Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 321

Tuesday, January 25 2000

• Histaklus etc
• Re: MO vs RW
• Re: Mendelssohn and the singular destiny of the Jewish people
• Re: Fwd (gil.student@citicorp.com): Mitzvah Opportunity
• BRACHA AT A BRIS
• Re[2]: MO vs RW
• Re: R. Rakefets Motsi shem Ra
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: MO vs RW
• Mendelssohn and the singular destiny of the Jewish people
• Ban on Internet (con)
• Re: Torah hi, was: Histaklus BaNashim
• Recall: Ban on Internet (con)
• [none]
• Re: Re[2]: MO vs RW
• Re: Mendelssohn and the singular destiny of the Jewish peopl
• Re: Pilegesh
• Re:Mendelsohn
• Re[2]: Mendelsohn
• Re[2]: Pilegesh
• Re[2]: Mendelsohn

As a newcomer to this list, I am surprised by the verbosity on such topics
as histaklus be'nashim and MO vs RW.

Does any orthodox person on this list really hold that histaklus (in
contadiction to ri'ah) is allowed any more in this day and age then back
in the days of the Mechaber? And do we measure our Jewish values by that
what is acceptable by current day goyishe media?

Certain correspondants appear to place emphasis on apparent dual standards
by those who sit mixed at home but separated by mehitzot in public
gatherings.

Intermingling and not histaklus would appear to be the reason for
mehitzot. Thus in a small closed CONTROLLED gathering where there is not a
great likelyhood of kallas rosh, a mehizah is not usually required
especially where all present respect and *conform* to acceptable halachic
practices such as zniut in clothing.

As far as the MO vs RW contoversy, I really fail to see the connection
unless RW is a stab at charedism rather than right wing in political
terms.

Perhaps this list could deal with finding ways of upholding the fence. Of
how the 21st Century can be adapted to Judaism, rather than the opposite
of Judaism having to adapt to the 21st Century - and to be honest is this 
not the main difference in hashkafa between MO and CO (Charedi orthodoxy).

Daniel

On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:51:00 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
> 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?>>

	No it doesn't.   We DO value certain roles over others.  Do you doubt
that the talmid chochom is at the top of the communal pyramid,  at least
in theory?  Therefore,  when a child is wished at his bris to be the best
possible person he can be,  does it not mean a talmid chochom?

	This is not to say everyone should be shoehorned into the same mold. 
But even Esav didn't show his characteristics at his bris.  Is this child
(or any) to be pigeonholed into being a baal tzedoko at the expense of
being a talmid chochom at this point in his life?  Or should we at least
hope that he attain that lofty level?

	Note:  my distinction in the words of that rabbi was:

	TC+gvir vs. Gvir only; meaning one at the expense of the other.
	Please do not assume I meant that the choice was otherwise.

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

	I think so.  If a person can be one or the other,   which of course is a
practical impossibility (having the choice,  that is),  shouldn't he
choose Yissachar?  Gvirim who are Zvuluns have been known to regret their
not having become Yissachars (yeh,  easy for him to say <g>!)

Gershon 

I am not interested in taking more time to peruse Mendelssohn from the
source texts.

My understanding of Mendelssohn may find its confirmation in a broad array
of secondary texts, from Graetz, "History of the Jews" The Epoch of
Regeneration Chap. 1 (in the edition I have at home, HPC 1919, vol. 5 pp.
332-333); to R' Berel Wein's "Triumph of Survival", see p. 45.

Those of you who defend Mendelssohn's theology, take heed and tread warily:
You do so at your own, significant, peril.

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

I'm very sorry!  I must have e-mailed it to the wrong address.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Fwd (gil.student@citicorp.com): Mitzvah Opportunity
Author:  micha (micha@aishdas.org) at INTERNET
Date:    01/25/2000 11:39 AM


: 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.
     
No it wasn't.
     
-mi
     
-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 25-Jan-00: Shelishi, Yisro 
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 104b 
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

	<<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.>>

	As someone who just recently made a bris, I can relate to the post
by  R' Wolpe.
	The following is what I said over at my son's bris:
	The targum yonasan ben uziel on the bracha of "Yismcha Elokim
K'Ephraim U'Menashe" explains that this bracha is what is said at a bris.
The obvious question is a) what is the meaning of this bracha and b) why say
it at a bris. Various meforshim (including the Netziv) point out that
Ephraim and Menashe had 2 seperate roles in their avodas hashem. Ephraim
role was in the bais medrash (as seen in  Yehoshua-the talmud muvhak of
Moshe rabbeinu) while menashe's role was "out in the world". Menashe's role
was epitomized by Gideon who was a general par excellance whose hatzlachah
came in the battlefield.  (It should be pointed out that it is obvious that
Menashe's success will only come if it is tied back to an Ephraim i.e.
recognizing the role the torah and mitzvos play in our lives. It is probably
for this reason that the bracha is "You should be like Ephraim AND Menashe"
and not "Ephraim OR Menashe". The vav is a vav hachibur connecting the 2
together)
		 The Netziv  asks that we generally give a brachah that is
appropriate to that individual. For example, we wouldn't give a bracha of
chachma to a buisnessman and likewise we wouldn't give a bracha of success
in buisness to a talmid chachmah. That being the case, why are we giving
this child 2 distinct brachos? Either we should give him a bracha for
success in the beis medrash or give him a brachah for success in th eoutside
world. The Netziv answers that we don't know which path this child will
take. Only now is he beginning his avodas hashem and we have no idea where
this path will lead. Therefore, we give him both brachos. We are giving the
bracha that he should have hatzlachah in whichever path he will ultimately
take. 
		As an addional point, I think this is what is meant in teh
bracha of "kshem shnichnas l'bris kein yichanes leTorah lechupa ulema'asim
tovim". The torah represents the Ephraim and the chupa and ma'asim tovim
represent the Menashe.
		

Are you happy with the rabbi implying that the grandfather after whom the child 
was named was somehow inferior?

Do you consider THAT appropirate?  Do you think the rabbi did the "right thing" 
in amending the father's brocho that the newborn would emulate the grandfather 
after whom he was named?

If avoiding shoehorning was the issue, than the rabbi could have amended as 
follows:

Hashem should grant that the child should serve hkbh in his own unique way?

Rich Wolpoe




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

<snip>
	This is not to say everyone should be shoehorned into the same mold. 
But even Esav didn't show his characteristics at his bris.  Is this child 
(or any) to be pigeonholed into being a baal tzedoko at the expense of 
being a talmid chochom at this point in his life?  Or should we at least 
hope that he attain that lofty level?

<snip>

Gershon 

In a message dated 1/25/00 11:10:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

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

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

--- DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
> 
> 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? 

If you mean seperate seating at weddings, I believe it
is entirely the influence of Chasidim. The Holocaust
survivors who immigrated to America were mostly
Chasidic in origin and brought with them chumros that
have been adopted by the Litvishe world. Some of that
influence was good in that it re-established an the
almost extinct Halacha of married women covering their
hair. But some of it was IMHO bad as in the
unnecessary incorporation of seperate seating at not
only weddings but any social event.  When Telshe first
came to Chicago, it's banquets had mixed seating. but
it was "embarrassed" into establishing separate
seating by the Chasidim, who would disparage Telshe
for having mixed seating at their banquets. I think
Peyos (You know, sidecurls, earlocks) are another
chasidic influence foisted on the Litvishe community. 

Pet Peeve: Peyos were anathema to the Litvishe but are
now pretty much standard on the children who attend
the RW yeshivishe/Litvishe dayschool. It is not
uncommon to see fathers without Peyos and all their
sons with peyos.  Ultimately of course these children
grow up with peyos and non-peyos will be a forgotten
tradition and history will be revised to say peyos
were always the norm amongst Bnei Torah. 

This will ultimately become one of the defining
characteristics of the RW as the MO will undoubtedly
never accept this custom.

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

In a message dated 1/25/00 11:23:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< 
    I think so.  If a person can be one or the other,   which of course is a
 practical impossibility (having the choice,  that is),  shouldn't he
 choose Yissachar?  Gvirim who are Zvuluns have been known to regret their
 not having become Yissachars (yeh,  easy for him to say <g>!)
 
 Gershon 
  >>
Which brings us back to one of your usual disagreements - we can all be 
Yissachars to the best of the abilities given to us by HKBH.  Can we have a 
community of all Yissachars?

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

RYGB writes:
>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.

Not acceptable.  You wouldn't accept a tertiary source when primary 
sources are available, so I won't accept them from you either.

Epic distortions, indeed.  Given what he actually *does* say about
Israel's choice by God, it's a wonder some, including this encyclopedia
article, can distort him so.

To quote from David Sorkin's recent "Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious
Enlightenment" (p. 132):

[begin quote]

Israel's adherence to these laws was the basis of its election.  The ob-
servance of the Law was the fulfillment of Israel's divine mission as a
"priestly nation": the Law did not merely indicate the path of virtue, it
was that path.

  [The patriarchs'] descendants were chosen by Providence to be a *priestly*
  nation; that is, a nation which, through its establishment and constitution,
  its laws, actions, vicisitudes, and changes, was continually to call attention
  to sound and unadulterated ideas of God and his attributes. It was incessantly
  to teach, to proclaim, and to endeavor to preserve these ideas among the
  nations, by means of its mere existence [64].

That the Jews were a priestly people by virtue of the Law was in keep-
ing with Halevi's view of the Law as an end in itself and the sole means
to God.[65] This idea also echoed Mendelssohn's commentary to Exodus
20 and his peroration to the Book of Exodus in which he asserted that
the Law was designed to insulate Jews from the vices of society.[66]

[64] Ibid. [Jerusalem], JubA [Jubilee Edition of the Collected Works], 8:183
(Arkush['s translation of Jerusalem, 1983], p. 118). Emphasis in original.
See his commentary to Exodus 19:5-6, JubA 16:177.

[65] Kuzari I,79, I,98, II,49, III,23.

[66] JubA 16:406-407.

[end quote]

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

There's a difference between glorification (what, e.g., the Lubavs do
to their Rebbes) and noting a similarity of paths.

By the way, Harry Maryles misattributes "Jew in the house and a man
in the street" to Mendelssohn.  I had thought it was MM's for a long
time, until someone (RRW?) pointed out that it was said a century
later by Gordon.  It's quite clear that MM was shomer mitzvot both
at home and abroad, from his letters, where he notes, e.g., that
he has to leave off writing because Shabbat is coming, or that he cannot
drink his host's wine because of stam yeinam, (the last two letters
quoted in Israel Zinberg's "History of Jewish Literature" in the volume
on The Berlin Haskalah), so it is rather hard to attribute such a 
sentiment to him.

I know this discussion has died down, but here is an interesting article on
the subject.

 <<Living Wired, Losing our Grip.url>>  
 
 http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0100/menken.internet.html

begin 600 Living Wired, Losing our Grip.url
M6TEN=&5R;F5T4VAO<G1C=71=#0I54DP]:'1T<#HO+W=W=RYJ97=I<VAW;W)L
M9')E=FEE=RYC;VTO,#$P,"]M96YK96XN:6YT97)N970N:'1M;`T*36]D:69I
7960]-C!&-C,R1D(U-S8W0D8P,3`Q#0H=
`
end

the practical implicatoins to me seem poshut and are already posted.

The bottom line is, given *today's* society, should we set up new gedorim to 
adress the current reality and not look to the past for theoritcal lomdusher 
confirmations?

Or do we assume a status quo and therefore see no reason to adjust?

Or do we see a change in status quo but refuse to adjust because we lack the 
authority to make changes that would call into question "old" takkonos.

The classic litmus test the glass mechitza, if SOCIAL separation is require so 
that no kalus rosh is commited by socializing and mingling then galss is ok. If 
however men would be over lo sossuro by merely wactching women from a distance 
w/o a chance of contact, then a glass mechitzo is possul.

Beggin indulgence from our resteemd listowner, I think there are issues of 
birrur at play here.  I overhear gentils disucssing what stimulates them (they 
are far elss inhibited about talking about hteir taavos) and I get a picture 
quite different than one found "on the books".

Rich Wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Torah hi,  was:  Histaklus BaNashim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    1/25/2000 9:59 AM


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

Markowitz, Chaim would like to recall the message, "Ban on Internet (con)".

I know this discussion has died down, but here are 2 interesting articles on
the subject.

 
 
 http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0100/menken.internet.html

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/rosenblum.html

On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 12:00:37 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<< Are you happy with the rabbi implying that the grandfather after whom
the child was named was somehow inferior?>>

	To quote your telling of the story,

	***The LOR got up and exlaimed he should be talmid chochom too etc.****

	Where exactly do you see an inferiority?  According to the way you told
the story,  he said that the baby should grow up to be a TC       
**too**.    Given this description,  I do consider it appropriate. 
Nobody,  it appears from your description,  was denigrating the
grandfather/baal tzedoko,  only asking that the baby should be both.

<<If avoiding shoehorning was the issue, than the rabbi could have
amended as follows:  Hashem should grant that the child should serve hkbh
in his own unique way?>>

	Keshem shenichnas labris,  ken....................?  This sounds a lot
more like "60's touchy-feely stuff than time honored wishes for the
child's future.

	Haragil bener have'en lo banim.................who serve Hashem in their
own unique way?

	Let's be careful to make a distinction between denigrating the role in
Avodas Hashem that any one person has chosen or been thrust into,  on the
one hand,  and the traditional desire of Jewish parents that their
children become talmidei chachomim, on the other.

Gershon

While I am familiar with Gordon's quote, but I don't believe I posted it here.

And fwiw, my impression is that Ortho's and Reformers took the same quote to 
mean different things

Rich wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>
By the way, Harry Maryles misattributes "Jew in the house and a man in the 
street" to Mendelssohn.  I had thought it was MM's for a long time, until 
someone (RRW?) pointed out that it was said a century later by Gordon. <snip>

JJB

In a message dated 1/25/00 11:30:29 AM Eastern Standard Time:
I wrote:  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. >>
 
 Joel Rich: 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)?>>
  
My reply: I hesitate to reply because discussing a lie just gives more 
credence to it. But I will anyway. I did not have discussions after HM's 
post, but rather a long time ago after I first saw R. Rakefet's comments on 
Mail Jewish (I think over a year ago). I was shocked by the accusation and 
sought out to see if there was any truth to it. At the time I was sure there 
wasn't and I spoke to people and nobody ever heard of it and wanted to know 
where I even picked up such a crazy idea.(It is a definite Toelet to stop a 
chilul Hashem birabim). And yes it is very easy to know for certain that it 
was simply motsi shem ra. While you can never know what goes on behind closed 
doors, R. Rakefet claimed that this individual was living in this manner 
publicly - with 2 sets of kids from 2 wives! (Its actually laughable just 
thinking about it). Such a scandal, especially in a small town like Lakewood 
would be public knowledge. The occasional scandals that occurs every few 
years that I mentioned (which happens in all communities and which a poster 
discussed what is the best way of dealing with) are always known and 
discussed by the entire community. While that may not be proper because of 
loshon hara, the fact of the matter is that it is done, and frequently there 
is a Toeles. If a man was living publicly in with a Pilegesh there is no 
question there would have been a major protest and the rashei yeshiva would 
have gotten involved and would have threatened to have the person ostacized 
or thrown the person out of town and not have his kids accepted in the 
chadorim. B'kitsur, while anything could go on privately, to claim that the 
Torah community of Lakewood would tolerate such public actions is a motsi 
shem ra of the worst kind, and would have been public knowledge.   
As far as the other pilegesh stories are concerned I imagine that a very 
small amount of the stories are true, but I do not believe that anybody does 
so publicly and continues to function as a normal member of any Orthodox 
community. But whatever the case it certainly would be impossible in Lakewood.

 >> 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. >>
I can say with absolute certainty that there is no such substantial segment 
in Lakewood and not even a minority. While I cannot speak for every single 
member of the community I would feel confident saying that if it exists it is 
with less than 1 percent of the community. Why am I so sure? Because I 
started my married life in Lakewood and lived on a block with around 35 other 
young couples all married 7 years or less. Furthermore the entire town is a 
young community.  I saw how people interacted with there spouses and it was 
almost always with love and respect. Again, of course I do not know what went 
on behind closed doors (although we actually lived in very close proximity), 
but there is no reason to believe that it was in any negative manner. More 
importantly, in Lakewood before you get married you must go to a Rav or 
Mashgiach for what is known as a "Choson shmooze." At this shmooze it is 
always stressed how a wife is not a cheftsa shel mitsva and must be treated 
with love and consideration in all areas at all times. They go out of there 
way to stress that the siman in Shulchan aruch (OC 240) and any Mamarei 
Chazal that might seem otherwise are not applicable today. In fact in Shelos 
uteshuvos Mishna Halachos there is a Teshuva from R. Menashe Klien where he 
writes that he heard about these Choson Shmoozen and was shocked to hear how 
the rabbonim and Mashgichim stress a normal loving relationship and do not 
stress Prishus (I do not know the exact chelek and siman right now, but will 
find it will supply it on demand). So it is common knowledge that in Lakewood 
treating your wife properly is stressed. When I was in Lakewood they forced 
one Mashgiach to stop saying these shmoozen bec. he did not stress it enough 
and was a little to "Machmir."(but nothing near calling for prishus). So yes 
there IS an objective way to answer the question unless you want to be 
Choshed Bichshairim for no reason.
Bkitsur, believe whatever you want, but I repeat that R. Rakefets comments 
are sheker gamur, and I hope Hashem forgives him for his horrible Motsi Shem 
Ra.   

In a message dated 1/25/00 11:30:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,Harry Maryles 
writes:
<< 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. >>
Not so. Many times he called for abolishing a halacha when it did not agree 
with his logic. One example was that he called for not burying the dead for a 
few days because non-Jews objected to it and felt that maybe the individual 
was still alive. He argued this way although if im not mistaken it is a 
chiyuv deoraisa to bury the dead immediately. This is just one example out of 
many, but to find them all would require me to research sources, but that 
would take away from the spontaneity of the response : -)
Also the Biur was criticized for content also not just the fact that it was a 
translation. 

Is there a source that burying the dead immediately is d'oraisso?

EG, how many communities still bury on YT sheini shel golus?

Rich Wolpoe 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re:Mendelsohn 
He argued this way although if im not mistaken it is a chiyuv deoraisa to bury 
the dead immediately.

Doesn't lo ro'inu eino rayo apply here?
Rich wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Pilegesh 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    1/25/2000 12:53 PM


In a message dated 1/25/00 11:30:29 AM Eastern Standard Time:
I wrote:  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. >>

<snip>

Was eivo a factor here?

FWIW I know of a case where a Rav mattired hatzolo to be mechallel shabbos 
"mishum eivo".

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re:Mendelsohn 
 One example was that he called for not burying the dead for a few days because
non-Jews objected to it and felt that maybe the individual was still alive. He 
argued this way although if im not mistaken it is a chiyuv deoraisa to bury the 
dead immediately. 

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


[ 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         ]