Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 278

Tuesday, January 11 2000

• Re: Regular Shul Attendance and Talking
• techeiles
• Rackman Bet Din annulment approved by Rabbanut in Israel ?
• Live Forever: Upload Your Mind!
• re: Haredim and Internet
• Re: Sadigora
• Re: MO and the Rav
• Re: MO and the Rav
• Re: Regular Shul Attendance and Talking
• Re[2]: Regular Shul Attendance and Talking
• Re: Haredim and Internet
• Re: Re[2]: Regular Shul Attendance and Talking
• Gadol Hametsuva veoseh
• hareidi and internet
• Re: Conservatives
• Re: Haredim and Internet
• Conservative
• Modern O
• Re: Conservatives
• Re: Women Davening

R' Harry Maryles wrote <<< ... one can theoretically never set foot in a
synagogue and be a completely observant Jew. So, we don't have the type of
reverence that Goyim and 3 day a year Jews have ... >>>

BUT WE SHOULD !!!

Es Mikdashi Tira'oo !!!

Reb Rich Wolpoe asks,
> This is what  was told that Briskers do is where a
> non-wool begged.
>
> The problem they have to deal with is that virtually
> NOBODY wore a non-wool
> tallis Gadol as far back as anyone can remember (yes
> let's dicount those
> American silk Taleism)
>
> IOW, how can Brisk ignore the entire "velt" minhag
> on this?
 
I'm not exactly sure but the Beis Halevi in siman 34 (maybe 32 - my
memory isn't so great)  holds that every time we wear tzitzis without
techeiles bzman hazeh we are violating the issur of Bal Tigra.  The only
reason that we are allowed to is because of aseh docheh lo saaseh.  Maybe
they wear cotton tzitzis to avoid Bal Tigra?
Personally, I don't fully understand why all Briskers aren't wearing the
Murex Trunculus techeiles for the same reason.  BTW Rav Schechter cites
this as one of the reasons why he does wear this techeiles.
Shaul Weinreb

The source may be dubious (it's a BEFAYRUSHEH "In Jerusalem" Jerusalem
Post dated January 7th) but it seems that the Israeli Chief Rabbinate
accepted "the annulment of a marriage of a 37 year old woman" carried
out by the Rackman Bet Din.

Could someone (Rabbanit Boublil ?) check out what really is behind this ?

Josh

The odd subject line of this email is from the cover of this month's issue
of Psychology Today.

Being a programmer, I've been intringued with the ideas of artificial
intelligence, or the one suggested here -- of "uploading" a mind from a
dying brain to another medium.

I was wondering if anyone here would be interested in exploring the
hashkafic issues.

At first glance, one would argue that the notion violates our
belief in neshamos. But I'm not sure it has to. See my position
in the "Removing a Dybbuk" thread in volume 3. In particular,
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n068.html#22> where I try to argue
that the Rambam identifies seichel as a kind of tzurah, which the chomer
(in our case, the moach) embodies.

There I write the following:
> PS: Brings a whole new meaning to Olam haEmes. It's not just a world where
> truth reigns, it's a world composed entirely of truths.

(The idea was that after misah, one is in Olam haEmes, where a seichel doesn't
need a "hardware implementation" in order to run, since that entire "universe"
is composed of Truths without matter.)

I realized this morning (moments after the bit about maple syrup and kaleh
ilan) that this bears a strong resemblence to Plato's World of Ideas, and
Logos. Then I noticed that Chazal are actually using a plausible translation
of the expression "World of Ideas", and it's hard to picture that they didn't
realize it. IOW, I think Chazal called it "Olam ha'Emes" as an intentional
Platonism.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 11-Jan-00: Shelishi, Bo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 97b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< I wonder what would have happened had we taken the
same approach in the Guttenburg's day. And no one ever invented a BookNanny
or ReadWatch. >>>

They say that Arayos, in its various forms, it the oldest business around.
The big difference between now and the prior thousands of years is that
previously, one had to actually leave one's home, and go to another person
in order to obtain such shmutz, risking serious embarrassment in the
process. This is no longer necessary. It is now possible to get the worst
forms of printed material at the privacy of one's desk, delivered upon
request, often for free, and with no human ever knowing about it.

If only our Yiras Shamayim were as strong as our fear of our peers !!!

Some say that one finds only what one is looking for. This is a dangerous
thought on several counts. First, once the email marketers get your address,
it is only a matter of time until a sleazy ad appears in your in-box.
Second, the most innocent search engines turn up surprising offerings.
Third, the truth is that it is far too easy to find ways to go looking for
this stuff yourself.

We are only human, with normal yetzer haras. Ayn apotropos l'arayos. Without
the help of the embarrassment factor, many have found that these things can
become very difficult to avoid.

Yes, there's an tremendous amount of beautiful Torah to be had on the Net.
But I am not sure that the benefits outweigh the dangers. Just because I do
use the Internet does not necessarily mean that I believe that the good
outweighs the bad. It just means I'm human.

Akiva Miller

RYZirkind writes:
<Subject: Re: Sadigora
In a message dated 1/10/00 5:11:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil writes:...  Though unquestionably extremely
intelligent and able there is good reason to believe he was illiterate,
probably a learning disability.

I have read much about him, and take exception to such a slander, of an ARi
Hachai.   Kol Tuv  Yitzchok Zirkind>

it's a free country, and you are free to take whatever exception you wish,
but perhaps you will first explain what was offensive in the statement.  I
did take care, because I believe it is accurate, to recount that the
original Rhyziner was "unquestionably extremely intelligent" (sic) and a
very able leader. I could have, though I didn't, mentioned his obvious
charismatic gifts as well.  yet you took my passing mention of his inability
to read and write as a "slander" even after I specifically attributed it,
despite his unquestioned intelligence, to a learning disability.  yilamdeinu
rabbeinu, do you feel that people with such disabilities, say severe
dyslexia (as seems to be the case here), are shameful, so that the mere
suggestion that someone may be suffering from such a dyslexia- even naniach
an incorrect assumption- would be to "slander" him?  would you feel the same
sense of "slander" if someone should be accused, rightly or wrongly, of
having the measels?  or is it the notion that someone looked up to as a
leader, indeed a qodosh by many could obviously have nothing less than a
complete mastery of the vast ocean of the jewish textual tradition, in the
best artscroll hagiographical tradition? 

And while I don't know what is the "much about him" that you've read (and
there is indeed much material available in literally hundreds of sources)
I'm confident that you will also recognize the simple fact that the vast
majority of available material stem from chasidic sources with an
undisputed-by-anybody tradition of sanitizing away past awkwardness. (i.e
artscroll didn't invent this editorial technique, they just systematized it
into an artform). In any event, since you do raise it I should like to get
away from quite inappropriate talk of "slander" and respond to your
(implicit) substantive question which I shall paraphrase as "sez who"? 

to start with some kosher li'mihadrin eidus from within the chasidic camp,
you might check out the Ohalei Yaacov written by R. Yitzchoq Friedman - the
rebbe's direct descendent and a Husitener - who acknowledges that the rebbe
got his job very early in life (he became admor about the age of 15) and
thus never really had much opportunity to acquire an education before being
swept up into the daily grind of the admorate.  The Tiferes Yisroel (a
modern series of Rhyziner publications) acknowledges that the rebbe's
preference for "hiding" his torah greatness brought many outsiders to
question its existence, though as we see from the ohelei yaacov, it was
questioned internally as well.  the rebbe himself is quoted in chasidic
sources - check out the shaar ho'oasios - as remarking that the time to
learn to write was when one is a na'ar, but that he himself had never been a
na'ar and the accompanying comment in the same source that it was known that
the rebbe haqodosh mirhyzin was barely able to write the correct tsuros
ho'oasios. There are other contemporary accounts from people with no axes at
all to grind testifying, in accounts highly flattering to the intelligence
and greatly positive impression made by the rebbe, to the curious anomaly of
the rebbe's evident difficulty signing his own name - check out the recent
book by Asaf. there is of course a vast maskilish literature including
contemporary press accounts, even theater plays, which seized on this fact
to ridicule the larger than life target of the greatest of the contemporary
rebbes, which might be dismissable as just more anti-chasidic propaganda
except for the corroboration on this point offered by both unbiased and
internal sources. 

these are all rather non-controversial facts.  if one wanted to start a
controversy it would rather center on the well trod issues connected to the
rebbe's wealth, and, subsequently, the "curse of the ainiklech" which
plagued all chasidus, but i have specifically not gone there.

Also, question for you, what/who is the "ARi Hachai", i.e. who is chai in
that phrase?

RHMaryles writes:
<When the son of the previous Boyaner Rebbe, YU's Rabbi Dr.
Menachem Breyer's own son decided to become The
Boyaner Rebbe at a very early age (somewhere in his>
i think you probably meant to identify prof breyer as the son-in-law.

RSGodick writes:
<R' Frankel, your stories of the chassidic and musar movements are
very entertaining and fascinating, but sometimes my fingers itch 
to scribble  along the margins that red-lettered word my high
school English teachers would sometimes write on my Monday
morning themes: "DOCUMENTATION?".>
ouch. sounds too much like homework. but if there's a specific question i
might be able to  exhume the odd datum source. 

Mechy Frankel					H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@dtra.mil			W: (703) 325-1277

R. Micha Berger wrote (V4 #277)
<<While RYBS taught that the Medinah had religious significance, he did
NOT
define that significance in terms of any messianic notions.>>, in
repsonse to a comment that <<MO sees religious significance in the
establishment of the State of Israel -- reishit tzmichat geulateinu; RW
does not.>>

In my shul when I was growing up,  the mara d'asrah- who was a Talmid
of the Rav (RYBS) and derived most of his minhagim from him- said
"she'tehei tzmichas geulaseinu," instead of "reishis tzmichas
geulaseinu" (he has since made aliyah and may now say "she'tehei
tzmichat geulateinu," but probably still does not say "reishit
tzmichat...").  I always assumed that this was the Rav's minhag, though
I do not know for sure.
The reasoning behind this is not necessarily as extreme as that of
Yeshayahu Leibowitz who denied not only messianic, but any religious
significance to the State.  Would YL not be considered MO?  He was
certainly not RW.  He may be a glaring exception to any attempted
classification scheme.

Sincerely,
David Eisenman

R. Micha Berger wrote (V4 #277)
<<While RYBS taught that the Medinah had religious significance, he did
NOT
define that significance in terms of any messianic notions.>>, in
repsonse to a comment that <<MO sees religious significance in the
establishment of the State of Israel -- reishit tzmichat geulateinu; RW
does not.>>

In my shul when I was growing up,  the mara d'asrah- who was a Talmid
of the Rav (RYBS) and derived most of his minhagim from him- said
"she'tehei tzmichas geulaseinu," instead of "reishis tzmichas
geulaseinu" (he has since made aliyah and may now say "she'tehei
tzmichat geulateinu," but probably still does not say "reishit
tzmichat...").  I always assumed that this was the Rav's minhag, though
I do not know for sure.
The reasoning behind this is not necessarily as extreme as that of
Yeshayahu Leibowitz who denied not only messianic, but any religious
significance to the State.  Would YL not be considered MO?  He was
certainly not RW.  He may be a glaring exception to any attempted
classification scheme.

Sincerely,
David Eisenman

In a message dated 1/11/00 11:42:36 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< While not having a partition between the religious and the day-to-day 
allows
 one to sanctify the day-to-day, it also has the unfortunate side-effect of
 requiring more vigilence not to secularize the religious.  >>

Or religify the secular.

David Finch

So, David, are you perhaps subtly impying that one of the things that keeps 
people coming to Orthodox shuls is the "comfrot level" while thos who attend 
shul but 3 times a year find their shuls  cold, imposing and  foreboding, and if
they only had felt more comfortable that might attend more frequently?

(If so, can we re-dub this thread  "How to justify talking in shul as a means of
encouraging attendance?"  <big smile>

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

In a message dated 1/11/00 11:42:36 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< While not having a partition between the religious and the day-to-day 
allows
 one to sanctify the day-to-day, it also has the unfortunate side-effect of 
 requiring more vigilence not to secularize the religious.  >>

Or religify the secular.

David Finch

On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 03:02:07PM -0500, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> They say that Arayos, in its various forms, it the oldest business around.

fwiw, it's said by many in the technology industry that the extent to
which a new technology is used for smut predicts its subsequent success.
apparently, the betamax format for VCRs appealed more to those who wanted 
to watch classical music, whereas the type we have now was the one adopted 
otherwise.  this may be an urban legend, but the correlations seem
pretty good.


i actually don't think this is terribly relevant, though.  no one denies
there is plenty of chaff anywhere.

janet

In a message dated 1/11/00 2:41:58 PM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< So, David, are you perhaps subtly impying that one of the things that 
keeps 
 people coming to Orthodox shuls is the "comfrot level" while thos who attend 
 shul but 3 times a year find their shuls  cold, imposing and  foreboding, 
and if
 they only had felt more comfortable that might attend more frequently?
  >>

Maybe. There is something to be said, though, for remembering that the shul 
is not one's living room, no matter how frequent one's attendance. During a 
minyan, at least, the shul is a holy place. My living room isn't holy, and 
never will be, no matter how observant I become. During a minyan, the shul is 
a place of Awe (literally, not in  the Roman Catholic sense). No one should 
feel too comfortable in a place of Awe.

David Finch

The following is an Alternative Explanation of Gadol Hametzuveh Ve’oseh 
Mishe’eino Metzuveh Ve’oseh, From She’elot uTeshuvot Bnei Banim, vol. 2, p. 
66-67 (in note)
, by Rabbi Y.H. Henkin.

The yeitzer hara incites against an obligation, but not a voluntary act,; 
therefore only “one who is commanded and obeys” has had to overcome his 
yeitzer hara. (Tosafot and Achronim)

A problem with this explanation is that people who are commanded are not 
always struggling with their yeitzer hara. Moreover, the Gemara in Sotah 31a 
states, “One who fulfils the mitzvot out of love is greater than one who 
fulfills them out of fear.” One who is commanded will be punished if he 
doesn’t comply; he is, therefore, susceptible to be fulfilling the mitzvot 
out of fear. As opposed to this, one who is not commanded does not have to 
worry about punishment for non-compliance, and if he fulfills a mitzvah 
voluntarily he is more likely to be doing so out of love. Why, then, is the 
person who is “commanded and obeys” greater?

In my opinion that is precisely the point. The statement means, one who is 
commanded to observe them but n e v e r t h e l e s s fulfills the mitzvot 
out of love, overcoming his natural tendency to fulfill them out of fear, is 
greater than one who is not commanded and therefore has no fear as a factor 
to deal with. This is what Antigonus Ish Socho said at the beginning of Pirki 
Avot: “Don’t be like a servant who serves his master in order to be 
rewarded. Rather, be like a servant who serves his master not in order to be 
rewarded, and may the fear of Heaven be upon you.” That is to say, 
acknowledge reward and punishment, but serve your Master out of love.

Micha Berger wrote (V4#277)
"...and the paper is clearly trying to portray chareidim as 
"backward" for trying to keep their school OFF the net when so 
many schools are bragging about being on it...."

me'inyon l'inyon...
I have been reading that it is not clear that internet/computers in 
schools actually improve learning - either because it's not used
properly or because it is inherently a poor classroom tool. Does 
anyone have any perspective on this from a Torah and/or 
secular view? 
In general, are there generally accepted methods of (secular) 
education that are just wrong for Torah learning?

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 11:26:00AM -0500, Clark, Eli wrote:
> I do not believe we disagree about the empirical reality, but perhaps we
> differ on the interpretation.  The majority of the Conservative laity
> has no grounding in Jewish sources and, for this reason, tends to import
> its views on women, homosexual activity, intermarriage, etc. from the
> general American culture.  Hence, they press their rabbis to liberalize
> congregational policy on these issues.  This is sad, but unsurprising.
> More pernicious, to me, are the actions of the Conservative elite,
> people who can read a Gemara with Tosafot and Rishonim, who know what
> Halakhah is and what it states, yet engage in all kinds of dubious
> interpretations and tenedentious argumentation in order to justify an
> official movement policy in favor of egalitarianism, homosexual
> activity, etc.  My point was, however, that these two trends are
> converging, and the dwindling number of uncompromising traditionalists
> are feeling squeezed.

I think you're assuming a unidirectional selection process:  those who
are C seek to make halacha together with their views.  I think there may
actually be something of a bidirectional selection process in that
anyone who was O and would make a certain type of ruling would find 
himself marginalized and may decide preemptively to go to C.

On your specific claims, I don't think any of the educated C are
actually making policy in favor of egalitarianism or homosexual activity
(I'm not even sure what the latter would be --- making it a mitzvah?)  
Egalitarianism is an ideal of the uneducated C, but my impression is
that no one has tried to make C halacha using this as an axiom, although
the uneducated might have the impression that it were axiomatic.  Notably,
there are many observant single C women who don't cover their heads 
for davening, don't lay tefillin, and don't wear tallis except for
leading.  (I think the opinion they rely on wrt leading is from Dr.
Hauptman who says that since the purpose of the shaliach tzibbur is for
saying amida for the community and since woman and men are equally
obligated, women may discharge the obligation of others in this respect.)

Janet

On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 03:02:07PM -0500, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: We are only human, with normal yetzer haras. Ayn apotropos l'arayos. Without
: the help of the embarrassment factor, many have found that these things can
: become very difficult to avoid.

I disagree firmly. First, there are software filters. Second, this prohibition
explicitely *includes* business usage. It rules out making money as an
internet programmer. Third, I don't understand the concept of denying a
venue because of a minority of the content. Should we assur working in the
Times Square area? (In which case, my current job would be doubly assur:
I am half a block from Times Square, and I write client-server software that
requires internet -- not just intrenet -- access.)

: Yes, there's an tremendous amount of beautiful Torah to be had on the Net.
: But I am not sure that the benefits outweigh the dangers.

As I said, what would you have argued to Mr. (or was he Fr?) Guttenburg? Should
we ban all magazines, including Torah periodicals, because going to a newsstand
places one in an opportunity to buy and next to all the covers of shmutz?
Or do we teach people how to properly buy their "Yated Ne'eman", and give
them venues that lack pornography, violence and apikursus in which to do so,
if they feel lacking in the ability otherwise?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 11-Jan-00: Shelishi, Bo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 97b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

David Finch wrote:
If you go to a Conservative Shabbos service, you'll see more young
families than transplanted
old-neighborhood types who grew up in the Orthodox world.

What would you guess is the ratio of women to men at a Conservative
Shabbos Shacharis?

Aryeh Stein wrote:
"I find this fact interesting in that I have heard (and I have witnessed
on one occasion) that R' Aaron Shechter
won't stay for the meal at a wedding if there is mixed seating.  (He'll
come for the chupa but will leave before the
seuda.)  Of course, there is a halachic distinction between an annual
dinner and a wedding seuda, but..."

Didn't the Rov zt'l say that to be someach chason v'kalloh one had to
stay for bentching?

--- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:

> I know many fine, God-fearing,
> halakhic Jews who
> emerged from the Conservative movement and are now
> leading members of
> their Torah communities.  We obviously cannot know
> for certain what
> would have happened if they had grown up in a
> completely assimilated
> environment.  But I personally think it it would
> have been far less
> likely that they would have ended up where they are
> now.

This brings up an interesting question: How are we to
view the Solomon Schechter (SS) School system?

I used to say that we should work to abolish a system
which has as it's foundation heretical beliefs.  This
kind of seems obvious.  At first.

But a few years ago I staretd thinking about the
implications of eliminating the system and realized
that it would do more harm than good. If we view all
(or most) children who attend such schools as Tinokos
Shenishbu who would otherwise be going to public
school
and potential cantidates for Kiruv, then I think we
are far better off leaving them in the system.  For
one thing they get a basic education in reading
hebrew, and they do learn Parsha, Navi and Halacha. By
the time they reach 8th grade they are far more
knowledgeable than a public school child.  The
transition to a Modern Orthodox type high school is
relatively smooth and that's when Kiruv takes over. 
Here in Chicago, many of the Ida Crown Jewish Academy
(ICJA) students (Orthodox, Co-ed H.S.) come from SS. 
Kiruv work is far more succesful and productive if the
kids have a background of some kind.  The BT who
hasn't gone thru any educational proccess is far worse
off and often feels inadequate amongst FFB's. I can't
say that all SS kids that go thru ICJA stay Frum but
many, if not most, of them do.  Without SS, many of
those students wouldn't have even begun. And those who
might otherwise become Frum thru Kiruv (say, thru
NCSY) will have a lot more catching up to do and may
become discouraged.

One might counter by saying that, whatever the
benefit, one cannot encourage the existance of a
school whose underpinnings are Apikursus. But, at the
elementary level Apikursus is not really taught. The
egalitarinanism promoted by non-mechitza minyanim in
these schools, though problematic, doesn't seem to
warrant advocating closing down the system. Perhaps
the best solution is to "infiltrate" the schools by
having Orthodox Musmachim, interested in Chinuch and
Kiruv to apply for jobs as principals.  In this way
the apikursus can be minimized and even elimnated.

The question arises: Is one even allowed to apply for
such a job?  I think the answer is that it depends on
what the job requires.  Obviously, if it requires
teaching Apikursus the answer is no.  But if, as I
suspect is the case, SS school boards (who are basicly
ignorant of Conservative doctrine anyway and just look
at the movement as a more modern form of Judaism) are
looking for the best qualified individuals and give a
more or less free hand to principal, the answer might
be yes. OTOH maybe mere assocaition with such a
school, especially as a leader (i.e. principal) might
be implying tacit approval and therefore Assur. 
Bottom line: I don't know. But I DO know that it is
permissible to teach in Conservative afternoon schools
as long as they don't make you teach apikursus. Rav
Aaron used to let us take such positions when he was
RY in HTC.

Food for thought.

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

--- Chana/Heather Luntz
<Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> it is interesting that you and
> Harry bring this in
> connection with the matter under discussion, namely
> women's davening.
> This is interesting for the reason that, while just
> about everybody (eg
> Mishna Brura, Aruch HaShulchan, Shulchan Aruch
> HaRav, not to mention
> those on whom they base themselves) holds that women
> are obligated in
> davening - meaning shmoneh esrei (as opposed to
> shema or tephilla
> b'tzibbur). 

Women are required to Daven but it isn't exactly clear
what they are required to daven.  There is one opinion
that says that they are Yotze with just Brachos and
don't have to daven Shmone Esreh.  Someone else
pointed out the fact that Davening is voluntary or at
least was in the past percieved to be voluntary, and
this is the reason there is more Kavanah by women. 
The pool of women is  decreased by those who don't
daven.  I.e.  they aren't interested in Davening and
wouldn't have Kavanah if they did. Those who do are
obviously the motivated ones and are the ones likely
to have kavanah because they are so motivated.

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

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]