left in the din.
If they are there, they belong there. Therefore halachah is built from other
halachos alone.

If HKBH permits selling chameitz for a week, or heter iska or pruzbul we do
not argue that they run against the the spirit of the law. Instead we
reinterpret the ta'am hamitzvah to explain the halachah.

: The Torah is perhaps merely implying what the expected standards of tznius
: are by an olbique reference.  Is tznius unfathomable?

Saying that hair covering is a di'Oraisa, but the Torah didn't specify the
means of covering ones hair implies that the choice isn't relevent to the
ta'am. If the Torah, including Torah sheBa'al Peh, doesn't record a problem
with the head not looking covered then there is no such problem. And the
ta'am can't be tzenius.

I would say that your #2 -- hair covering mishum tzenius -- is an example
of a diRabbanan made to protect a value learnt from the di'Oraisa. But that's
the #2, the thing you said was relative.

I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just exploring the consequences of your
statements.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Dec-99: Revi'i, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 91a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 10

In a message dated 12/29/99 1:54:48 PM US Central Standard Time, 
atwood@netvision.net.il writes:

<< 
 The only reason R' Heschel took a job at JTS was because he couldn't get a
 job in an Orthodox yeshiva (Jobs in Chinuch were hard to come by back then).
  >>

He he been given a chance to teach at an Orthodox yeshiva, do you think his 
writings would have turned out materially different? I don't think so. Would 
he have become a Gadol? Maybe. He was a talmud hakham, but he didn't write 
about Talmud, or many of the other standard subjects that pave the way to 
stardom in the Orthodox world. But he was brilliant. Devoutly brilliant.

David Finch

Akiva Atwood writes:

>The only reason R' Heschel took a job at JTS was because he couldn't get a
>job in an Orthodox yeshiva (Jobs in Chinuch were hard to come by back then).

Personally, I try to avoid making blanket statements about the "only
reason" a particular person did a particular thing, even if I know that
person intimately.  I did not know Heschel intimately, but I know the
following:

Despite having received Orthodox semikhah at age 16, Heschel went on to
study at Hochschule fur Wissenschaft des Judentums, a decidedly
un-Orthodox institution, where he earned a Liberal ordination.  His
scholarly writings reflect that he accepted the conclusions of higher
biblical criticism.  He came to America in 1940, not to JTS but to HUC,
where he taught for five years before moving to JTS.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 12/29/99 2:09:35 PM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< Avodah? <smile>
  >>

No. Nintendo. 

David Finch

Let me share a true story...

I once did business with a Jewish  jewler in a bad neighborhood who had a very 
vigilant and vicious attack dog for security purposes.  I naively thought I 
could make friends with this dog - after all I was a customer not a thieff and 
the doggie and I could be "buddies".  The owner reasoned with me: "This dog is 
after all here to do violense with intruders.  Why bother making nice to it, 
just leave the dog alone.  I realize you want to like the dog, but it is really 
not a friendly dog...."

so I made PEACE with that dog, I gave it a WIDE berth and I learned to repsect 
it as an effective yet dangerous tool for the shopkeeper.

Making peace is NOT about dropping our defenses, it's more about seeing the 
reality and accpeting it as it is!

I might be a nice guy and an animal lover, but that dog couldn't care less! He 
was set to attack ANYONE who trespassed into its space.  When I understood what 
the dog was, and who I am (NOT a dog trainer!) I was ok with the situation.

The kind of peace that the USA has with Canada is unlikely for Israel.  Perhaps 
a better model is the kind fo peace that the USA and USSR had in the 1950's - a 
cold peace based on mutual fear and respect for the other's power.

Rich Wolpoe 






______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Modenity 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate 
Date:    12/28/1999 10:55 PM


>The more Arabs are extracted from their primitive and 
>insulated world through contact with the world outside 
>of Islam, the more that tolerance will be come a way 
>of life.




Do you really believe this?!

Has history not shown us that "halacha limoshe misinai - eisav soneh et 
ya'akov" is a truism?

I'm not advocating paranoia. The gemara's statement that in every generation 
we will have at least one nation backing us has been shown to be accurate, 
but the hagada's "shebichol dor vador..." has been shown to be at least as 
true.
<snip>
So please, don't fool yourself that our problems will be solved if only the 
Arabs became less primitive.

Moshe

>
>The only reason R' Heschel took a job at JTS was because he couldn't get a
>job in an Orthodox yeshiva (Jobs in Chinuch were hard to come by back
then).

According the late Dayan Yosef Apfel, who knew R' Heschel in Berlin, he was
already associating with non-Orthodox Jews.He also taught at H.U.C. before
he taught at J.T.S. The late Orthodox theologian was very critical of his
theology,especially his work G-d in Search of Man, see Berkovits philosophy
of Judaism.Yaakov Shemaria
Shemaria Judaica
P. O. Box 15
Bet El
D. N. Mizrach Binyamin 90631
Israel

tel./fax:  972 2 997-2663
email:  shyaakov@netvision.net.il

>
>

In a message dated 12/29/99 3:21:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

> Also, contrast this with the Ramban on "hichbadti es leiv Par'o". 
Leshitascha
>  is would appear that the Meshech Chochmah could justify this as a 
punishment,
>  the inverse of Moshe's reward. But the Ramban doesn't take that route

I assume you are reading Ramban on 10:1, but look at his first reason on 
Shemos 7:3. He writes "USheneihem Emes," too, indicating he accepts removal 
of Bachirah as a punishment (or a means to punishment, much as Moshe's loss 
of Bechirah is a means to a higher level).

Mordechai

Cong. Ohave Shalom, YI of Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf

In a message dated 12/29/99 2:31:00 PM US Central Standard Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< Despite having received Orthodox semikhah at age 16, Heschel went on to
 study at Hochschule fur Wissenschaft des Judentums, a decidedly
 un-Orthodox institution, where he earned a Liberal ordination.  His
 scholarly writings reflect that he accepted the conclusions of higher
 biblical criticism.  He came to America in 1940, not to JTS but to HUC,
 where he taught for five years before moving to JTS. >>

Heschel's studies in Germany may have reflected a curiosity, or even a bit of 
rebelliousness, that it not inconsistent with dynamic Judaic thought, 
Orthodox or otherwise. R'Yosef Baer Soloveitchik studied at Berlin 
University, an utterly secular institution that at the time was becoming a 
hotbed of ideas far more anti-Jewish than any school R'Heschel ever attended, 
or maybe even set foot into. R'Menachem Schneerson went to the Sorbonne, I 
think, at a time when its leading faculty was prominently involved in all 
sorts of goofy pseudo-Marxist ideologies. 

Heschel taught at HUC out of gratitude to some of HUC's figureheads, who were 
responsible for getting him out of Germany. Not an unfair trade-off for 
saving your life. When he arrived at JTS (in default of a more desired 
position at an Orthodox yeshiva or otherwise), JTS had not yet turned fallen 
to the state many Orthodox ascribe to it. 

I don't know exactly what R'Eli means when he says that R'Heschel's 
"scholarly writings reflect that he accepted the conclusions of higher 
biblical criticism," a term I image R'Eli is using sardonically. Most of 
R'Heschel's writings addressed subjects that had little to do with 
hermeneutics (derush) per se. 

R'Heschel was a devout Jew who followed the halacha he was deemed to have 
learned when he was given Orthodox semicha as a teenager. He is certainly 
open to criticism of various sorts. It's a shame, however, when the criticism 
reflects the labelling process, not honest thought.

David Finch

In a message dated 12/29/99 2:45:42 PM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< The kind of peace that the USA has with Canada is unlikely for Israel. >>

What are you talking about? Have you ever been in the parking lot before a 
game between the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Buffalo Sabres, before the cops 
have had a chance to confiscate all the beer? Have you ever gotten an earful 
from a Quebecqois border guard when you try to drive over the New Hampshire 
border with a bad muffler? Have you ever watched a CBN news commentator smirk 
his way through a broadcast covering a newsworthy American event, like one of 
our weekly rural high-school cafeteria shootings? Have you ever listened to 
Anne Murray sing?

The war between Canada and the U.S. doesn't involve bullets (yet). But its a 
real Cold War, this time of year especially.

David Finch

On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 03:52:35PM -0500, Pawshas@aol.com wrote:
: I assume you are reading Ramban on 10:1, but look at his first reason on 
: Shemos 7:3. He writes "USheneihem Emes," too, indicating he accepts removal 
: of Bachirah as a punishment (or a means to punishment, much as Moshe's loss 
: of Bechirah is a means to a higher level).

I sit corrected. However, I do not agree with your transmutation from
"punishment" into "a means to punishment".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Dec-99: Revi'i, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 91a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 10

Despite my know-it-all tone, I am humbly aware that I know virtually nothing for
certain! <smile>.

People who know me in person realize that I am usually smiling and grinning when
I offer my platitudes.  'nuff about me...

Remember this suggestion was made ONLY in the context of the aftermath of the 
1967 was when there was just about a nes nigleh. At THAT point in time Israel 
could have pulled of a very assertive strategy wrt to shuffling the borders, 
etc.  I believe (not know!) that Hashem had given us an opportune time that has 
since been lost.

The India/Pakistan analogy served to make the deportation of refugees as 
pallitable and humane.  Otherwise it might have been viewed as cruel.

In 1948 the British claimed (porbably accurately) that Jews and Arabs could not 
live together in peace.  One response that might have worked would have been to 
amke an amicable separation.

The moral justification could have included the fact that Israel was absorbing 
Jewish refuess from all over the wolrd -including the Arab world.  And that It 
makes sens to have Isreale THE Jewish statee as home for the Jews and to impose 
some Arab refugees to be dipsersed amongst more than a dozen Arab states.

Of course now that is idle speculation.  I suspect that if Begin were PM in 1967
instead of Eshkol, soemthing akin to this might have happened, but who knows for
sure?

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: re: Orthodoxy and the Return of Land 
<snip>
RWW wrote: <<
And we can look at the partition of India/Pakistan as analogous; there they 
separate Hindus from Moslems, here we separate Jews from non Jews. >>

Are you sure you like that analogy?  India today hosts a sizable, minority 
Moslem population today (with attendant bloody conflicts over mosques
and temples, etc.)
<snip>

KT,
Shlomo Godick

I'm guessing that the Malbim might say something on this.


Consinder that Nach is not a simple story, it's a recitation - sort of a 
mmenmonic device - to trigger various levels of meaning

Pardes gives us 4 dimensions.

Shiv'im ponim leTorah 70 possible directions.

Ok, novi is a bit different that chumash, but some of the same principles do 
apply.

I wouldn't approach Nach saying to myself that the literal peshat is WRONG,
Rather I would say there is more to this than meets the eye and the literal 
peshat is only a PARTIAL picture, it needs further elucidation, and that is when
TSBP steps in.

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS Does anyone know of a source which explains why Nach was written in such a 
way that if one studied it without the talmudic explanations one might 
misinterpret many of the characters basic motivations

David Finch writes:

>R'Twersky's work was brilliant not only because
>he was a talmud hakham, but because he was willing to use his intellectual
>gifts to explore and compare many corners of medieval thought, Moslem and
>Christian as well as Jewish. I doubt he worried whether his scholarship posed
>a threat to his emunah, or the emunah of his readers.

It seems to me pointless to argue what makes a person's work
"brilliant," as such an appelation is inherently subjective.  I would
say that Prof. Twersky's scholarship is distinguished by an
all-encompassing erudition, a thoughtful and nuanced methodology, and a
clear pioneering spirit.  On issues that are sensitive from an emunah
perspective, he was highly conservative.  His intended audience was not,
for the most part, an Orthodox one.  So I do not know the source of your
"doubt."

>But at least as to learning for learning's
>sake, it shouldn't matter whether Benzion Netanyahu, Jacob Neusner, or other
>academics of their ilk have formed any heartfelt views on Torah mi-Sinai or
>need to lay tefillin every morning.

I did not say that it matters whether a particular scholar is Orthodox
or even Orthoprax (though I beleive it matters in terms of his or her
olam ha-ba).  I was simply responding to your statement that Scholem and
Netanyahu "understand and accept Orthodoxy," which I think is erroneous
(and should have been formulated in the past tense with respect to the
former).

>Heschel is a non-person in the Orthodox world. If one mentions his name in
Orthodox
>circles, one gets perplexed frown, or more politely, a quick change of
>subject. But his work, qua work, reflects an extraordinary spirituality that
>is in every sense Torah-true, even if it emphasizes aspects of prayer and
>connection to HaShem that are not traditionally discussed within the mesorah.
>(Personally, R'Heschel was punctiliously observant.)

I know many Orthodox Jews who value and recommend Heschel's lovely book,
Sabbath.  However, I do not know what you mean when you say that the
spirituality reflected in his work is "in every sense Torah-true."
Could not the same be said of Barth?  Spirituality is difficult to
measure against a halakhic standard.  Certainly Heschel's work as a
whole does not, in my view, satisfy that standard, but I think each
person is entitled to make his or her own evaluation on that point.

Regarding Leon Wieseltier, I have not advocated ignoring him.  But I do
not consider his book, fascinating as it is, to be required reading.
So, if someone did choose to ignore him, he or she could still lead a
fulfilling Jewish life.

I wrote:

<<Second, almost all academic writing
tends to locate its subject within a broader context; when applied to
matters of Torah, this inevitably diminishes the sense of the uniqueness
of Torah.
>>

Mr. Finch replies:
>The same could be said of the the works of the greatest of Jewish scholars.

It could be said, but it would be false.  There is a vast difference
between the citation of non-Jewish sources, which one finds among many,
primarily Sefardic, rishonim, and the academic voice that analyzes Torah
concepts exclusively in terms of intellectual history and views Jewish
practices from a sociological or anthropological perspective.

>In the Guide, for example, Rambam pines for the loss of the older Jewish
>metaphysical tradition, and brings down Alexander of Aphrodisias, of all
>people, to support his analysis. Rambam's thinking is permeated with Muslim
>and Greek thought.

Rambam accepted what he thought was acceptable and rejected what he
thought was incompatible with the talmudic/rabbinic tradition.  Others
may have made the selection differently, but it is clear that Rambam did
not unthinkingly accept in toto the teachings of the Arab Aristotelians.
 The term "permeated" implies an unconscious influence that, I think, is
inapposite.

>How does one acquire the requisite "sophistication" to read scholarly works
>unless one starts out by reading scholarly works (hopefully under some sort
>of guidance)? As a child, Wayne Gretsky spent thirty or forty hours a week
>flipping pucks against his father's garage. That's where he got his
>wristshot, the most sophisticated in the hockey business. There's no such
>thing as a "natural."

I think Rambam himself would say that there are many people who, try as
they might, will never achieve the greatest heights of wisdom.  I assume
the same is true for hockey.

I wrote:
<<At a minimum, the book demonstrates that the Rambam did not merely
restate the halakhah as it appeared in the Gemara, but often introduced
his own ideas.  This should be evident to anyone who has read Hilkhot
De'ot and represents a major theme in R. Twersky's writings as well.
>>

>Right. But didn't you also say that academic scholars "sometimes come to
>conclusions that are at odds with the mesorah or, at least, with the
>traditional perspective on a particular issue. Such a divergence can easily
>pose a challenge to one's emunah." Now you accurately point out that Rambam's
>creativity -- his non-traditionalism -- enhanced his sense of emunah. You
>can't have it both ways.

Please do not put words into my mouth.  I observed that there were
innovative aspects in Rambam's writings, not  a hiddush by any measure.
What enhanced Rambam's sense of emunah I do not know.  One possible
answer can be found in his startling statement in Hil. Teshuvah
regarding attaining ahavat Hashem.

In any case, I think you misunderstood me.  Rambam's innovations did not
(halilah) involve the undermining of the authority of Hazal or Halakhah.
 However, some academic scholars revisit the Gemara and conclude that
whole sections of the Shulhan Arukh are based on errors and
misinterpretations.  Others question the Talmudic descriptions of the
avodah, the Sanhedrin, and worse.  I frankly do not understand how you
can compare such conclusions to Rambam's innovations, which are
presented, at most, as interpretations of the rabbinic literature.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 12/29/99 3:18:08 PM US Central Standard Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< I know many Orthodox Jews who value and recommend Heschel's lovely book,
 Sabbath.  However, I do not know what you mean when you say that the
 spirituality reflected in his work is "in every sense Torah-true."
 Could not the same be said of Barth?  Spirituality is difficult to
 measure against a halakhic standard.  Certainly Heschel's work as a
 whole does not, in my view, satisfy that standard, but I think each
 person is entitled to make his or her own evaluation on that point.
  >>

You seem to equate the notion of "Torah-true" with a halakhic standard. Very 
Brisker of you! I tend to think of "Torah-true" in broader (and possibly less 
accurate and meaningful) terms, i.e., the authenticity of feeling, thought, 
analysis, or conduct in view of the whole of Shas, as seen through the eyes 
of the traditional commentators. It was in this sense that I said that 
R'Heschel's musings about prayer and one's personal connection to HaShem are 
Torah-true. To me, spirituality is quite measurable by Torah standards, which 
address subjective, Aggadaic, as well as halachic concepts. Indeed, 
spirituality must be so measured lest it confuse and confound the mind. 


<<<The same could be said of the the works of the greatest of Jewish 
scholars.>>

<<It could be said, but it would be false.  There is a vast difference
between the citation of non-Jewish sources, which one finds among many,
primarily Sefardic, rishonim, and the academic voice that analyzes Torah
concepts exclusively in terms of intellectual history and views Jewish
practices from a sociological or anthropological perspective
>>

That's my point. The greatest Jewish scholars include those who are least 
tempted to substitute intellectual history, sociology, or anthropology for 
the discipline of religious analysis. "Substitute" is the key word. As I 
think you agree, there still remains a place in Jewish scholarship for modern 
forms of rigorous academic analysis. (I guess "rigorous" is another key word, 
too.)

<<Rambam accepted what he thought was acceptable and rejected what he
thought was incompatible with the talmudic/rabbinic tradition.  Others
may have made the selection differently, but it is clear that Rambam did
not unthinkingly accept in toto the teachings of the Arab Aristotelians.
 The term "permeated" implies an unconscious influence that, I think, is
inapposite
>>

Your point is well-taken.


<>

Hockey has little to do with true wisdom, believe me. (Most of us who play 
the game have I.Q.s in the low 80s.) Neither does the capacity usefully to 
absorb sophisticated scholarship, at least up to a certain level. In both 
cases, practice, more practice, trial and error are at least as important as 
wisdom. Koheleth had wisdom. "Boom Boom" Geoffrion did not.

<<In any case, I think you misunderstood me.  Rambam's innovations did not
(halilah) involve the undermining of the authority of Hazal or Halakhah.
 However, some academic scholars revisit the Gemara and conclude that
whole sections of the Shulhan Arukh are based on errors and
misinterpretations.  Others question the Talmudic descriptions of the
avodah, the Sanhedrin, and worse.  I frankly do not understand how you
can compare such conclusions to Rambam's innovations, which are
presented, at most, as interpretations of the rabbinic literature.
>>

You're right on this. There is, however, a very fine line indeed between 
saying that a modern academic scholar errs when he concludes that that Joseph 
Caro "misinterpreted" the Gemorrah, while the Rambam "innovates" when he 
concludes that some other thinker failed properly to "interpret" the 
Gemorrah. This is the gist of what I think you're saying: The Rambam 
"innovated," and thus "interpreted" rabbinic literature creatively; modern 
academics over-innovate, and thus "misinterpret" rabbinic literature 
pseudo-creatively. It's easier just to say that the Rambam is right and some 
assistant professor of Jewish Thought is wrong. The rest is kind of 
polemical, or at least too subtle for me.

David Finch

While I have my own pet "derech" on this, I would be fascinated in learning from
the spectrum of Avodah Chaveirim.

With all due sincerity, how does one combine or synthesize or harmonize emuno 
and shmiras Torah umitzvos with academic freedom and scientifically based 
inquiry?


Rich Wolpoe 

I am blowing the whistle on you for 2 minutes of high-shkticking! <smile>

Rich Wolpoe

PS I spent 3 years in Yeshiva in toronto, eh?


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Modernity - Reality check  
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    12/29/1999 4:08 PM


In a message dated 12/29/99 2:45:42 PM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< The kind of peace that the USA has with Canada is unlikely for Israel. >>

What are you talking about? Have you ever been in the parking lot before a 
game between the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Buffalo Sabres, before the cops 
have had a chance to confiscate all the beer? Have you ever gotten an earful 
from a Quebecqois border guard when you try to drive over the New Hampshire 
border with a bad muffler? Have you ever watched a CBN news commentator smirk 
his way through a broadcast covering a newsworthy American event, like one of 
our weekly rural high-school cafeteria shootings? Have you ever listened to 
Anne Murray sing?

The war between Canada and the U.S. doesn't involve bullets (yet). But its a 
real Cold War, this time of year especially.

David Finch

In the recent discussion about the kedushah of Eretz Israel and its 
importance with respect to the rest of the Jewish world, the following 
phrases, or something much like them, have appeared more than once: "Since I 
live in Israel...", "You wouldn't know, living in ____, but here in Israel, 
where I live,..." etc.

These statements confuse the issue of EY's kedushah (and importance 
vis-a-vis the golus) with a completely separate matter, i.e. aliyah and 
one's own decision with regard to place of residence. Living in Israel, 
while generally a positive thing in itself, in no way confers upon the 
resident any monopoly on truth with regard to discussions about Israel.

An anecdotal proof might be in order. I have several friends who have made 
aliyah: one RW (who supports the status quo, at least as far as it pertains 
to the influence of the Charedim on national politics); one LW (who decries 
the "theocracy" [his terms]), and one who's not religious at all. When I 
disagree with them on various points, guess which "argument" usually gets 
made in the first few minutes of the discussion? Yep, it's the old chestnut 
"I live in Israel, and therefore..."  This tends to short-circuit a genuine 
exchange of views.

Of course, if you're saying that you live in Israel to get the rest of us to 
make aliyah as quickly as possible, that's another matter...

Sholem Berge

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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         ]