Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 320

Tuesday, January 25 2000

• Mitzvah Opportunity
• Torah hi, was: Histaklus BaNashim
• MO vs RW
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: KSA, wurst and oysvorfs
• Re[4]: Histakluth-3 additional comments
• Re: R. Rakefets Motsi shem Ra
• Mendelssohn and the singular destiny of the Jewish people
• Re: MO vs RW
• Re: Histaklus ba'anashim
• Re: Daughters in the Ladies Section (was Histaklus beNashim)
• Re: R. Rakefets Motsi shem Ra
• Re: MO vs RW
• Re: Mendelssohn and the singular destiny of the Jewish people
• Re: R. Rakefets Motsi shem Ra
• Re: Mendelssohn

Micha, This is submitted for your approval prior to being posted to Avodah.  I 
understand if you don't want to start a landslide of advertising.

Gil
____________________________
The Lakewood Minyan of Flatbush, in conjunction with Gemach Chasdei Avraham, has
commissioned the writing of a new Sefer Torah to used in battei aveil.  They are
making available the opportunity to the community to participate in this mitzvah
de'oraisa by sponsoring for the writing of letters.  Each letter is $18 and 
sponsors can choose which letters they wish to have written on their behalf.  
Send your name, your choice of letters, and a tax deductible check to Reiz 1315 
East 10th St. Brooklyn, NY 11230.  Make checks out to Cong. Beth Medrash Gevoha 
of Flatbush.  For more details and an order form see 
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/NewTorah/

[Posted with the approval of the moderator]

Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:06:29 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Histaklus BaNashim

<<While I haven't been following this thread too closely,my general
reaction is 
that any discussion that falls into the category of "Tora he vllmod ani 
tzarich"(Brachot 62.) should be allowed subject to the reasonable bounds
set 
by our esteemed listmaster.>>

	This is an interesting point.  First,  is Torah hi velilmod ani tzarich
only Rav Cahana's reasoning in the Gemara,  or can we use it as well,
lema'aseh?  To the extent he did?  Are there mitigating circumstances for
a "mixed" discussion as R' Micha pointed out?  Can a woman who,  shall we
say for argument's sake,  is permitted to learn Torah in the same way as
a man,  use the same reasoning?

	Are there gedorim to this in a practical sense and if so what are they?

Gershon

Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:36:11 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[2]: MO vs RW 

<<fwiw I once attended a Bris.  The father of the rach hanimol said that
his son 
should grow up to be a big ba'al tzedokoh etc. like his grandfather after
whom 
he is named...

The LOR got up and exlaimed he should be talmid chochom too etc.  IOW the
brocho
of being a "gvir" to support Torah was insufficient in that LOR's eyes.>>

	Or in the eyes of the entire tzibur,  who had just finished saying,  in
order,
leTorah lechupa ulema'asim tovim.  

	Is being a talmid chochom not what we desire in (ourselves and in) our
children?

	Or maybe the father meant "he should be a big talmid chochom AND a big
ba'al tzedoko?

Gershon

In a message dated 1/25/00 6:12:27 AM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< The post below first appeared on MJ it was distributed
 by a talmid of R. Rakkefet-Rothkoff based on a sicha
 he gave to his talmidim in at Gruss.  Eventhough it is
 lengthy it addresses the very issue we are talking
 about here, and is very worthy reading.
  >>

Thanks, Harry, for the post. It seems the rebbe had a lot to get off his 
chest. I'm sure he feels better now.

It points to something that hits home. My father emigrated from a shetl near 
Kiev in 1920. The Jews in that area were neither Chasids nor Litvishe. 
Outside of shul, I don't think they separated the sexes all that much, i.e., 
at the marketplace, eating at home, weddings, etc. They also didn't obsess 
about the halachic regulation of sexuality. (I used to think that a mechitza 
was intended to allow men to schmooze freeley with each other without being 
constantly "shushhed" by their wives.)

How much of this entire topic is the creation of certain Northern European 
thinkers whose adherents, for a variety of historical reasons, have come to 
hold sway in the RW world today? 

David Finch

I atrribute the kurt response from some rebbes to the negative litvisher trati 
of not "suffering fools gladly".  The prototpyical Litvisher lamdan was sharp in
the many senses of the word, sharp in the sense of insightful and sharp in the 
sens of impatient...

Perhaps the mussar movement was meant to address this character flaw,

or perhaps litvaks saw vigilance re: "silly" questions a "kin'as soferim" 
technique that werve to "keep talmidim on their toes" but who knows? <smile>

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: KSA, wurst and oysvorfs 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    1/24/2000 7:36 PM


I haven't heard of the KSA as such an impetus for straying from the path. 
What I have heard is more of the sausage-factory approach as a source
of discomfort.  That is, people complain that the "rabbis" in school 
(Mir, in the case of one person I talked with last week, or wherever) 
would say "that's a bad question" and not answer questions if they arose
outside of a particular range.  Whether that was caused by a sausage-factory 
mentality, or just a lack of desire on the part of the rebbe to deal with 
uncomfortable or elementary questions, I don't know.  A short-story writer, 
Nathan Englander, also wrote about this as his impetus for leaving Orthodoxy:

: <snip>

-JJB

clarifcation: I never said one SHOULD make that leap, I just left open the 
possiblity. (that's why I preface it it fwiw) 

Personally, I agree it's too big a leap for me, neverhteless I do udnerstand the
concept of "testing".

Rich Wolpoep 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Histakluth-3 additional comments  
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 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.
  >>

The leap from Rachav to kashruth is too big for me. Anyhow, salted meat 
*smells* salted -- and any butcher can tell whether meat is adequately salted 
by looking at it and handling it a little. You don't have to lick it. 

Rachav wasn't forbidden in the same sense. One dealt with a difficult and 
sometimes overpowering human impulse. The other deals with sanctified food. I 
mean, if you see a plate of Lobster Newburg, are you supposed to say, 
"Lobster, Lobster," and then succumb to over overwhelming desire to consume 
it?

David Finch

In a message dated 1/25/00 7:33:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, Harry Maryles 
quotes Rabbi Rakefet:
<< But you cannot deny
 that in Lakewood there is guy living with a pilegesh,
 bifnai am veaidah [before the nation and the
 community]. He has two apartments, two "wives", two
 sets of children.  >>
Sheker V'chazav. An out and out blatant lie. May Hashem forgive R. Rakefet 
for his horrible motsi shem ra. I lived in Lakewood for many years, including 
the year of R. Rakefet gave this speech. Neither I or anybody I spoke to ever 
heard of such an individual. Nor is it even remotely possible that one ever 
existed. Over the years Lakewood, like any community, has had its share of 
tragic stories and unfortunate incidents committed by certain individuals. 
But such stories are the ones that unfortunately happen all over (and which a 
recent post questioned what is the proper way to deal with it). But to claim 
that somebody has 2 "wives" bifnei am veada is so ridiculous that it really 
doesn't deserve a response. The only reason I do respond is because some seek 
to find fault with haredim and right wingers (which for the record I belong 
to neither group) and will believe anything negative about them. The 
overwhelming majority of Lakewood consists of beautiful young families where 
the husbands and wives treat each other with love and respect.

The rest of R. Rakefets remarks also contain many untruths. The attitude he 
writes about which the Steipler wrote a letter criticizing represents the 
approach in benai berak about as much as the lunatics who recently met with 
Farakhan represent mainstream haredi views. (I do not want to go into more 
details on this topic because of the sensitivities expressed by our esteemed 
listmaster, and which I definitely agree).

> fine tune the issue. I.e., Mendelssohn believed that Jews were bound by
> Sinai, and basically that is their tough luck.

Mendelssohn himself would have been rejected the phrase "tough luck." He
certainly regarded it as an essential role for which G-d has chosen the
Jew. He is, in my opinion guilty of not having offered a strong enough
alternative to the "tough luck" interpretation.

 On the other hand, there
> is, in M's opinion, no inherent validity to Judaism over any other
> religion,

This phrase is unclear.


> certainly not a leading role,

Yes a leading role!


> for revelation is not inherent
> proof of validity,

He adopts the same position as the Kuzari, that the public nature of
maamad har Sinai validates the content.



> nor are dogmas essential to Judaism.

If this means that Jews are not required to accept certain beliefs, this
is not true. Existence of G-d and the like can be known by reason alone,
according to M, but other beliefs are based upon the Torah. They are
reasonable beliefs because belief in Torah is reasonable  (see above).

If it means that G-d could have NOT included these beliefs in the Torah,
and that therefore they are not really ESSENTIAL, I don't know that M ever
engaged in such speculation.

 Thus, any advocate
> of pure reason coming to conclusions rexched thereby has as much
> legitimacy as one who maitains his laws were revealed at Sinai (perhaps
> more). If I understand correctly, M would not subscribe to the Rambam's
> view that a gentile must fulfill sheva mitzvos becaue Hashem commanded
> them in order to get OH - aderaba!

Correct. M suggested to R. Yaakov Emden that the Rambam is a daat yahid.
R. Yaakov Emden disagreed with M on this.


> V'yesh l'ha'arich, but I refer thiose interested in M's abberations to the
> EJ entry on the person and his beliefs. (There are more.)

I haven't looked at the entry. Encyclopedias, however, have been known to
be imprecise & to repeat cliches, therefore of limited use for serious
analysis, and this one (published 30 years ago) can also get out of date.
For anyone interested in MM's Jewish convictions, I recommend Edward
Breuer's book, based on a Harvard Dissertation.

imho that rabbi was pre-supposing that:

1) we should wish for the highest goals for our children (so do I but read on) 
2) being a talmid chochom is the highest goal,
3) a gvir baal tzedokoh is therfore somwhat "inferior"
4) we do NOT value different communal roles equally but favor some over the 
expense of others
5) Therefore people who are communal leaders are "inferior" to talmidei 
Chachomim and in order to avoid this do we propose to mold potential gvirim into
Talmide chachomim thereby molding square pegs into round wholes?  Doesn't this 
sound like what Hirsch said was "wrong" in the way eisav was raised?

Is Zevulun's role any less worthy of the broch of l'Torah than Yissachar's?


Rich Wolpoe 



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: MO vs RW 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate 
Date:    1/25/2000 9:56 AM


Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:36:11 -0500 
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[2]: MO vs RW 

<<fwiw I once attended a Bris.  The father of the rach hanimol said that 
his son 
should grow up to be a big ba'al tzedokoh etc. like his grandfather after 
whom 
he is named...

The LOR got up and exlaimed he should be talmid chochom too etc.  IOW the 
brocho
of being a "gvir" to support Torah was insufficient in that LOR's eyes.>>

	Or in the eyes of the entire tzibur,  who had just finished saying,  in 
order,
leTorah lechupa ulema'asim tovim.  

	Is being a talmid chochom not what we desire in (ourselves and in) our 
children?

	Or maybe the father meant "he should be a big talmid chochom AND a big 
ba'al tzedoko?

Gershon

Ok Gersohn I'll bite.  Just what do you suppose that gazing in the gemoro was 
about?

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

From: "Berger" <rachelbe@netvision.net.il> 
<<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".>>

	This is not the issue;  it is the intent of the "gazing" which is being 
discussed.

Gershon

Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:


> I think that depends on when you take your daughter to shul. If you
> only take her to shul on Shabbos morning when there are lots of
> people, then she will often have many examples to follow. But I find
> that it is easier on the kids if I start them going to shul at times
> when davening is shorter, e.g. Friday night (and in the States my
> real starter was Sunday Mincha, but that is not an option here).
> That can lead to a practical problem - if she is the only one there,
> who will show her the place?



She comes with me Shabbat morning and afternoon. You're absolutely
right, though, it would be next to impossible without the girls to help
out.



> But are you teaching her how to daven, or are you teaching her
> how to sit still in shul? If she can't read yet, then obviously you are
> teaching her how to sit still in shul, and that's an important lesson.
> But what will happen when she can read and you want to teach her
> how to daven?



We make time for that at home. Sometimes she'll sit in shul with a
siddur and say the alef-bet while pointing to the letters, but learning
time is at home. She'll grab her alef-bet book and come running. And we
do tefillot ba'al peh for now. So she gets some of both.

It could be that my daughter gets more attention in this area than some
kids, since I'm constantly trying to keep up with "fixing" what she
learns from Morah Goldie. But it's not that difficult and quite
rewarding.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to impose my own experience on the discussion. I
just wanted to illustrate my thought that once the girls understand
seperate seating I don't see why they'd want to sit in the mens'
section.


> I don't know if you have older children,


Not yet. Soon enough, BE"H.


 but from my
> experience, most schools do a woefully inadequate job of teaching
> our children what is said in davening outside of school. 



Absolutely. So it's up to us. What do I have to do that's more important
than teaching my kids to daven?



> disturb in shul), and if you don't teach her how to follow in the
> siddur, she will not learn it until much, much later.


I agree wholeheartedly. But I don't think shul is the place for that
instruction.



> You'd better discuss that with her then. But as you have more and
> more children in the house, it becomes more and more difficult for
> a wife to get to shul, at least until you reach the point that you have
> an older child who can help your wife out. We reached that point
> when our eldest was about 12-13.



B"H we have older girls in our shul whose greatest joy on Shabbat
morning is seeing my wife and kids. When they get there, the kids
disappear and Leah is free to daven.



> I don't think Chana had tablecloths and flowers in mind. I think what
> Chana had in mind is the "minhag" of male latecomers using the
> women's section to hide, the practice in many shuls of using the
> women's section as an extra minyan room, the practice in many
> shuls of the women's section being unavailable to women most of
> the time.



In that case, I agree completely. Happily, I've never seen any of these
practices. In my bet knesset, any man who tried to "hide out" in the
womens' section would be treated to glares enough to chase him out, and
I doubt he'd try it again. Perhaps what the women need is to take back
their own section.



> If you bring your daughter to shul, and there is another
> minyan going in the ladies section, or she cannot hear from the
> ladies section, or the ladies section abuts two different minyan
> rooms, and once the second minyan starts she can no longer hear
> the first one, she is not going to want to sit there once she is old
> enough to have to sit there and to understand what is happening.



Then it's probably time to find another shul.


---sam

In a message dated 1/25/00 10:38:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Tobrr111@aol.com writes:

<< 
 Sheker V'chazav. An out and out blatant lie. May Hashem forgive R. Rakefet 
 for his horrible motsi shem ra. I lived in Lakewood for many years, 
including 
 the year of R. Rakefet gave this speech. Neither I or anybody I spoke to 
ever 
 heard of such an individual. Nor is it even remotely possible that one ever 
 existed. >>

Assumedly this would not have been a topic for discussion in Lakewood since 
it would have been Lashon Hara or Motzei shem ra (or were these discussions 
you undertook after HM's post to have the toelet of determining the story's 
accuracy?) I'd hesitate to label someone a motzei shem ra without being 100% 
sure.

I'm also curious as to why this situation could have never existed - Are the 
current pilegesh stories untrue as well(I really don't know)?

I certainly agree that an entire community should not be painted with 
anecdotal aberrations. Is there a substantial segment that views a wife as 
simply a "chefzah shel mitzvah" - I doubt that there is any objective way to 
answer this question.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 1/25/00 10:51:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 Is Zevulun's role any less worthy of the broch of l'Torah than Yissachar's?
 
 
 Rich Wolpoe 
  >>
I would assume not (at least in HKBH's eyes) but that's not the message being 
given today is IMHO. 

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Well, in this case I must revise my dan l'kaf zechus. With a swipe at the
inaccuracy of an EJ sympatheric to M, RSC continues to defend, pendantically
and mysteriously, a figure of epic distortions.

So be it. Guess the MO world, in some of its strains, does glorify M.

I retract my defense.

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

I do not see why R' Rakkefet merits your defense more than an entire
community.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <Joelirich@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: R. Rakefets Motsi shem Ra


> Assumedly this would not have been a topic for discussion in Lakewood
since
> it would have been Lashon Hara or Motzei shem ra (or were these
discussions
> you undertook after HM's post to have the toelet of determining the
story's
> accuracy?) I'd hesitate to label someone a motzei shem ra without being
100%
> sure.
>
> I'm also curious as to why this situation could have never existed - Are
the
> current pilegesh stories untrue as well(I really don't know)?
>
> I certainly agree that an entire community should not be painted with
> anecdotal aberrations. Is there a substantial segment that views a wife as
> simply a "chefzah shel mitzvah" - I doubt that there is any objective way
to
> answer this question.
>
> Kol Tuv,
> Joel Rich
>

To me, Moses Mendelssohn is perhaps one of the most
enigmatic people in the History of the Jewish people.
Did he personify "good" or "evil"?  Probably neither. 
I think he is a victim of history and I don't believe
we will ever really know the absolute truth about his
beliefs. 

Mendelssohn was born in the early 1700's and was
educated in the traditional jewish way.  He was a
strong advocate of the Enlightenment, himself aquiring
a wide knowledge of math and philosophy and a strong
command of the German language. He attributed his
hunchback to the day and night study of Jewish
Philosophy. The Rambam, he would claim, gave him his
hump, but he loved him nevertheless.

(In an interesting footnote, an essay submitted to the
Berlin Academy received first prize, even over that
submitted by Immanuel Kant.)

He was greatly respected and admired by the German
secular world, nevertheless he remained a staunchly,
observant Jew. (The term "Orthodox" had not yet been
coined). Because of the great respect he garnered in
the non jewish, christian world he was constantly
being asked to renounce Judaism.  He not only did NOT
do that but resolved to strengthen his own people.

His devotion to Halacha was absolute. He stated
uniquivically the Torah was not subject to the whim of
subtle reasoning which cannot release us from the
rigid obedience to Halacha. This, however, did not
prevent us from seeking self improvement which he
defined as a sort of assimilation into general society
while remaining 100% loyal to the Torah.

One of the biggest deficiencies he perceived was the
inability of the Jewish people to speak the German
language properly which, delayed their assimiliation
and acceptance into society which that enabled. To
improve that situation he wrote the "Biur" which was a
translation into perfect German of the Torah.  This,
he hoped would serve as "textbook" of the German
language. 

This was roundly condemned by many of the Gedolei
Hador, such as R. Yechezkal Landau (The Noda
Beyehuda). There were even threats of Cherem for
anyone who used the Biur, eventhough there was nothing
heretical in it what so ever. The grounds for the
rejection was fear of rejection of the Torah through
assimilation by learning to speak German too well (the
very thing that Mendelssohn was trying to accomplish
L'Shma). This may be the very first incidence of the
clash between 2 Hashkafos: RW and MO.  

However, he was ahead of his time. The philosophy of
"A Jew in the home and a man (Mentch) in the street"
was taken by his followers to mean rejection of
Halacha when it interfered with Societal acceptance.
RSRH's TIDE has virtually the same message but by the
time he established it, Haskala was the clearly
defined enemy and he was better equipped to deal with
it. If I am not mistaken TIDE was designed to
counteract Haskala.  

It was the fashion of the day to gather in the
"salons" of prominent people and argue and debate
various philosophies.  Mendelsshon was a very popular
"invitee" to such parlors and attracted lots of young
Jewish intellectuals who became disciples. These
disciples were ill prepared to handle his ideas about
combining assimilation with loyalty to the Torah and
because of his actions his disciples embraced the
enlightenment and rejected the inviobility of the SA.
They became the founding fathers of Haskalah and
ultimately the Reform movement. 

In the end, it's hard to say if Mendelsshon was a hero
or villain.  To point to his descendants as apostates
is not a legitimate argument because no one can be
responsible for the actions of their later
generations. By way of example, I'm told that all of
R. Akiva Eiger's descendants are not religeous today,
either.

Whether Hero or villain, one thing I believe
historians agree upon is that he did believe in Torah
MiSinai and the inviobility of the SA.

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         ]