Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 317

Monday, January 24 2000

• Re: Re[2]: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Re[2]: Mendelsohn and MO
• Re: MO vs RW
• Re: MO vs RW
• Re[4]: Mendelsohn and MO
• Re[4]: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re[2]: Women's position vis-a-vis husband
• Re[2]: Histaklus B'nashim -corrections
• Re[2]: Histakluth-3 additional comments
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Mechitzos at Weddings
• Re: MO vs RW

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:40:37 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<I also think it while it is true that basic human nature does not
change, their are certain societal and peer pressures that DO change.>>

	IOW,  the basic human nature was always that women could have hirhurim
as well as men;  just that normal society (i.e., as distinguished from
that around us in this day and age) prevented their actualization?  If I
understand you correctly,

	a) This fits well with the Gemaras re:  nashim da'atan kalos,  etc.
	b) I wonder how RCS fits this in with his observation on harchakos.

Gershon

Chas v'Shalom! Mendelsohn denied the concept of the Chosen People. To put
any section of Orthodoxy in his camp is a terrible affront.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 11:21 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Mendelsohn and MO


> It could be said that the TI/EMC/IBC section of YU is less Talmudic and
more
> "Mendelsohnnian" as opposed to the the heart of the Yeshiva - RIETS - whic
was
> indeed a continuation of Brisker/ Litvisher derech.
>
> Rich wolpoe
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
> Subject: Re: Mendelsohn and MO
>
> <snip>
> In a speech (printed in R. Rakefets book) RYBS clearly makes the point
that
> although YU shares some ideas (secular studies) with German Orthodoxy,
still
> in essence they are very different. For RYBS (and YU) Shas and posekim in
the
> traditional manner of R. Chaim of Brisk, was of extreme importance. So
RYBS
> is not even in the same mold as German Orthodoxy, kal vchomer Mendelsohn.
>
>
>

All this sociology only proves that TIDE is the de facto reigning philosophy
in much of American Orthodoxy, not TUM nor "Torah Only." While RSRH lost the
philosophical battle, he has won the pragmatic one.

But, R' Eli, to have an wntire post from you without at least one reference,
is demoralizing...

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


----- Original Message -----
From: Clark, Eli <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
To: avodah list <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 12:39 PM
Subject: MO vs RW


> If I may intrude, I am going to agree with R. Micha here.  In response
> to RYGB's challenge regarding sources, I think that his reliance on
> mareh mekomot is part of the grounds of this disagreement.
>
> In my experience, the distinction drawn by R. Micha exists as a
> sociological reality, irrespective of what appears in R. Hutner's and R.
> Dessler's writings, on the one hand, and what appears in the writing of
> R. Soloveitchik and Dr. Lamm, on the other.
>
> As a practical matter, the yeshivisher velt does not value work.  Young
> women in Bais Yaakov or seminary are strongly discouraged from dating
> men who work and immense pressure is placed on yungeleit to stay in the
> beit midrash.  The only exception is for people who make a lot of money.
>  One rosh yeshiva I know put it far more starkly (in private, trying to
> convince a talmid to stay in learning):  The Torah world will only
> respect you if you are a talmid hakham or a millionaire.  Thus, I think
> it is fair to say, as R. Micha did, that the general attitude in the
> yeshivisher comunity today looks down on those who work.  Of course,
> this is a generalization and a stereotype of sorts.  Obviously, Flatbush
> is teeming with professionals in black hats.  But I do not think that
> they generally are considered role models, especially by the leaders of
> the educational system, who may or may not have read R. Dessler (and
> almost certainly have not read R. Hutner).
>
> In the modern Orthodox community (at least, to my knowledge), one finds
> the opposite attitude.  A great deal of emphasis -- too much in my view
> -- is placed on the value of secular education, especially prestigious
> Ivy Leage diplomas.  Rabbanim who do not have a college degree are
> likely to be looked down upon as unsophisticated.  (This is true in the
> US.  In Israel, most of the MO rabbanim have no secular education, so
> the situation may be different.)  Al ahat kamah ve-kamah, a baal
> ha-bayyit engaged in physical labor or a menial trade is not considered
> admirable.  That is the negative side.   So RYGB is right when he says
> that MO does not respect labor.  But the ability to support oneself is
> valued by the MO, provided one is engaged in white collar work.  And the
> positive side of this is that the frum ba'al ha-bayyit is considered a
> worthy individual in the MO community.  If that person combines work
> with keviat ittim, he is even more highly regarded.  And the ideal is
> the articulate, educated talmid hakham who also supports himself
> professionally.
>
> As far as texts go, remember that the vast majority of the MO community
> are not intellectuals; most have not read R. Soloveitchik or Dr. Lamm,
> and among those who have read the former, most probably do not
> understand him.  They may look to the Rav as a symbol, but no more.  Dr.
> Lamm's book on Torah u-Madda is not a MO manifesto, but an argument for
> engagement in secular learning.  Its focus is determined by its thesis.
> In any case, in my view, it lacks the nuance, the thoughtfulness, and
> the objectivity of the article by R. Lichtenstein in Judaism's Encounter
> with Other Cultures.
>
> But, as I said, we err if we focus too much on the writings of this or
> that thinker.  The simple reality -- in my experience -- is that the MO
> community respects people who work for a living and the RW community
> does not.
>
> If others' experience differs, I would be interested in hearing from
> them.
>
> Kol tuv,
>
> Eli Clark
>

In a message dated 1/24/00 12:38:58 PM US Central Standard Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< In the modern Orthodox community (at least, to my knowledge), one finds
 the opposite attitude.  A great deal of emphasis -- too much in my view
 -- is placed on the value of secular education, especially prestigious
 Ivy Leage diplomas.  Rabbanim who do not have a college degree are
 likely to be looked down upon as unsophisticated.  (This is true in the
 US.  In Israel, most of the MO rabbanim have no secular education, so
 the situation may be different.)  Al ahat kamah ve-kamah, a baal
 ha-bayyit engaged in physical labor or a menial trade is not considered
 admirable.  That is the negative side.   So RYGB is right when he says
 that MO does not respect labor.  But the ability to support oneself is
 valued by the MO, provided one is engaged in white collar work.  And the
 positive side of this is that the frum ba'al ha-bayyit is considered a
 worthy individual in the MO community.  If that person combines work
 with keviat ittim, he is even more highly regarded.  And the ideal is
 the articulate, educated talmid hakham who also supports himself
 professionally. >>

Is R'Clark talking about "respecting labor," or about the relative prestige 
of labor, or certain types of labor? Is he referring to the intrinsic value 
(on HaShem's scales) of labor vs. study, i.e., being willing to work for less 
money and prestige in exchange for the time to study Torah more intensely? Or 
is he referring to how "highly regarded" one's activities are in the 
community? Are prestige and social status really religious virtues?

Let's factor multi-millionaires and Yale Ph.D.'s out of the picture, along 
with other examples of rare secular success (like being a corporate lawyer at 
a big Wall Street law firm founded, say, by a former Chief Justice of the 
U.S.). Aren't we willing to concede that that standing of the rest of us in 
the community -- MO, RW, it doesn't matter (except for certain Chasids) -- is 
dependent more on the relative prestige of our work than on our willingness 
to forego attaining (or maintaining) such prestige so that we can devote more 
hours to nonremunerative activities? Like family, or studying Torah, or 
volunteer charity work? 

RW Jews are relatively poorer than MO Jews. They often work tougher, more 
physical jobs for less pay and social respect. Ergo, RW is more accepting of 
them than the MO, who are higher up the socio-economic scale and like to 
consider their success to be a virtue. Status. Isn't that all we're really 
talking about? And doesn't that have very little to do with HaShem expects of 
us?

David Finch

Oops! I see that this is indeed a major sticking point and one that I 
overlooked.  I confess to not knowing the full universe of Mendelsohnn's 
shitos.

What I am saying is that there were aspects of his philosophy - EG translating 
chumash into the vernacular - that were rejected during his time and later on 
embraced!

I do not believe too many people in YU embrace Mendelsohnn as a whole. My 
impression is that they embraced at least some of his points including

1) Translating Chumash
2) His Beiur's modern Hebrew style (for-runner perhaps of Hebraist Haskalah)
3) His welcoming the liberal post-ghetto era
4) Warm intellecatual inter-actions with Leesing (sp?), iow openness with 
Gentile cutlure

OTOH, just because Mendelsohn wore a tie does not mean we should not, IOW we 
need not avoid his entire agenda out of some kind of spite.  Rather we 
eclectically take those bits and pieces of it that conform to Mod Orthodoxy.

Remember R. Meier took some Torah from Acheir.  This is very much congruent with
MO thinking.

Rich Wolpoe




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Mendelsohn and MO  
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate 
Date:    1/24/2000 2:59 PM


> It could be said that the TI/EMC/IBC section of YU is less Talmudic and more
> "Mendelsohnnian" as opposed to the the heart of the Yeshiva - RIETS - whic was
> indeed a continuation of Brisker/ Litvisher derech. >
> Rich wolpoe


Chas v'Shalom! Mendelsohn denied the concept of the Chosen People. To put any 
section of Orthodoxy in his camp is a terrible affront.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

Certain taavos can remain dormant or latent until "encouraged".

EG, The taavos for MZ might have always been dormant in a certain segment of hte
population, but those dormat Taavos were not awakened until they were externally
stimulated!

Another EG, the Taavo for Avodah Zoro went "dormant" due to tefillos of the 
Chazal, but they may have been re-channeled.  Several darshonim point to the YH 
for $ as the modern substitue for the YH of Baal or MAMMON <double entendre 
intended!>

And an overly stimluated society might not perform Yibbum with the proper 
intentions either... but a very spiritualy elevated one might.

So the underlying human nature is more-or-less unchanged, but the atmosphere 
that can influence which middos and machshovos get actualized is in flux.

Contrast the 1950's where American was intolerant of open promiscuity and also 
of races and ethnics who did not conform, with the current society that 
tolerares both diversity and promiscuity.

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Histaklus BaNashim 
 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<I also think it while it is true that basic human nature does not 
change, their are certain societal and peer pressures that DO change.>>

	IOW,  the basic human nature was always that women could have hirhurim 
as well as men;  just that normal society (i.e., as distinguished from 
that around us in this day and age) prevented their actualization?  If I 
understand you correctly,

	a) This fits well with the Gemaras re:  nashim da'atan kalos,  etc. 
	b) I wonder how RCS fits this in with his observation on harchakos.

Gershon

And an extremely clever esheis chayil gets her way and has her husband think its
HIS idea. <SMILE>

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Women's position vis-a-vis husband 

(The following story is probably somewhat mangled, but the point is there.)

Rabbi Ciner, in his weekly parashah page, once described a conversation with 
his then-future grandmother-in-law, a real matriarchal figure -- someone who 
saved her family when her town was evacuated, etc...

He asked what she thought the man's role in a marriage should be. Her reply: 
"The man? He's the undisputed head of the family!" He was shocked, as this 
answer didn't fit the image he had built in his mind of her, given all the 
family stories he had heard. "And what's the woman's role?" "The woman? She's 
the neck." The grandmother paused. "The neck moves the head."

-mi

should be lehsitakel beyfoyo

and Vatiso ... not tatiso


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Histaklus B'nashim  
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    1/24/2000 12:35 PM


re: Yoseif

Bonos Tzaoda alei shur (breishis 49:22)

See Rashi bnos mitzrayim hoyu... lehistalek byofyo

Also tatiso ..eineho el Yoseif (39:7)

Isn't there a midrash re: Shaul that women engaged him on coversation just to be
able to spend time with him - Apparently becase they thought he was tall and 
good-looking?!

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Histaklus B'nashim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate 
Date:    1/24/2000 3:27 AM


It is my understanding that one suggestion in Gemara Berachos 48b clearly 
indicates that Hazal believed that women find men attaractive and desire to 
gaze at them. In trying to explain why the young women at the well (Shmuel 
I:9) engaged in lengthy conversation with Shaul (who was just asking for 
directions), the Gemara suggests "Kdei Lehistakel Byofyo shel Shaul".

I was once told that the Satmar Rebbe brings that Gemara as a source for 
building Mechitzos such that the women cannot see the men, just as the men 
cannot see the women.

Shalom Berger
Yerushalayim

fwiw, R. Weiss told us it was ok to lick meat w/o swallowing to determine if it 
had been salted.  IOW, te'imo b'almo was ok to determine if something were 
kosher.

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Histakluth-3 additional comments 

1) There is a well known Gmarrah that one tanna said that 
Rachav the prostitute was so beautiful that anyone mentioning
her name twice immediately had a seminal emission. To this statement 
another tanna replied "But I just said RACHAV RACHAV and nothing 
happened to me. The first tanna responded "I meant that only to 
people who knew her"

I infer from this Gmarrah that the 2nd tanna had the right to
"Test" whether this particular stimulus evoked emission. I interpret 
this to mean that since things that result in (droplets) of seminal 
emission
is drabbanan he need not be concerned to test it.

<snip>

Russell Hendel; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/ 
________________________________________________________________ 

In message , Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
> But I'm not sure if I would have been any better off 
>had the seating been mixed as my wife only knew three or four 
>people on the women's side.

I know we are still newly weds, and it shows, but I assumed that if the
seating were mixed you had a 100% success rate, assuming you were
married, in that the person you most enjoyed talking to was there to
talk to.


>This may well be a separate topic, but it is one that interests me 
>all the same. At what age do you all think it is inappropriate for a 
>girl to sit with her father in shul? I'm interested in hearing any and 
>all opinions.... Especially if anyone has halachic sources....

I'm not bringing halachic sources for a change (although I think they
support me - everything i have seen says 3 ideally, and 8-9 at worst),
but my view is never - or at least, she shouldn't sit with her father
once she is of an age to understand that boys go one place and girls sit
elsewhere.

I realise that the latter is not practical if the mother is at home with
the babies, and they are not yet of an age where they can go
unsupervised and there are no older sisters, grandmothers, friends
available, but even then, I would say at the age they are old enough to
sit by themselves in the women's section.

The alternative (and the common practice in MO shuls) of basmitzvah is,
IMHO very very destructive, as you are setting up a banishment
situation.  Up to a certain age she can sit with her Daddy, and then,
suddenly she can't, just at an age when she is feeling most vulnerable
and uncertain about wanting to be a woman. The alternative makes it
clear there are places for boys and places for girls in shul and girls
belong in the girl places just as boys belong in the boy places.

Of course, this also means you will need to ensure the women's places a
more attractive place for a girl to want to be, if you want your
daughters to continue to come, but that would not be a bad thing in and
of itself.

Just my 2 pence

>
>- -- Carl

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In message , DFinchPC@aol.com writes
>In a message dated 1/21/00 1:26:46 PM US Central Standard Time, 
>hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
>
><< Women simply do not have Hirhurei Aveirah when they
> watch men dancining, probably even eroticly.
>  >>
>
>This is not consistent with the observation and experience of many of my, uh, 
>friends. ("Doc, my friend has this wierd pain in his foot. . . . ") Nor is it 
>consistent with the science (real science, like it or not) of physical sexual 
>response, about which contemporary neurologists know a lot.
>

I think rather than saying that women do not have hirhurim, I think it
is fairer to say that the halacha regards hirhurim for men as inherently
distructive, while by women it can be regarded as something positive and
even constructive (see, for example, the famous story about R' Yochanan
on Brochas 20a: R' Yochanan was extremely beautiful to look upon, and he
would regularly sit himself outside the mikvah so the women who had
toyvelled would see him and go home and have children as beautiful as he
was.  And the Chachmim asked about his yetza hora, but don't appear to
worry about those of the women's).  I doubt very much, however, that the
situation would have been acceptable were the genders reversed (NB there
is a halacha that a man is forbidden to think of another woman when he
is with his wife, but it would seem to suggest from this gemorra that
the reverse would not be true).

It may be that, on a purely secular plane, that male hirhurim are
destructive of the marriage relationship, while female hirhurim may not
be (and it would seem therefore appropriate to me that to the extent
that they are, that they would ossur).

However, whether or not this is true in terms of maintaining a healthy
and vibrant "secular" marriage, it must be true from the point of view
of kedusha, given that that is the ultimate source of these
prohibitions.

>David Finch
>


Regards

Chana
-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In message , DFinchPC@aol.com writes
>In a message dated 1/22/00 1:54:47 PM US Central Standard Time, 
>Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
><< [Re: Harry Maryles's post] I understand the distinction.  However, dispite 
>your dislike of sources,
> to me you really need to go back to them to fully understand the issue. >>
>
From my exposure to him, R'Maryles has no dislike of sources. 

I have already written to R'Maryles to apologise to him offline about
the way this came out.  To explain, R'Maryles and I have a friendly
machlokos about quoting sources on this list.  He believe that,
especially as it is a machshava list, to go and look up sources takes
away from the spontenaity, which is one of the things he values here,
while for me, one of the things that I most value about this list is
that it forces me to go and look things up - I meant my comment in that
context, forgetting that other readers would not understand the
underlying dialogue.

>I don't know (and doubt I'd complete understand) the halacha on whether 
>histalkus is assur even in relation to a woman's little finger, as you 
>suggest. I agree that even a female finger can trigger histalkus. Anything 
>can trigger histalkus, including all sorts of images that are superficially 
>nonsexual. We all know that. The only sure way to rid ourselves of histalkus 
>is to try to turn ourselves into nonsexual beings. I can't think of 
>*anything* that'll rid the world of Judaism quicker than that. No desire, no 
>sex, no children, no dor l'dor. We'll be gone in two generations. Did HaShem 
>create us that way?
>

The idea is that certain desires are meant to be controlled and used
appropriately, and that kedusha means separating oneself from improper
uses of such desires.  While certain strands of thought within
Yiddishkeit are pretty puritanical (cf the Rambam), the Ramban and
others hold differently. The key is the appropriate context which in
this case is between a man and his wife.  None of these rules apply
between a man and his wife (and, as mentioned, when a man is choosing a
wife), which should ensure the continuation for as many generations as
are required. 

The issue, and the only issue, is outside of marriage and yes, I think
it is fair to say that the halacha wants us to be "nonsexual beings"
outside of marriage. To the extent that we cannot achieve that, I think
you will find that there is an issur.

>Another thing. I'm not sure I buy the theory that too many books leads to 
>immodest looks. But if, as you say, talmid chachim are particularly 
>vulnerable or susceptible to being twisted around and led astray by their 
>(hidden) sexual impulses, then why would the rest of us allow them to be 
>poskim on this subject? Shouldn't they be disqualified? Or at least taken 
>with a grain of salt?
>

The issue of desensitisation is something that occurs in many contexts.
Almost any adult can pick up something hot which would send a child
howling with pain.  Somebody who has spent her life working in the
kitchen with hot food even more so.  Our fingers become desensitised, as
do our mouths to hot food and drink.  And likewise too many cups of
coffee mean that you need more caffene to get the same buzz you used to.

The same thing is true of visual stimulus (in fact that is how we
operate.  People learn to identify those things that are new and hence
threatening by blocking out those things that remain the same and to
which they have become habituated. If they did not we would be so
overwhelmed by the sense impressions pouring into our eyes that we could
not function).

The same is true in terms of morality.  If everybody around you does X,
it becomes much easier to tolerate, and one becomes less and less
horrified.

But that does not mean that the desensitised position is the ideal. In
hilchos shabbas, we have a measure of yad soledet bo (too hot to touch),
but we do not measure it by reference to your grandmother's teflon
fingers, but by the sensitive skin of a baby, that is the definition of
heat.

Likewise we may well seek for matters psak from those who have been less
desensitised to the moral dumbing down of our day - but that means that,
by definition, they are more likely to be overwhelmed by the equivalent
of an application of heat (just as a child with their sensitive skin
will).

>David Finch
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In message , Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>
>Secondly, more importantly, it seems to me that everyone here is missing an
>important point. The mechitza is not so necessary for the men who will not
>watch. They will not watch. Personally, the presence of a mechitza is not
>essential for me as I will not go to watch the women dance. But, many women
>are loathe to dance when there is no mechitza because the fact is that there
>are men who will wander over to watch the women dance. Perhaps their
>thoughts are entirely pure, but who knows? A mechitza creates a private
>space that men are far less likely to invade to watch the dances. (Not
>always - I have seen at weddings, for example, at the Palmer House here in
>Chicago, where there is a balcony in the main ballroom, men avoiding the
>restrictions of the mechitza by going to the balcony in order to watch the
>women dance.) Many women are sensitive to being a michshol in this respect
>(remember the Gemara in Ta'anis about, I believe, R' Yosi d'min Yukras).
>There are women who have asked me whether they may dance at weddings where
>there is no mechitza for this reason. Ashreihen! B'zechus nashim tzidkani'os
>nig'alu! But why prevent them from dancing if all it takes is a mechitza?
>

I am not objecting to the mechitza for dancing. The issue is though, if
the mechitza is not there, or not high enough to prevent possible
looking, are women to be prevented from dancing (which is what they
would like to do as your questioners would not ask the question if they
preferred to sit at the table) on the grounds of lifnei iver. The
suggestions on this list has been that if the hosts do not provide a
mechitza, then women are prohibited from dancing (to follow up from my
post, it would seem to me that, the thoughtful thing to do is to provide
at least some form of mechitza (at my own wedding, where we were
juggling a range (well quite a spectrum) of different levels, we had the
standard pot plant mechitza, ie not a completely blocking view, as there
were gaps between the potplants, but not an easy view either) and we
also sat the rabbis table and the frum single tables on the men's side
(while the tables on the women's side included the secular kibbutznik
family etc).  However, despite the opinon of R Henkin, we particularly
wanted mixed seating for the singles - because both of us, having been
on the single scene a long time, knew that weddings were often the best
places to meet potential spouses (eg my husband's brother met his wife
at a wedding, and we know lots more like that) - because here you have
two people with different social circles (and usually him with more male
friends and her with more female) where a compatibility has already been
established between the circles.

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

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

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

> The simple reality -- in my
> experience -- is that the MO
> community respects people who work for a living and
> the RW community
> does not.

I believe Eli is totally on target. And I think both
the MO and the RW are way off base when it comes to
the way the MO values those who learn full time and
the way the RW value those who work. 

Sad to say the attitude amongst the RW Roshei Yeshiva
is very negative about choosing work over learning.  I
wonder if this attitude is just a subtle instilling in
Talmidei HaYeshiva or a more direct instilling. But
whatever  it is it hurts Judaism.

By the same token the typical MO Bal Habos has 
virtually no respect for learning full time.  It has
no positive value to them. Oh, they pay lip service to
it and often support community Kollelim, but the truth
comes out when the young children of the MO
unwittingly say a disparaging remark to a Rosh Kollel.
This actually happened when R. Zucker, RK of the CCK,
spoke to an eighth grade boys class in Chicago.  One
boy asked him why doesn't he get up and work for a
living. This attitude is brought from the home.  That
boy was of course reprimanded but, the attitude exists
in the MO world and the acceptance into an Ivy League
college is the all important goal for these parents. 
While it is laudible to seek entry to a good school
there has to be a sense of priority which there is
not. Learning Torah is not valued enough. This  hurts
Judaism, too.

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         ]