Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 357

Thursday, February 10 2000

• Re: opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim" (was "3 questions (Go'al Yisrael out loud)")
• Re: piyutim
• Re: Video cameras
• Re: Seride Esh, Meiri
• Competition, was: Beano
• Re: Competition, was: Beano
• Re: publishing letters - issur?
• Re: Science and halachah
• Re[2]: FW: opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim" (
• Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Re: Video cameras
• Re[2]: Science and halachah
• Re: Seride Esh, Meiri
• Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Communication
• Re: Re[2]: Science and halachah now HLL"M
• Re: publishing letters - issur?
• Re[2]: Seride Esh, Meiri

AEStein replied:
> Just to clarify:  I never "insisted" that "onim" be grouped with "kulam
k'echad" for everyone, only those who daven nusach ashkenaz (or, given the
wide variety of nuschaos, make that nusach Artscroll) (and say "kedusha"
and not "k'dosha"). <
Thanks for the clarification; my point is that other nus'cha'os cannot be
ignored in determining what the proper grouping is for the nusach you and I
use.  Minus the source material, there's no way I can gain any insight into
whether Rav Henkin was familiar or concerned with those other nus'cha'os,
but I believe we must be sensitive to them.  However, let's don blinders,
leave other nus'cha'os (and I could wax non-poetic on the horrors ArtScroll
has perpetrated upon nusach Ash'k'naz, but I digress...) aside for the
moment, and continue....
> I believe I made it clear that, according to R' Henkin, there is a rule
(words of davening should fit in as if it were a conversation) that is to
be applied in an appropriate manner, depending on whatever nusach is being
used. <
Your original post mentioned, "R' Henkin also states that the Shatz (and,
for that matter, everyone else; it's just that the problem usually crops up
on Shabbos with the Shatz) should be careful about his pronounciation of
words with respect to phrasing."  Re the SHaTZ, I believe we know this from
Halacha (OC 53, 598, and elsewhere) -- Rav Henkin, apparently, was
emphasizing it -- and, certainly we should all be careful with our
phrasing, as well as all other aspects of pronunciation.  Only your
previous message used the word "rule": "Of course, this rule applies to
whatever nusach a person is using: make sure it would sound right if you
were engaged in a regular conversation, kavayachol"; assuming you were
speaking for Rav Henkin rather than yourself, how might he rule when a word
can be sensibly grouped either with words before or with words after it
(e.g. "v'eeshai Yisroel" in birchas "r'tzai"; "tomid" in birchas "hama'ariv
arovim" or birchas "boruch Hashaim l'olam")?  I've already noted that such
a "rule" works in favor of grouping "onu" with "zeh Kaili," but you haven't
answered whether it would also work in favor of grouping "potzu feh" with
"zeh Tzur yish'ainu" (which even nusach Ash'k'naz has for lail-YT), and, if
it had a life of its own, such a "rule" would struggle with our "u'vin'imah
k'dushah" girsa before even reaching the words about which we're writing.
In summation, if Rav Henkin posited such a "rule" re conversational flow
rather than pronunciation, it raises a new set of questions and doesn't,
IMHO, fully answer the few situations we've dealt with, even if we do leave
variant nus'cha'os aside.

> Finally, I realize now that I should have put the words "the right way"
in quotes when I first used them.  I did not mean to imply that what R'
Henkin said was the final word on this issue.  The "spur" was indeed
unintentional. <
Thank you (both for the realization and the spur)!

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

I can add to Richard Wolpoe's post the fact that some paytanim wrote something called a "zulat" which was said
after "podeinu umatzilenu meolam shemecha, ein elokim zuletecha."  But this form is not preserved even on Yamim
Noraim, in the standard nusach ashkenaz (but maybe it's different in Breuer's?).
Regarding Micha's pet peeve, I think a chazan would have to be very musically imaginative to come up with a nigun
that would allow him to phrase "az b'kol"  as Micha would have it.  There are many examples when a popular
nigun/nusach makes it difficult to enunciate or split up phrases properly.  I rememeber that Rav Meir Schlesinger
(the first rosh yeshiva of Sha'alvim) pointed out the following example:  Because of the popular nigun, the accent
is often placed on the wrong syllable: "Odecha ki an-ita-NI", rather than "ki ani-TA-ni."

Daniel Schiffman

On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 06:51:59PM -0000, Akiva Atwood wrote about my
comments on digital circuitry.
: But *nothing* is happening microscopically, at least nothing mechanical or
: chemical.

: but nothing is *really* opening or closing -- the physical circuit doesn't
: change at all.

Electrons move or don't move (depending on how you play with the valence levels
of the substrate). There is a non-visible event. Yes, there's no switch
that's moving. We don't move an object of atoms, only the voltage level of the
valence orbits of numerous atoms.

The question for people who didn't follow the above is whether boneh or
makeh bipatish of a circuit applies to actually completing an cheftza, or
in causing electrons to move and do work. Semiconductors cause electrons
to move or not move by playing with fields, not objects.

Unless we now have to deal with halachah and Schroedinger's Cat (Quantum
Uncertainty). (The admittedly weird notion is that quantum events are
statistical. The actual resolution into one state or another is done at time
of observation, not at "when the electron travels".) Aside from the fact
that the unobserved electron won't collapse into a given state until after
Shabbos, we're not far from the scale where objects are fields.

-mi

--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Feb-00: Chamishi, Terumah
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.

FWIW My impression is that Bernard revel Graudate School was based upon this 
foundation.  Professor MS Feldblum cited R. DZ Hoffamn as one of his predecesors
in this field, along with Maharitz Chayes and Dikdukei Sofrim.

The Wissenshaft issue is indeed one the major splits between KAJ and YU (the 
other is the issue of separation/Austritt). I believe these differeneces are 
fundamental as to how KAJ objects to YU laying claim to Hirsch's legacy.

In that sense, I have recently realized that indeed, YU is based upon the 
Hildesheimer model much more than upon the Hirschian model.

And it appears to me that while RYBS did not  subscribe to Wissenshaft, he did 
oppose Austritt, which kinda puts him midway between the 2 schools.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>
As the Seride Esh was one of the few major poskim who was actively 
interested in Wissenschaft  (RYGB - do you disagree with that 
statement?), it would seem that he would be the one least opposed to 
history and getting the right data...(Rav Schwab and Rav Dr Breuer 
clearly had different perspectives on history, and arguments over 
Wissenschaft was one of the major disagreements between Rav Hirsch and 
Rav Hildesheimer.  Wissenschaft is somewhat different than torah umadda, 
but it is on the same axis... )

<snip>
Meir Shinnar

> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:18:52 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re[2]: Beano 
 
<<do you want others (or Hashem) to scrutivinze YOUR parnosso?)  Would
you be willing to subject yourself to haveing to justify what YOU earn?>>

	I'm talking bein adam lachaveiro,  not bein adam laMakom. This preying
is not a victimless crime.

<<I thought is was a mitzvo so do busines with Talmidei chachomim and
shomrei 
shabbos.  Am I missing something?>>

	Yes,  you are missing the gedorim under which this applies (or doesn't).

<<If these business are indeed over-charging, why not write to them in
the spirit of Hocheiach tochiach instead of boycotting them in favor of
doing business with some facesless corporation?>>

	As we used to say in the W's,  what have you been smoking <g>??

Gershon

Well it seems you wnat it both ways.

They should adhere to fair principles

But we should ignore the principles of betsedek tishpot amisecho...?

Is the halacho of hociach suspended somehow?

let me ask You this, if YOU were in business, which would YOU prefer:
1) complaints that prices are out-of-line
2) being boycotted and accssed (silently) of gouging?

I would prefer #1, it is painful to be criticised but I take it as a 
psychological fact that abuse is better than neglect! <smile>

Also, how do we KNOW that X is overcharging, are their books being auditied?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Competition,  was:  Beano 

	Yes,  you are missing the gedorim under which this applies (or doesn't).

<<If these business are indeed over-charging, why not write to them in 
the spirit of Hocheiach tochiach instead of boycotting them in favor of 
doing business with some facesless corporation?>>

	As we used to say in the W's,  what have you been smoking <g>??

Gershon

Neither does. The letters are in the JTS library. They were sent there by
Atlas's widow.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: publishing letters - issur?


> Who has no legal heirs?  The Sridei Esh or Prof. Atlas?  Is it not
possible
> that Prof Atas, the legal owner of the letters put them in the public
domain
> for Prof. Shapiro to see?
>

RD Eisenman wrote:

>>We all know that halacha l'mosheh m'sinai lo nafla bo machlokes, but, in fact,
what exactly this means is not 100% clear.  There are plenty of hlmm"s for which
we do find machloksim.  There is debate amongst the rishonim whether or not 
there is a halacha of tzroros (which is a hlmm"s) of shen or only of regel.  
There is another example (which eludes me at the moment) in the halachos of 
shiurim (hlmm"s) for tumah and taharah.  So perhaps lo naflah bo machlokes means
something like "nobody argues that such a category exists, but what is included 
in the category can be debated.">>

The Griz explains that we now have two types of halachah leMoshe misinai.  
Originally, there was only one type which was transmitted orally.  However, 
during the mourning for Moshe many of these were forgotten until Osniel ben 
Kenaz restored them through his pilpul - his logic and derashahs.  The first 
type of hlmm is never disputed.  However, the second type is occasionally 
disputed when Osniel ben Kenaz's pilpul is disputed.

And why do we have so many places there we wait for the chazan mid-phrase? 

===> I figure in order to engineer a "responsive" mode.  Note in the Syrian 
Minyanim I've attended the tzibubr does NOT respond Mi chamocho and Hashem 
yimloch at Arbit.  AFAIK this is a sample of an old Ashkenzic tradition of 
Chazan-Khal responsive mode. 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Let's not forget my pet peeve. The commas in
    Az bikol, ra'ash gadol, adir vichazak mashmi'im kol...
make no sense. It should be
    Az, bikol ra'ash gadol adir vichazak, mashmi'im kol...

===> poetice license.  I just gave a lecture (parhas Bo) at Ccong. Mt. Sinai on 
this subject re: rhyme.  here is the piyyut: 

Oz b'kol
  Ra'ash gadol!

     Adir v'chozok
  Mashmi'im kol

I am fairly certain that it was composed as a rhyme. 
------------------------------------------------
If you want to see how rhymes butcher prhasing may I point you to the Friday 
night piyyut ma yofis uma noamt which is about the most extreme case of  rhyme 
and phrasing being at odds with each other.

Taking this a step further, I pointed out in my lecture that if rhyme were 
intended, then the nusach sefard of Teka beshofar makes more sense than does the
Ahkenaz version.  here's how:.

Teka behofar gadold lecheiruSEINU
     V' so neis lekabetz goluyoSEINU
          v'abkatzineu yachad mei'arbo kanfos ho'oretz *l'artSEINU*

If you LOOK for rhyme, i.e. if you sort on it mentally, you will see it is more 
prevasive than one might oridnarily realize.

Don't you think that davening is - or ought to be - more a function of the 
musical and lyrical than of the grammatical and analytical?  Gosh sometimes 
grammatical rules take all the fun out of it <smile>

EG, we wer taught at Belz school some proper phrasign and diction etc. but we 
are also told, let's face it Yossele Rosenblatts' Yaaleh tachnanunei-nu-nu-nu 
would not work mi'leil. <smile>

After all, if you can't exercise poetic license when reciting poetry, when can 
you?


ad kahn
Richard_Wolpoe@ibic.om 

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          

----- Original Message -----
From: Clark, Eli <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
To: avodah list <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:18 AM
Subject: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence


> I have still not read the Sedei Hemed, because I do not understand what
> mitzvah ha-ba'ah be=averah has to do with printing letters.  The

The mitzvah ha'aba'ah b'aveira was R' Dratch's usage in an otherwise
outstanding post. The original publication was unmitigated aveirah :-) .

> The problem with the "rudimentary analogy" to the theft of intellectual
> property is that, in Halakhah, there is no such thing as theft of
> intellectual property.  I just completed an article on halakhah and
> copyright and, with the exception of the Shoel u-Meshiv, the Aharonim
> agree that there is no halakhic ba'alut over intellectual property.
> This is especially true about divrei Torah.  A number of Aharonim hold
> that an author of hiddushim or hearot has first rights to publish his
> own material, but even they agree that if the author does not choose to
> publish them, anyone can.  There is also a big debate over the rights of
> yoreshim, but that is not relevant in our case.
>

I hope you have enough time to revise your essay and incorporate the concept
of theft of intellectual property inherent in CDRG!

> Moreover, even if there were a concept of gezel regarding intellectual
> property, it could apply only to living people.  There is no concept of
> ba'alut in Halakhah after death.  (Actually, I think the same is true in
> Anglo-American law.)  So if the Herem de-Rabbenu Gershom indeed relates
> to gezel, then there would seem to be a complete heter to publish
> letters after the death of the writer.
>

REC! Remember the Binyan Tziyon who forbids autopises because of gezel! (The
Bigdei Shesh on BB discusses this a tad. I know the author and might
persuade him to give you a copy.) Hope you get a chance to put that in your
revision as well - there is gezel post mortem.

> >It pains me to have caused you sadness, particularly in Adar, but I hope
you
> >will find some solace in agreeably disagreeing with me.
>
> Not just solace -- genuine hana'ah!
>

Likewise - Marbim b'Simcha!

Precisely.  But reading the letters definitely makes the knowledge more
> vivid.  Also I am not sure if everyone knew that.  Do we all know that
> R. Weinberg wrote his dissertation under a Christian scholar?  That the
> two of them published an article together in the Hebrew Union College
> Annual?  That he wrote positive articles about Ahad Ha-Am and
> Berdichevsky?  Just because the information is there does not mean that
> everyone has absorbed it.
>

What kind of "shocking" revelation is this? Is there something here that I
am missing?

> Okay, some history:  Before WWI, R. Weinberg wrote an essay in a Hebrew
> journal journal discussing halakhot that seem to discriminate against
> Gentiles.  In 1936 he collected this essay with others and published
> them in a book entitled Li-Frakim.  The book was republished in abridged
> form in Israel in 1967.  You should be able to find it in many good
> Jewish institutional libraries.
>

I have the original. I am still trying hard to find a chiddush. If you read
my recent essay in Ha'Ma'ayan (this is actually the second self-promotional
note in this post), then you know that R' Avrohom Elya Kaplan preceded him
in this endeavor. This was nothing out of the ordinary in German Orthodox
circles. Why should it be?

> Well, you seem to assume that there is a setirah between being a TuMnik
> and being an associate of the Hazon Ish and R. Dessler.  Why should that
> be true?
>

I thought you made that point. I did not.

> True but irrelevant.  The Seridei Esh was a strong advocate of blending
> traditional Genara learning with modern academic methods, which was
> anathema to R. Breuer and other Hirschians.  This too is well documented
> in a lecture printed in LiFrakim and translated into English by list
> member Shalom Carmy in Tradition (Summer 1989).
>

So was RAEK, and R' Yaakov Kaminetsky bemoaned his early death, which did
not allow his new derech to develop. But give me the page in the book where
he note that the Hirschians were opposed.

> All true.  But one will not find a similar heter in the Minhat Yitzhak.
>

Is there nothing between Bnei Akiva and the Eida Charedis?

> >Again, as documented by the new RD Joseph Breuer bio, the Agudath Israel
> >youth group in Washington Heights (not, again, exactly, a bastion of TuM,
> >despite its neighbor across the neighborhood) was mixed, by special
> >dispensation to the Yekkes, well into the Sixties.
>
> I am not sure what this proves, but it is interesting.
>

That one may even be an Agudist and favor mixed youth groups.

> Well, I think that if you want to get a full picture of his hashkafah,
> you have to look at everything he wrote.  Indeed, it seems that those
> who objected to the article were not interested in a full picture, but
> the partial picture that they were most comfortable with.  No one denies
> that R. Weinberg felt close to gedolim; the hiddush is that he was able
> to maintain a warm relationship with Prof. Atlas as well.  Incidentally,
> though Prof. Atlas taught at HUC, I understand from M. Shapiro that he
> was not what people would call a Reform Jew; he seems to have been
> shomer halakhah, though his de'ot were not Orthodox.
>

Actually, what annoyed me the most, and, one of our fellow list members can
attest to me calling hin shortly after RJJS's defense was published and
shouting at him over the phone vehemently over this, is davka that the TuM
journal presented a shallow portarait of the SE. For example, his Mussarist
stance received nary a word. So, the TuM readership, who probably knew
nothing about the SE before, came away knowing nothing more than that here
was some obscure Gadol who was also a TuMnik. The SE was indeed complex, but
you would not have known that from the letters.

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

In a message dated 2/10/00 12:45:50 PM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< Aside from the fact
 that the unobserved electron won't collapse into a given state until after
 Shabbos, we're not far from the scale where objects are fields. >>

I get it. If the "unobserved electron won't collapse into a given state until 
after Shabbos," then we musn't observe the electron during Shabbos. Seeing, 
then, is not believing, as it were. This only applies to observant Judaism, 
however. Were one not observant, then the electron wouldn't be observed, and 
there'd be no risk in the first place that the electron would be disturbed 
during Shabbos. 

Am I missing anything?

David Finch

>>The Griz explains that we now have two types of halachah leMoshe misinai. 
Originally, there was only one type which was transmitted orally.  However, 
during the mourning for Moshe many of these were forgotten until Osniel ben 
Kenaz restored them through his pilpul - his logic and derashahs.  The first 
type of hlmm is never disputed.  However, the second type is occasionally 
disputed when Osniel ben Kenaz's pilpul is disputed.<<

And we learned in BRGS ( Professor MS Feldlbum) something like this:

There are 2 kinds of HLMM,those that were literally HLMM and those that were 
HLMM as a figure of speech, IOW metaphorically speaking.  There is based upon 
a Rash in Mishanyos, I forget where, and I believe that Krochmal discusses 
this, too,

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

R' Weingort has no legal status in halacha. I was using his objection to
construct an argument. And, it seems to me that limited availability is not
dispensation for further dissemination. I have made this point.

The ET notes, if I recall correctly, that both sender and recipeient must
agree to publicize private correspondence.

I think Wissenschaft was popular in Berlin circles, as opposed to Frankfurt
ones, because of the different intellectual bent of those different circles.
It is, however, in my opinion, gravely fallacious to associate the Seminary
with TuM tendencies. TuM is the glorification of Secular Studies as Secular
Studies, not the harnessing thereof in service to Torah study. That is
classic Rakachus v'Tabachus.

Another, only tenuously related point: The Seminary in its later years was
quite openly associated with the Agudah. Dr. Meir Hildesheimer was a member
of the famous early delegation of Agudah leaders to America. Why do you
think he accepted R' Chaim Ozer's request not to transfer the Seminary to
EY?

In our day and age, however, we - on both sides of this equation - tend to
see things as black and white: RW/MO and the various different
manifestations thereof. German Orthodoxy, particularly German Agudism, is
not neatly categorized. Remember, in Germany, initially, it was the
"Frummies" who were against Austritts!

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


----- Original Message -----

From: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:30 AM
Subject: Seride Esh, Meiri


> Bechhofer has noted that Rav Weingort (who can most claim to be Rav
> Weinberg's heir today, although I don't know the legal status) gave
> permission for the letters to be published, albeit he thought that they
> would b e published in a different type of forum.  Indeed, many of those
> letters were already published in Marc Shapiro's PhD thesis.  Given the
> fact that there was permission to publish, and that they were already
> published (albeit in an obscure source),one can complain about the venue
> that it was actually published in, but how does CDRG apply?  There was
> permission to publish.    Furthermore, the estate of Shmuel Atlas gave
> those letters to JTS to hold in their library, where they were available
> to anyone who wanted to look at  them.    What is the significant
> halachic difference  between giving permission to scholars to examine
> them and printing in a general Jewish magazine?
>
> (Technical question about CDRG  - who has the right to object, the
> sender, recipient, or both? I thought that Shmuel Atlas would have been
> the only one who could claim CDRG against the letter (once it was
> received, and I doubt that he would have objected...
>
> As the Seride Esh was one of the few major poskim who was actively
> interested in Wissenschaft  (RYGB - do you disagree with that
> statement?), it would seem that he would be the one least opposed to
> history and getting the right data...(Rav Schwab and Rav Dr Breuer
> clearly had different perspectives on history, and arguments over
> Wissenschaft was one of the major disagreements between Rav Hirsch and
> Rav Hildesheimer.  Wissenschaft is somewhat different than torah umadda,
> but it is on the same axis... )

In a message dated 2/10/00 1:32:26 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< Actually, what annoyed me the most, and, one of our fellow list members can
 attest to me calling hin shortly after RJJS's defense was published and
 shouting at him over the phone vehemently over this, is davka that the TuM
 journal presented a shallow portarait of the SE. For example, his Mussarist
 stance received nary a word. So, the TuM readership, who probably knew
 nothing about the SE before, came away knowing nothing more than that here
 was some obscure Gadol who was also a TuMnik. The SE was indeed complex, but
 you would not have known that from the letters.
  >>

But we now know if from reading RYGB's post. Perhaps RYGB should expand it 
and publish it more widely. 

I found the SE letters to be humane and endearing. They might not have 
revealed the SE's complexity, but they hinted at it. Hagiography isn't the 
only way to honor greatness.

Were RYGB to write an essay on the SE, he would truly honor the SE's memory. 
And were RYGB to include excerpts of the SE letters in the essay, and then 
explain their context, then he would honor the SE's memory all the more. The 
fact that the letters ought perhaps to have been kept private in the first 
place doesn't change this. It just makes it paradoxical.

David Finch

R' Eli Clark wrote <<< You cannot be sure that I mean what I write, and I
cannot be sure that you mean what you write.  Neither of us can be sure that
R. Weinberg means what he wrote. >>>

This is true, but reality is even more unreliable than that. As Richard
Nixon put it: "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but
I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."


:-)    Akiva Miller

.

> two types of halachah leMoshe misinai. 

See Tosfos Yom Tov end of Eduyois, and his refrences (There is much written 
on this subject).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

So a legal heir disposed of them nad put them in the public domain.  Wherein
lies the problem?

----- Original Message -----
From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: publishing letters - issur?


> Neither does. The letters are in the JTS library. They were sent there by
> Atlas's widow.
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
> http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:23 AM
> Subject: Re: publishing letters - issur?
>
>
> > Who has no legal heirs?  The Sridei Esh or Prof. Atlas?  Is it not
> possible
> > that Prof Atas, the legal owner of the letters put them in the public
> domain
> > for Prof. Shapiro to see?
> >
>
>
>

Q: Waht rav in Boston was amongst the founders of ZAI/USA in the 1930's?
A: RYBS

Q: Who headed Ezras Torah after R. henkin's Death?
A: The suvalker Rav - known outside of Agudist Circles as R. Dovid Lifshitz of 
YU

Q: Name 3 maspidim at the levay for R. M. Feisntein of the Agudah and what di 
they have in common
A: R. Nisson Alper, R. MD Tendler, R, M. Tendler. All were affiliated with YU

Q: At which Yeshiva id the Brisker Rav's #1 American Talmid (re Yeruchim 
Ggorelic) teach at?
A: At YU 

Q: At which Yeshiva did the Chofetz Chaim's (a founder of Aguda) son-in-law 
afffilate with?
A: YU

Q: How did R. AI Kook get stranded in Germany in WWI?
A: He was slated to speak at an Agudah Convention in 1914.  imagine, R, Kook 
adressing an Agudah Convention?!

Conclusion: Hildesheimer's affiliation with Agudah might not have the same 
implication as intended in this post.  Affiliating with the Agudah probably had 
more to do with its global nature of bringing Torah together rather than its 
Austritt hahskofo.

Whoops another conculsion: It's no so hard to confuse the issue with facts! 
<smile>

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Seride Esh, Meiri 

Another, only tenuously related point: The Seminary in its later years was 
quite openly associated with the Agudah. Dr. Meir Hildesheimer was a member 
of the famous early delegation of Agudah leaders to America. Why do you 
think he accepted R' Chaim Ozer's request not to transfer the Seminary to 
EY?

!

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659 

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


[ 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         ]