Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 311

Friday, January 21 2000

• Re: Rabenu Tam/wurst
• Re: Artscroll
• wurst fabriken
• Histaklus BaNashim
• Parshah Pun
• Rabenu Tam - KSA
• Re: Avodah V4 #309
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Rabenu Tam/wurst
• Re[2]: Histaklus BaNashim
• Kitzur/KSA
• Re: intrinsic value of mitzvos
• Histaklus Ba'Anashim
• Re[2]: The Jerusalem Report's review of Rabbi Rakkafet's boo
• Re[2]: Rabenu Tam/wurst
• Re: The Jerusalem Report's review of Rabbi Rakkafet's boo
• Re: wurst fabriken
• Re: Limud vs. lemaaseh
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Dud Shemesh
• Toward solving a major problem
• The Shulchan Arucgh as a Weapon

In a message dated 1/21/00 9:16:01 AM US Central Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< And,  to combine two threads,  a lot of baloney.  The   
 **overhwhelming**  proportion of immigrants who came to this country in
 the very early part of the 20th century discarded their religion upon
 arrival if not sooner.  (The saying was that dredging New York Harbor
 would turn up thousands of pairs of tefilin whose owners chucked them as
 soon as they saw the "promised land")
 
    Those who didn't, did so soon after.  Those who still didn't,  most of
 their kids did as soon as they saw the attractions that America had to
 offer.  I daresay less than 1% of them ever looked into a Kitzur Shulchan
 Aruch. >>

Maybe. But have you ever *tried* baloney? Slice it thin, and fry it up with 
some eggs. Serve with toast and coffee.

The KSA was talismanic. It symbolized everything many uneducated immigrant 
Jews hated about "the old ways." That fact that maybe less than one percent 
ever looked into the KSA is beside the point. The KSA was understood as an 
invention to keep the masses in line by reducing their daily movements into a 
series of simple but strict do-this-don't-do-that instructions. Nothing in 
the KSA addressed subjects like fear, hope, yearning, identity loss, and 
cultural confusion. Nothing in the KSA really *explained* anything. The 
rabbis frequently didn't explain anything either -- they were just as 
confused about the New World as the immigrants were. Thus the KSA got the 
reputation as an instrument of oppression.

Again, this is anecdotal. But over the years, when I've listened to people 
who've lived through it talk about the old immigrant experience, I've been 
surprised by the frequency the KSA has been mentioned in this light. On the 
other hand, I've heard these stories drinking 5:00 a.m. coffee at local 
delis, or at shul breakfasts following shacharis. Frequently they've served 
fried baloney as a side dish.

David Finch

In a message dated 1/21/00 8:21:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,  Steven Brizel
writes:
<< Yes, There 
 is a lack of user friendly material .However, Artscroll filled this gap in 
no 
 small measure. One can reject their hagiographical materials and utilize the 
 Siddur, Machzor aan Shas if it enhances one's avodas HaShem.  >>
I totally agree. Although in general I cannot stand English gemaros, the fact 
of the matter is that the Artscroll Shas is of far superior quality and much 
more user friendly than anything that preceded it. The same is true of the 
siddur. 

As far as the hagiographical materials are concerned, I have a question for 
the more MO oriented on this list. Yes, it is definitely true that artscroll 
biographies have serious -- much publicized flaws. However, they do have one 
major strong point. They inspire. MO scholarship may be more accurate in that 
it will not cover up some of the negatives (although sometimes I think they 
overemphasize them), and therefore mature adults should read these works in 
order to get a fuller picture. But what about children? If you want your 8-16 
year old son or daughter to know about some basic facts of Jewish history and 
Gedolim, what do you give them to read? For example, If you want them to know 
about R. YY Weinberg I don't think Marc Shapiros articles are appropriate and 
if you want them to know about Volozhin I don't think RJJ Schacters articles 
are appropriate. They are far to scholarly for children, and younger 
childrens minds may not be mature enough to understand some of the infighting 
among even gedolim without it making them lose all respect for gedolim. In 
general the Artscroll books are written in a way that they are a good 
introduction to the specific gadol, and are not written in a scholarly style 
making them easy enjoyable and inspiring reading for all ages. I definitely 
gained from them a a child. Of course you hope that as an adult or older 
teenager they will gain a further appreciation, possibly by reading some of 
the scholarly MO works. In general, people speak of the fact that "the Right" 
is winning. It seems to me that these books have a lot to do with it. Is MO 
by nature too scholarly, and therefore cannot inspire the youth? Is it 
impossible to write a book about RYBS suitable for youth, or was he by nature 
so complex that no such book is possible? Must every book speak of his 
knowledge of Kantonian philosophy? If MO is to inspire the younger generation 
it seems to me these are questions they are going to have to address.
(I would just like to add that I am generalizing about Artscroll Gedolim 
books. The degree of quality and accuracy is different in each specific 
volume. Some of them, especially the more recent are very accurate and of 
excellent quality. For example, No less a historian than shneur leiman wrote 
that Artscrolls book on R. Hirsch is "magisterial.")
   

> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:34:19 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re: wurst fabriken 

<<(FWIW, I think that  R SY Weinberg OBM was one of the most supportive
Roshei Yeshivos I knew about his creative followers.  He encouraged
creativity and originality.>>

	Not coincidentally he was a talmid of Rav Hutner.

<< And he met with bitter opposition over it, too.  More detail can be
supplied off list)>>

	I'll bite.

Gershon

> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:14:10 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re[2]: Histaklus BaNashim 
 
> I always sensed that since traditionally women sat in balconies looking
down at men in shul, that therefore it was not deemed a problem.>>

	You haven't gone far enough back.  The "tikun gadol" at Simchas Beis
Hashoeva was constructed that way and was probably the model for the
shuls.


<<Now can you say in OUR society - where perhaps female sexaulity is more
out in the open - have things changed?  That might be an argument to make
a mechitzo superior to a balcony in our society.>>

	Human nature has not changed,  and women do not have hirhurim when
looking at men.

Gershon

We know according to Chazal that Mon tasted like anything you wanted it to taste
like

AND we also know that "tofu" can be prepared to taste almost like anything.

There is a remez to this in parshas hamon:

Eis asher *TOFU* eifu, indicating that after all the mon was tofu! <smile>

Rich Wolpoe

Good points

let's remember the KSA often, frequently mentions - yaaseh sh'eiloah or woard to
that effect, -IOW imbedded in his own text is his admission that the book is NOT
meant as comprehense.

And the title suggests Kitzur as a "reader's digest" version. (altho admitdely 
he adds his own torah too).

The avlo might be that Goldin's title CODE OF JEWISH LAW having omitted the key 
phrase - "ABRDIGED" as in "*ABRDIGED* CODE OF JEWISH LAW.  IOW his title 
suggested a comprehensvie text when it cearly wasn't ever meant to be!

Rich Wolpoe





______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
  
1. I think KSA got its popularity among baale batim in the US because of its 
early translation into English(I always wondered why it was chosen for this 
purpose)
2. The greater issue is when to ask a Rav and when to "trust" the text - 
we've discussed many permutations of this issue

Shabbat Shalom\
Joel Rich

<< From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
 Subject: Re: The Jerusalem Report's review of Rabbi Rakkafet's book on the 
Rav zt'l
  in the 1.31.00 edition >>
Do you mean the 1.21.00 edition? is this available online? I looked and could 
not find it. In which section can it be found?

RR Wolpoe wrote:

>>I always sensed that since traditionally women sat in balconies looking 
down at men in shul, that therefore it was not deemed a problem.>>

Based on the CHANGE in the Beis Hamikdash so that women would see men 
instead of men seeing women.

Have you asked them?

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


	Human nature has not changed,  and women do not have hirhurim when 
looking at men.

Gershon

And we can go back fruther and see  other attempts were used as havo aminos 
before the maskono...

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Histaklus BaNashim 

	You haven't gone far enough back.  The "tikun gadol" at Simchas Beis 
Hashoeva was constructed that way and was probably the model for the 
shuls.




Gershon

And therefore Yibum is still a lechatchilo over Chalitzo?

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


	Human nature has not changed,  and women do not have hirhurim when 
looking at men.

Gershon

true

BUT

If there were a prominent community of observant yet succesful Jews things MIGHT
have been different.

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

<<This is my entirely anecdotal and unscientific answer:>>

	And,  to combine two threads,  a lot of baloney.  The **overhwhelming** 
 proportion of immigrants who came to this country in the very early 
part of the 20th century discarded their religion upon arrival if not 
sooner.  (The saying was that dredging New York Harbor would turn up 
thousands of pairs of tefilin whose owners chucked them as soon as they 
saw the "promised land")

	Those who didn't, did so soon after.  Those who still didn't,  most of 
their kids did as soon as they saw the attractions that America had to 
offer.  I daresay less than 1% of them ever looked into a Kitzur Shulchan 
Aruch.

Gershon

Whatt if a male gynecoloigst feels hirhurim?

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
ent in the briah(as is tan du according to many)?
The nafka mina being what if a photographer does feel hirhurim?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Rich Walpoe wrote (V4#310 subject Rabenu Tam)
"fwiw, my baalei batim ask me, but the KSA says X and how can 
you say Y?

My answer is that is why you hired me, to read betwen the lines 
and to highlight the exceptions."

Also fwiw R' Moshe Heinemann recommends learning KSA as a very 
efficient method of knowing what\when to ask a Rov.

kol tuv 
Sender Baruch

A thought came to me this morning.

R' Chaim Vilozhiner's understanding of Avraham presents a different kind of
eino metzuveh than a woman who sits in the succah is.

We said the Avraham Avinu was able to feel a chisaron in himself, and deduce
what mitzvah would address it. If he had this chisaron, why didn't the Ribbono
shel Olam command him to do the mitzvah? Presumably because the tzivui wasn't
needed, as the avos' deductive abilities were sufficient. However, it's a
given that the chisaron was there, just as for a metzuveh vi'oseh.

However, my wife is an einah metzuvah in an era where the tzivui was given to
others. Those who need the tzivui got it. The implication is that the
chisaron she has is different than mine. Whereas by Avraham Avinu it could
have been "only" a difference in quantity of need (I need more work than he
did) not in kind of need. (With the possible exception of milah.)

BTW, did Ya'akov eat gid hanasheh before he met the mal'ach?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 21-Jan-00: Shishi, Beshalach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 102b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Does anyone have mekoros on the gedarim of how men are allowed to dress and what
they must cover?  Thank you.

I know little abou the individual books so far, 

But the apporach of balancing opinions is a great idea!

To cross threads:
One problem with the KSA was it was just one opinion and I think the same can be
said for MB

Traditionally we used a PAIR of nos'ei keilim 

Rashi AND Tosfos

Shach AND Taz

Rambam AND Raavad (ok not no'sei keilim but you get the idea <smile>)

and fwiw I would recomend balancing the MB with either the Aruch haShulcan or 
Kaf haChayim

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: The Jerusalem Report's review of Rabbi Rakkafet's book o
<snip>
 Let's read nefesh ha Rav, Rabbi Genack's book and Rabbi Rakkafet's books 
before we reject any of them out of hand. Comments?
                            Zeliglaw@aol.com
                            Steven Brizel

AHA!

and imho that is the back-drop that presented an opportunity for MO in the 
USA...

Imagine what America circa 1880-1920 had Articulate, Chamsatic English speaking 
leaders such as:

Dr. Leo Jung
R. S. Schwab
R. S. Riskin
RYBS
Rebbes such as Bostoner, Novomisnker, Lubavicher

Things could have been different, perhaps a generatoin need not have been lost. 

EG, in Enlgewood, NJ, R. Isaac Swift - a contemporary of Dr. Jung -  helped to 
"conserve" a frum comunity of highly assimilated Jews because he brought a 
Weternized version of Orthodoxy (he was English by birth I believe) that let 
Englewooders at home circa 1960 until his demise in 1990.  I think he salvaged a
gneration of about 200 hundred families for Torah and pioneered the 
"colonization" of MO's into Bergen County.

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip> 
The rabbis frequently didn't explain anything either -- they were just as 
confused about the New World as the immigrants were.
<snip>

David Finch

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 12:03:22PM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: But the apporach of balancing opinions is a great idea!

A simple remedy, if someone has the time: include in a Hebrew-English KSA
an English translation of the footnotes of piskei MB that appear in many
Hebrew editions.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 21-Jan-00: Shishi, Beshalach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 102b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

R. Hutner is yet another illustration of a gadol who did not fit into any neatly
defined categories.

Great personas often transcend group boundaries and definitions.

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: wurst fabriken 


	Not coincidentally he was a talmid of Rav Hutner.

<

Gershon

quick answers.  Full treatment deserves a long article 

To put it frankly, I envy people like RRW who somehow manage to 
compartmentalize their lomdishe and halokhishe approaches to the world. I 
wish it were that easy for me.

==> this came to me as a method for resolving certain persitent inner 
conflicts

 Here's the problem I have.

In the traditional conception of limud, one studies the interrelation 
between various sources, but not how the sources themselves get that way. 
I.e., in most yeshives (even the far-left one I study in), you can work out 
the pshat, but not WHY, linguistically speaking, a given set of words was 
used in a particular circumstance. You can figure out WHICH brayse is the 
pivotal one, but not WHERE it came from, historically speaking, or WHY it's 
found at that particular point in the text.

However, the traditional conception doesn't satisfy me. I need (want) to 
know where the texts come from in a historical-critical way. Moreover, this 
helps me understand where halokhe comes from. But if I find out the SA is 
due to an ahistorical/static reading of the gemore, it's not enough to tell 
me Minhag avoyseynu beyodeynu. Why? Because I've always understood that the 
point of lomdus is not to keep it separate from halokhe lemayse, but to 
justify the latter via our own seykhel as per the Rambam. What a 
talmid-khokhem does in his halakhic analysis is to find the underlying 
principles that determine the halakhic state of affairs, and anchor them in 
the texts. Now if we understand the texts differently, how on earth are we 
not supposed to understand halokhe differently?

So, with all due respect, I don't think one can engage in 
historical-critical analysis of the text and keep halokhe completely static 
and influence-free. Something has to give somewhere. At the end of the first 
perek of Bove kame there's a discussion of whether limud or mayse is 
greater, and (if I remember correctly) the conclusion is: limud, since it 
leads to mayse. So a change in limud would lead to change in mayse, nisht 
emes?

==> emes BUT halivni nad others would tell you that the lomuds implications to 
halahcs should evolve into it over time and not be done in a lurking fashion, or
in a willy nilly fashion.

Q: what makes opposition to Rackman's BD so vocal?
A: his shito MIGHT evolve to become normative

Look at the opposition to Mendelsohnn during his time, but eventually MO 
followed his shitos..  But he was seen (with soem justification) as poreiz geder
IN HIS TIME

Rich Wolpoe
<=== 


Sholem Berger


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

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> 
> BTW, what about histaklus ba'anashim? Why do the
> same poskim allow women
> watching the dancing on Simchas Torah? Or do they?

They do.  I do not remember ever seeing where Hirhur
is an issue by women gazing at men. It is probably
based on physiological and psychological differences. 
Women simply do not have Hirhurei Aveirah when they
watch men dancining, probably even eroticly.

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

	This is in reply to richard_wolpoe@ibi.com and Noach Witty who both
expressed the opinion that I contact the author of the Shemira Shabbos
directly in regards to his psak on the dud shemesh. 

	I am quite sure that there have been times that  you have come
across a psak or sevara in a contemporary sefer that you don't quite
understand. I am equally certain that you don't contact the author to find
out his reasoning behind what he wrote. There are many facets to learning
and understanding a  sugyah, with one of them being  trying to understand
something written in a sefer. I don't believe there is anything wrong with
asking "why did so and so write this" and then trying to come up with a
hesber. Does that mean that the hesber you come up with is what the mechaber
of the sefer meant? Maybe and maybe not. But that is irrelevent to the point
of the "intellectual" excercise-namely to further one's OWN understanding in
the sugyah. If I really wanted to know how Rav Neuwirth learnt the sugyah
yes it might make sense to write him a letter asking for an explanation.
However, in most situations (as in this one) my main purpose is to learn a
sugyah and come out with my own conclusions. My point in asking the
questions I did was because I wanted to know if I was missing anything in
the sugyah that I should have taken into account. This doesn't mean I will
pasken based on my conclusions-I am not a posek. This also doesn't mean that
if I consider the Shemiras Shabbos my poseik that I will reject his
conclusion because I don't undertstand it. However, if it makes you feel
better and someone will provide me with his address I will bli neder write
him a letter asking my questions.

All societies have problematic individuals.  Unfortunately that is even
true of the Orthodox community.  In dealing with this small group
Orthodoxy in contemporary times has a serious weakness.  We, in general,
refuse to work with secular authorities, certainly not the police, and
simultaneously lack an effective internal mechanism to deal with
offenders,  This creates an atmosphere where embezzlers and sexual and
child abusers even after getting caught continue to function in our
community.
Fear of public chillul Hashem results in ongoing private suffering.  It
is imperative that criteria be established that will determine when it
is permissible to  take complaints to the authorities, both in Israel
and the United States, and when to testify against Orthodox offenders.
The term "moser" has become an excuse for allowing responsibility to be
shifted from criminals to victims.  Internally, an unimpeachable body of
outstanding rabbis from different segments of Orthodoxy working with
observant mental health professionals (perhaps using Nefesh) should be
available to hear and evaluate complaints which presently get dismissed.

Sincerely,
Yosef Blau

--- DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/20/00 6:15:42 PM US Central
> Standard Time, 
> hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> 
> << > SA
>  > scares me. It scared tens 
>  > of thousands of Jews straight out the religion
> (at
>  > least in its "kitzur" 
>  > abbreviation) a hundred years ago.
>  
>  Would you care to amplify?
>  
>  I was unaware of this historical phenomenon.
>  
>   >>
> 
> This is my entirely anecdotal and unscientific
> answer: Ask some of the 
> old-timers who remember Maxwell Street and the West
> Side. The Kitzur Shulchan 
> Aruch frequently was used by the local rabbinate as
> a tool to get immigant 
> families to stick to their religion despite the sin
> and tumult of the New 
> World. "Just read and and follow it, or else you
> won't be written in the Book 
> of Life," they said, or words to that effect. Kids
> were taught to fear the 
> KSA. Following the KSA was like trying to disarm a
> bomb. If you do it right, 
> at least you still in the community. But one false
> move and everything blows 
> up. Since many of the kids (and their parents) made
> plenty of false moves, 
> they abandoned observant Judaism. I'm told they left
> the fold in the 
> thousands. 
> 
> I don't know about the full SA, which I take to be a
> complex, subtle, 
> brilliant work. But that's a different story.

The Kitzur SA is an abreviated version of the SA.  

R. Aaron Rakeffet Rothkoff in chapter one of his
magnum opus volume on Bernard Revel, ZTL, spells out
the condition of Jewry in the early 20th century.  It
was abysmal.  Jews arriving in this country came to
these shores,against the advice of their community
rabbis, and were immediately caught up in the fabric
of the Amercan ethic of working to survive perhaps to
succeed so they could acheive the goals they arrived
with of bettering the conditions they left behind in a
pogrom filled Europe.  And work they did... Shabbos
was a must.  While it is somewhat legend that some of
those immigrants literaly or figuratively threw their
teffilin overboard before disembarking, there were
many others who, out of fear of starving worked on
Shabbos just to survive.  At least that's is what they
believed. Rare was the individual who risked not
working on Shabbos because those who wouldn't, most
often lost their jobs.

So the vast majority worked Shabbos... albeit
reluctantly.  They hoped they could make a better life
for their offspring but all the while tried to instill
in their children a little Yiddishkeit (hard to do if
you do not practice what you preach by working on
Shabbos).  There were no Jewish day schools then, just
a really bad form of the afternoon school. Classes
when they existed at all were usually held poorly
heated rooms in dilapidated buildings.  The teacher,
or as he was then called the Melamed was underpaid,
often himself an immigrant whose english was poor,
usually a ne'r do well, and barely knew anything about
Torah Judaism except for what he learned by osmosis at
home back in Europe.  Probably the famous canard "If
you can't do... Teach!" was coined with these teachers
in mind.  Most kids who attended these "classes" were
treated to a sort of tortureous experience.  Those
teachers were not averse to hitting their charges at
the slightest irritation. It was against this backdrop
that the 2nd generation of American Jewery were
exposed to any Judaism at all. Needless to say, these
kids, who spent an entire day in public school had no
interest in attending these classes and couldn't wait
to escape to the street and the movie theater to learn
about the way of America.  They had no respect for
what their parents were trying to instill in them
especially when they saw their parents violating one
of the most basic tenents of Judaism, Shabbos. They
saw their parents as hypocritical and their Judaism as
a worthless burdon not worth holding on to.  So they
ran so far away into assimilation that they wouldn't
even dream of teaching their own kids Torah Judaism. 
These 2nd generation American Jews, whose parents
sacrifices enabled them to attend college and seek
careers as professionals, were more interseted in
"breaking the barriers of anti-semitism" by getting
accepted to the right country clubs.  Judaism could
only be expressed as a social amenity, as in,
belonging to the right synogogue or temple. 

This brings us to today. The progeny of that
generation know little if anything about Torah Judaism
and what they did "know" came from a parent who ran as
far as he could from it, or a Conservative and Reform
Rabbinate.  

So it wasn't that the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch was used
by the local rabbinate as a tool to get immigant
families to stick to their religion. It was that they
had unwilling participants who were created by the
conditions extant at the time.

This, more than anything else is responsible for the
vast sea of people who comprise the Conservative and
Reform constituancy.

Today,  the pendulem is swinging back.  Many Jews who
have virtually no knowledge of Torah Judaism are
trying to find their way back to their roots.  This is
why there is such an explosion of Kiruv organizations
in the world today.  Chabad was the first to
capitalize on this. NCSY has had enormous success with
high school students. Organizations here in Chicago
like The Chicago Torah Network, Yeshivas Migdal Torah,
and project Seed of Torah UmSorah, as well as Aish
HaTorah in Jerusalem (along with a plethora of like
organizations all over the world) are working with all
the different strata of Jewry to educate them and
bring them back to the Torah.

Baruch HaShem. VeKain Yirbu.

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         ]