Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 326

Wednesday, January 26 2000

• Re: Mendelssohn and the singular destiny of the Jewish people
• Eigers
• Re: Re[4]: Mach'oh
• Re: Avodah V4 #324
• RE: Histaklus BaNashim
• Conversations at weddings
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Histaklut BeNashim
• sanctions against child of a menudeh
• Death of parent not told to Chattan
• Peyos
• RE: Histaklus BaNashim
• Limits of histaklus?
• Re: Peyos
• RE: Histaklus BaNashim
• RE: Histaklus BaNashim

----- Original Message -----
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <avodah-digest@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 9:49 AM
Subject: Mendelssohn and the singular destiny of the Jewish people


> > 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.
>

Quibble.

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

Quite clear. No greater truth to Judaism, as doctrines are fungible anyway.
Just a greater yoke.

>
> > certainly not a leading role,
>
> Yes a leading role!
>

Huh? If the Jews were to cease to exist, from M's perspective, the world
could carry on just fine.

>
> > 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.
>

Nope. He holds the law validates the revelation, the opposite of the Kuzari
that the revelation validates the law. Jospe, p. 128, from "A Postscript" to
M's exchange with Lavater.

>
>
> > 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.
>

Nope. See my other post. As above, dogma is fungible. Aside, perhaps, from
some watered down vwersion of the Ikkarim.

>  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.
>

Yup. Great siman of the man's krumkeit.

>
> > 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.
>
>

I haven't noticed that M has published much in the last thirty years. But I
guess that I need thank you for compelling me to go back to primary sources
(not another secondary one like Breuer) to refresh my memory and sustain my
position.

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

What RHM actually meant, I think, was the assertion that I believe I related
to him, that all individuals with the family name Eiger who are frum today
are descendants of the Chassidic line of the family via R' Leibele Eiger.
All of the Misnagdic Eigers became frei. I heard this from a scion of the
Misnagdic line who became a Ba'al Teshuva (and a Breslover Chosid). This
dichotomy, of course, did not apply to the Schreiber/Sofer dynasty, that,
while from RAE, did not bear the Eiger family name.

In a message dated 1/25/00 5:12:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, Yzkd@aol.com 
writes:

<< In a message dated 1/25/00 5:03:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
 
 > I'm copnfused are you saying MM had more in common with oso hoish than 
with 
 >  Acher?
 >  
 There is a Kabala AFAIR from the Bal Shem tov, that Oisoi Hoish will have a 
 Tikkun after "Nun Alofim Yoivlois" and MM even then not.
  >>

Whew. A lot of material flying around here. A "kabala AFAIR" to place an 
observant Jew below Jesus, an admittedly problematic figure in Jewish History 
all on his own. Hmm, solid reasoning if I ever heard it. Come on, Ladies and 
Gentlemen. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Mendelssohn represents a 
"L'chatchilo" approach to Judaism, only that perhaps his offhanded total 
rejection by most of the Orthodox world may be a problematic approach to deal 
with a complex, contradictory, observer of Halacha, who perhaps did not 
understand what was at stake when expressing his own opinions, flawed as they 
may be. And observing that some of his Shitos predate later attempts to 
reconcile Judaism with the outside world does not equate his approach with 
those later, more "acceptable" approaches, it only makes the aforesaid 
observation. 
And by the way, inasmuch as the Mach'oh gets thrown around here sometimes, I 
would like someone to give me a clear definition of it, and why they think it 
is acceptable to use it in a situation where apparently, someone is going to 
think that something someone else may say, or be interpreted as saying, is 
over the line of propriety.
By the way, R' Yitzchok, its not that I think a statement by the Besht 
doesn't require us to sit up and take notice, I am just not sure we should 
pin an entire approach to it either, especially when quoted in such a vague 
fashion. Really, Mendelssohn on a lower Madrega than Jesus? Must we take 
rhetorical hyperbole as literal truth?


Jordan     

In a message dated 1/25/00 10:50:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Tobrr111@aol.com writes:

<< And even if one gets a pesak from one Rav that in this 
 case he may go to secular authorities, there is always the worry that others 
 that don't follow this Rav will consider you to be a Moser. And yes this way 
 many people hide behind the word Moser and are not brought to justice. Of 
 course I just mentioned problems not solutions, but I think the reason that 
 it doesn't generate discussion is because many just have no idea how the 
 problem can be solved. >>

This is an interesting point. Many rabanim I have spoken to would be 
reluctant to accuse someone of being a Moser in this case. I do not mean this 
to be an authoritative statement, only that perhaps it is time we tested the 
validity of your theory in the real world. I think we may be surprised by how 
far Rabbanim of all stripes are willing to go to bring criminals to justice. 
Inasmuch as I usually agree with R' Blau anyway, I would point out that in a 
case we have discussed privately, it is clear that decisive and bold action 
early on, even to the extent of alerting secular authorities where it may 
have been mandated, would have avoided a great deal of anguish on the part of 
a number of people.

Jordan  

> Mersorah is transfered through fathers not
> grandfathers. besides the examples I gave were of
> recent Litvishe RW gedolim, not MO.

So if someone's father is MO, it's asur for the son to be litvish (and
therefore "frummer" than his father)?

> There were no electric shavers trhen and the only way
> to shave was through the use of dipilatories, Not very
> efficient or pleasant.

So the prohibition of shaving as only because they didn't have electric
shavers? This same line of argument is used to justify the non-observance of
kashrut (the ban on pork was only because of trichinosis, for example).

Once we start justifying change in this manner we open the doors to
widespread abuse.

> How do you know whether people had peyos a few hundred
> years ago.  There are no photographs.

Most, if not all, non-european Jews (IOW, Sephardim) wore peyot. Seforim
written by europeans who visited them (Rav Sapir, for example) make this
clear.

In europe, chassidim wore peyot. Since (AFAIK) we don't find the GRA or his
talmidim bringing peyot as an example of chassid practice, we can assume
that the practice of peyot wasn't foreign to the GRA or his talmidim.

So that leaves us with a very small group of people, who probably trimmed
their peyot because of interaction with goyim (the practice of trimming the
beard, and later of shaving the beard, started the same way. See Hadras
Pomin Zaken for an encyclopedic examination of the issue). Exceptions rather
than the rule.


> Peyos IMHO is at best a Hidur.

*long* peyot, yes. How long is "long", though, and if there's a doubt do you
err on the side of too short or too long -- we *are* talking about a lav
D'orisa here.

Akiva




A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

In message , Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> writes
>       ah,  newlyweds.  Do you sit at the (mixed) table and talk only to your
>husband?  
>

Not only, but a lot (especially if I don't know very many people else).

>       Or do you endure the men-type conversation as the men endure the
>women-type conversation?  
>

I happen to enjoy both types of conversation.

>       Or do you wind up speaking to the women anyway?  Please don't tell me
>you discuss MB vs A"HSH with the men! 

Certainly do (don't know a lot of women who are interested).

> I know that when I go to a mixed
>affair it is rare that there is extended cross-gender conversation at the
>table.  (Maybe it's my age/time married?)
>
>Gershon
>

Kind regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In message , Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> writes
>> 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.
>
>True :-) But I don't need to go to a wedding to talk to my wife,

Well, at the moment you seem pretty lucky to me.  Certainly our greatest
problem at the moment is finding time for each other (two busy
professionals, if one isn't delayed late at work, the other is and just
so much too do).  And this seems to be a common complaint (there was an
article in the Jewish Chronicle, the secular Jewish paper by a late
twentysomething on exactly this point, how all of her friends, couples
are, are constantly exhausted and never seem to see one another - and
when I read it to my husband, his response was, and they aren't even
frum, with all the additional time commitments that imposes).  Basically
we have reached the point where we refuse to accept more than one
shabbas invite a week in order to give ourselves at least one meal of of
quality time and even then, it is not enough (my husband commented last
week, when we stayed in Friday night and then went out for lunch, that
while in some ways it was nice seeing his friends, he was frustrated
being there because it was cutting down on our time).  I'm afraid
anything that eats even further into our time together is absolutely out
(and people say it *gets worse* when you have children).

>
>- -- Carl

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

For some reason, I didn't get digest no. 319, so I read it on the Net.

I found something very interesting there:

:"When I came
on aliyah this letter was circulating by hand in all
the yeshivot in Israel. When anyone got married they
gave you a copy. If anyone wants a copy, it is right
in front of you. ...
[Rabbi Rakeffet told me that the heart of the
letter can be found at the end of the book titled
"Zivug Min Hashamayim" by Rabbi Nathan Drazin, 2nd
edition, published in 1975. The Steipler originally
wanted his letter to circulate hand to hand.]"

Two things:  First this letter was still making the rounds in 1981,
when I got married -- it was part of a photocopied booklet (by Rav
Aviner) that every Hesder Yeshiva bachur was told about shortly before
his wedding date.  Years later I found that Rav Aviner had published
this booklet and it's called Etzem Mei'Atzamai U'Vanecha Ki'Shtilei
Zeitim.   The instructions were to learn it separately one week before
the wedding, and learn it together once more after the wedding.

The second matter is that, as many of you know, I teach Kallot.  Every
so often I come up with a situation that I tell the kallah to read
Zivug Min HaShamayim (I used to buy 10 copies a year, but I haven't
been able to find it for a while) -- and she would come back and say
that her Chatan's rabbi forbids learning this book.  I still read the
Steipler's letter with every Kallah and advice them to purchase Rav
Aviner's booklet.  BTW, the booklet comes with a warning forbidding
anyone with a happy marriage to read it.  It is intended for couples
who are just getting married/just got married or for couples who have
problems.


Thank you Harry for this article.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Someone quoted the Rema in Yore Deah 334:6 as permitting the expulsion
of children of a menudeh from school. Look what the TAZ writes quoting the
Meharshal. Expulsion may be permitted only in the case of a young child and
not chas vechalila of a child over the age of Bar Mitzva.

Josh

There was a major tragedy last night at a wedding in Bnai Brak and I'm
somewhat perplexed at the outcome. The parents of the Chattan were driving
to the wedding when the car was in an accident and the mother was killed.
They asked leading poskim (R. Wosner and R. Baadani) whether the young
couple were to be informed. R. Wosner said to inform them and cancel
the
chuppah; R. Baadani said NOT to tell the couple until after the chuppah and
be'ilat mitzva. The family followed R. Baadani and all the guests were
informed EXCEPT the young couple. The wedding with all its dancing, etc.
continued. I checked the Gesher Hachaim and the Pnei Baruch  and am still
confused. How would you deal with such a situation ?

Josh

Anyone who goes to a regular barber and allows the growth place of the
peyos to be shaved off completely is "over mideraisso". 

Leaving enough to be able to hold in one's fingers, or cutting at ear's
length or just not cutting, are a matter of individual taste perhaps
dictated as hidurim or humrot by that individual's chug or mesorah.

And obviously the same goes for the different ways peyos can be twisted,
or placed - behind the ear, in front of the ear, or folded on top of the
skull and held in place by the kippa.

Does MO decry distinctive peyos as well as wearing zizit outside one's
pants as RW. Do not these symbols separate ourselves from the rest of the
goyishe world. Do they not help prevent hisbollalus - not only into the
goishe culture but also into secular Jewish values?

We learn from the this Shabbos's Parshas Shevua that the Jewish people
where 'chosen' to be Cohanim and 'Goy Kadosh'. And one of the reasons why
they remained intact as a people despite their servitude, was that they
did not give up in Egypt their distinctive dresses, names, and language.

Daniel

On 25 Jan 00, at 21:37, Harry Maryles wrote:

> 
> 
> --- Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> > On 25 Jan 00, at 20:30, Akiva Atwood wrote:
> > 
> > > > This will ultimately become one of the defining
> > > > characteristics of the RW as the MO will
> > undoubtedly
> > > > never accept this custom.
> > > 
> > > Gee, I'll make sure to tell all the MO Israelis I
> > see whose kids have *long*
> > > peyos that they must be RW...
> > 
> > Actually some of them may be talmidim of Mercaz
> > HaRav Kook 
> > and various mosdos associated with it.
> > 
> > There are a lot of kids with peyos in the shtachim.
> > 
> > Also, on this subject, someone attributed peyos in
> > America to the 
> > Hungarians who arrived after the Holocaust. How do
> > you explain 
> > that nearly every kid in the Litvishe Chadorim here
> > has peyos?
> 
> I believe this is a function of the incessant move to
> the right and is pointedly anti-assimilationist at
> it's base.

In the Litvishe chadorim in Israel (and in Yerushalayim in 
particular), I don't think there is much of a chashash of assimilation.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

From  Rich Wolpoe:-

> I think that we are attempting to discern the boundaries of good
> taste, to define the limits of how far should we go in avoiding
> histaklus, etc.

How far should we go? Perhaps because the issur of tiltul is 4 amos, there
is no problem carrying 3.9 amot, and no problem of adding a liter of
cholov to 61 liters of basar?

> Even though we may concur on the basic premise, how to apply it bizman
> hazeh is not so clear.

I'm not so sure we do concur on the basic premise and especially how to
apply it bizman hazeh. 

If I understand you right, we have to balance (what you consider) current
realities, with our Jewish Masorah.

And this would appear to be the basis of Mendlesohn's polemics with its
progression to the Reform's and Conservative's ideology and dare I say it
- based on some of what I read in Avoda - that of some members of MO!

> define the limits of how far should we go in avoiding histaklus

How far we should go? All the way! 

And 'Applying it bizman hazeh' is as clear as it was 3000 years ago: 

Male histaklus (except for one's wife) is Forbidden - Verboten until the
nth degree. There are no limits. And don't confuse with ri'ah which allows
a male to 'see' a woman for marital purposes or for business interests.

Daniel

On 26 Jan 00, at 11:49, Daniel M Wells wrote:

> Does MO decry distinctive peyos as well as wearing zizit outside one's
> pants as RW. Do not these symbols separate ourselves from the rest of the
> goyishe world. Do they not help prevent hisbollalus - not only into the
> goishe culture but also into secular Jewish values?

I have a question about this.

I started wearing my tzitzis out when I was a bochur, and I learned 
Mishna Brura 8:26 where he says that you should wear them out. 
However, he says that it would be enough for those who go among 
the goyim to "stick them in the Kanfos." We don't really have 
Kanfos on the average pair of tzitzis today into which the strings 
could be stuck. But in the States (at least when I lived there) and 
especially in the business world, it seemed that most people did 
not go with their tzitzis out. In fact, I know many respected talmidei 
chachamim in the States who wear their tzitzis in, and I always 
assumed that they considered themselves to be "going among the 
goyim" as the heter for not wearing the tzitzis out. But I re-read the 
Mishna Brura today and he says something about NOT sticking 
them in the pants. (At all?). 

So what gives? Is there a heter for one who is "among the goyim" 
not to wear their tzitzis out? And wouldn't that undercut the 
"assimilation protection" argument?

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

--- Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:

> > Mersorah is transfered through fathers not
> > grandfathers. besides the examples I gave were of
> > recent Litvishe RW gedolim, not MO.
> 
> So if someone's father is MO, it's asur for the son
> to be litvish (and
> therefore "frummer" than his father)?

What does "frumer" mean? And who says that one can't
be both a litvak and an MO? Was the Rav a Litvak? Did
he have Payos? Was R. Motel Katz, ZTL, RH of Telshe
during my tenure there a Litvak? Were the 2 or 3
Bochurim who happened to have Payos in Telshe then
Frummer than him?
> 
> > There were no electric shavers trhen and the only
> way
> > to shave was through the use of dipilatories, Not
> very
> > efficient or pleasant.
> 
> So the prohibition of shaving as only because they
> didn't have electric
> shavers? This same line of argument is used to
> justify the non-observance of
> kashrut (the ban on pork was only because of
> trichinosis, for example).

That's ridiculous. The permissibility of trimming
one's beard is discussed in the SA. Indeed the
Gemmorah itself talks about shaving. The only question
is whether "Tar" equals clean shaving. Pork, OTOH does
not have a "sliding scale" and it's issur has nothing
to do with trichinosis.
> 
> Once we start justifying change in this manner we
> open the doors to
> widespread abuse.


What are we changing?

> > How do you know whether people had peyos a few
> hundred
> > years ago.  There are no photographs.
> 
> Most, if not all, non-european Jews (IOW, Sephardim)
> wore peyot. 

I've already agreed to that.

> In europe, chassidim wore peyot.

Ditto

 Since (AFAIK) we
> don't find the GRA or his
> talmidim bringing peyot as an example of chassid
> practice, we can assume
> that the practice of peyot wasn't foreign to the GRA
> or his talmidim.

We can't assume anything of the kind. There are many
possible scenarios why the GRA doesn't bring the
practice of peyot as foreign to Misnagdim. Probably
because Payos is a Hidur and WAS probably worn to some
degree in the Lita.  

> 
> So that leaves us with a very small group of people,
> who probably trimmed
> their peyot because of interaction with goyim (the
> practice of trimming the
> beard, and later of shaving the beard, started the
> same way. See Hadras
> Pomin Zaken for an encyclopedic examination of the
> issue). Exceptions rather
> than the rule.


IMHO, the above statement is strictly opinion, not
fact.

  
> > Peyos IMHO is at best a Hidur.
> 
> *long* peyot, yes. How long is "long", though, and
> if there's a doubt do you
> err on the side of too short or too long -- we *are*
> talking about a lav
> D'orisa here.

I repeat, the Lav is Lo Sakifu.  That does not
necessarily mean the Payos have to be any longer than
the rest of your haircut.

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

On 26 Jan 00, at 4:03, Harry Maryles wrote:

> --- Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> 
> > > Mersorah is transfered through fathers not
> > > grandfathers. besides the examples I gave were of
> > > recent Litvishe RW gedolim, not MO.
> > 
> > So if someone's father is MO, it's asur for the son
> > to be litvish (and
> > therefore "frummer" than his father)?
> 
> What does "frumer" mean? And who says that one can't
> be both a litvak and an MO? Was the Rav a Litvak? Did
> he have Payos? Was R. Motel Katz, ZTL, RH of Telshe
> during my tenure there a Litvak? Were the 2 or 3
> Bochurim who happened to have Payos in Telshe then
> Frummer than him?

I don't think RAA's point was that one is "fruhmmer" than the other. 
I think his point was that there is nothing wrong with someone 
identifying himself as CH even if that person's father identifies 
himself as MO if the son feels that his Avodas Hashem will be on a 
higher level if he identifies himself as CH. The reverse could also 
work, although the metzius includes less of the reverse today.

IOW the fact that your father does not have peyos is no reason for 
you not to have them, and the fact that you do not have them is no 
reason for your children not to have them.

> > > There were no electric shavers trhen and the only
> > way
> > > to shave was through the use of dipilatories, Not
> > very
> > > efficient or pleasant.
> > 
> > So the prohibition of shaving as only because they
> > didn't have electric
> > shavers? This same line of argument is used to
> > justify the non-observance of
> > kashrut (the ban on pork was only because of
> > trichinosis, for example).
> 
> That's ridiculous. The permissibility of trimming
> one's beard is discussed in the SA. Indeed the
> Gemmorah itself talks about shaving. The only question
> is whether "Tar" equals clean shaving. Pork, OTOH does
> not have a "sliding scale" and it's issur has nothing
> to do with trichinosis.

I think taar is hashchoso, which goes well beyond what most 
electric shavers and clippers do today. BTW in Yerushalayim many 
barber shops have signs that say "kan lo migalchim b'taar." 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

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


[ 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         ]