Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 365

Monday, February 14 2000

• Re[2]: Austritt
• Rav Yechiel Ya'akov Weinberg zt"l
• [none]
• Teaneck - Lecture on Calendar Controversy
• Re: diyukim
• Loshon Horo
• Re: Loshon Horo
• Re: Rav Yechiel Ya'akov Weinberg zt"l
• correction re my V4#363 post
• Re: What moral qualms?
• Re: What moral qualms?
• re: diyukim
• Re: What moral qualms?
• Housing in or near Tel Aviv
• r'tzai
• diyukim -new Sfas Emes Siddur
• Re: What moral qualms?

AFAIK this has not been answered.

Short Version:

In Germany, religion was run by the state. Many communities (Gemeinden) were 
taken over by Reform, in that they soon overwhelmed the Orthodox in sheer 
numbers.

In some communities the Reform spitefully closed mikvos, etc.  In some 
communities peace was established, and while the Reform ran the show, the 
Orthodox were permitted to worship in their traditional manner and had to pay 
lip-service to the Gemeinder leaders who were Reform

Hirsch objected to this, and petitioned and won the right to form a separatist 
community in Frankfort independent of the Kehillo/Gemeinder.  Austritt, means to
exit.  Hirsch exited the Gemeinder and formed a separate kehillo.

Hirsch forbade uniting with non-Orthodox. But Austritt went further as R. 
Shlomoh Breuer insisted, he took it as far as separating from 
Gemeinder/Orthodox.  Meaning, that as a result of Austritt, the Orthodox 
community itself was split.  (I'm not quite sure if Hirsch himself took it this 
far or not.) 

----------------------------------------------------

This foreshadowed what happened in the USA circa 1954.  A ban was issued 
forbidding Orthodox groups from doing business with non-Orthodox groups (e.g. 
the Synagogue Council of America - an umbrella group).  

As a result many Orthodox groups adhered to the ban, and those who did not - 
(eg. the Rabbinical Council of America) were in effect boycotted by those who 
did.  IOW, the concept of Austritt has replayed itself out about hundred years 
later in the USA.

The rationale for Orthodox not separating now has been that times have change 
since the era of Hirsch and the Chasam Sofer in that Reform is established and 
it is too late to nip it in the bud by not recognizing it.   Others of course 
disagree.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Austritt 

<< If I remember correctly, when the Aguda was founded, the German side (I
 think one of the leaders was R' Shlomo Breuer) insisted that its charter 
 contain a clause limiting membership to those who were part of 
 separatist communities, and excluding the "Gemeinde Orthodox."  >>

Whats Gemeinde Orthodox?

Jordan Hirsch

As editor of The Torah u-Madda Journal and the one responsible for the
publication (Vol. 7) of the correspondance between Rav Weinberg zt'l and
Professor Atlas, I have been following the discussion regarding this issue
in the last few days with great interest.  I applaud Rabbi Dratch not only
for his erudite analysis of gezel akum but also for quoting from these
letters.  It was appropriate for him to do so and I hope he will publish
his entire presentation.  I also want to thank Eli Clark, David Finch, Meir
Shinnar and Jonathan Baker for their eloquent, thoughtful and reasoned
responses.

Furthermore, the membership of Avodah should be aware that I presented my
rationale for finally deciding to publish these letters in a long and
carefully nuanced article in Vol. 8 of the journal ("Facing the Truths of
History," pp. 200-276) where I dealt at length with all the issues that
were raised here.  I specifically raised the issue of the cherem of RG,
citing the Be'er ha-Golah, Leket ha-Kemach, Shu"t Maharam b. Baruch, Kol
Bo, R. CD Halevi's Aseh Lecha Rav, the Encyclopedia Talmudit as well as
dozens of other primary and secondary sources and determined that this
cherem is not applicable in this case.  I also presented examples of the
posthumous publication of letters (not chiddushei Torah) written by gedolei
Yisrael (including Rabbi Weinberg zt"l) which include sharply worded
pejorative comments about other great gedolim and Torah institutions and I
also address the very complex issue of Rabbi Weinberg's own desires in this
matter.  I invite all those who have contributed to this discussion to take
the time to carefully read my presentation (with all its nuances,
complexity, and footnotes) and then decide if it is convincing or if, chas
ve-shalom, I was engaged in "a concerted effort to dredge up more 'dirt'"
on Rabbi Weinberg zt"l as has been alleged here in Avodah.  I will be happy
to send a copy of this article to anyone who is interested.  I can be
reached at jacobjs@earthlink.com.

Finally, it behooves anyone interested in Rabbi Weinberg zt"l to read Marc
Shapiro's excellent biography.  Having done so would save someone from
writing in error that "People who know very little more about the SE now
assume he was much more of a TuMnik than an associate of the CI or R'
Dessler.  Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth."  Dr.
Shapiro's thoughtful work shows how careful one must be from making such
generalizations.

Taking the time to read what is already available on this very complex
subject can only enhance the level of discussion taking place here.

I am hoping that some of the learned people on this list can help answer my 
question. Basically, I want a definition of lashon ha-ra. I ask because it 
seems that much of what I and others regard as lashon ha-ra clearly is not. 
Let me explain.
	I am currently reading the book Uvdot ve-Hanhagot mi-Bet Brisk which 
contains many stories about R. Velvel. In a number of these stories R. 
Velvel speaks negatively about other rabbis (almost always Mizrachi rabbis). 
Similar types of comments are found in other works of this sort (such as by 
the Steipler) These type of comments would not be permitted on this list, 
and if I said them would be regarded as lashon ha-ra. But, since R. Velvel 
said them, and they are reprinted, obviously he did not regard them as 
lashon ha-ra. Presumably, he believed that when the negative talk has a 
purpose it is not forbidden.
	This opens a whole can of worms. What defines a "purpose". To give one 
example, R. Velvel said about certain Mizrachi rabbi that he was a liar. We 
thus see that it is permitted to call someone a liar if you sure he is one. 
Thus, If I think that someone is a charlatan, I can say so as well. If I 
think that someone is doing bad things to the Jewish people or only 
interested in his own selfish interests (even if he is recognized as a 
leader), I can say so. If you tell me I can't I will refute you by pointing 
to the writings of numerous gedolim.
What then is lashon ha-ra? Please define the parameters.

					      Zvi

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

For those in the NY Metropolitan Area:
On President's Day, 02/21, Richie Schiffmiller will be speaking at Cong. Rinat 
Yisroel (West englewood Avenue, Teaneck, NJ)  on the controversy between Ben 
Meir and R. Saadyah Gaon.

The lecture will follow the 8:00 AM minyan and a light breakfast is avaialable.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

1) Maariv: Keil Chay v'kayom; Tomid Yimloch aleinu l'olam va'ed
vs.
 Keil Chay v'kayom Tomid; Yimloch aleinu l'olam va'ed

Where does the Tomid go?
see Baer


2) Kaddish: b'olmo Di vro Chirusei;
vs.
b'olmo Divro; Kir'usei (Gra)

3)V'S'sim chelkeinu imohem l'olom; v'lo neivosh...
vs.
V'S'sim chelkeinu imohem; u'l'olom lo neivosh...

There are more...

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: diyukim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/13/2000 4:43 PM


Does anyone have other diyukim in davening similar to the recent "onim 
ve'omrim" issue?

Gershon

imho

What ploni said about XYZ is a lie is preferable to saying Ploni is a liar.

IOW condemn the deed not the individual, except perhaps unless/until that person
is "convicted" by a Beis Din.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

	This opens a whole can of worms. What defines a "purpose". To give one 
example, R. Velvel said about certain Mizrachi rabbi that he was a liar. We 
thus see that it is permitted to call someone a liar if you sure he is one. 
Thus, If I think that someone is a charlatan, I can say so as well. If I 
think that someone is doing bad things to the Jewish people or only 
interested in his own selfish interests (even if he is recognized as a 
leader), I can say so. If you tell me I can't I will refute you by pointing 
to the writings of numerous gedolim.
What then is lashon ha-ra? Please define the parameters.

					      Zvi

On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 10:17:50AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: What ploni said about XYZ is a lie is preferable to saying Ploni is a liar.

Yes, because you're refraining from the statement that this one lie was typical
of Ploni. But why not "Ploni was mistaken in what he said about XYZ"? This
removes all value judgement about Ploni. After all, he might have thought
what he was saying was true and was permissable for some reason or another.
Hilchos L"H are complex enough to assume mistakes happen.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

I was waiting for RJJS to respond.

I thought my position was eloquent, thoughtful and reasoned as well. Just
because we disagree does not make only one side of the coin e.t.a.r. I hope
all posts on Avodah are of that ilk.

Since there is no specific point to respond too here, I must note only that
my critique follows my reading both the original letters and RJJS's
subsequent defense, with which I obviously disagree. I had originally
contemplated compiling all the material in a letter to the editor of the TuM
journal (I have done such things in the past), but did not want to risk
further dragging of the SE through the mud for little hope of gain.

I will conclude that I hope this much has been accomplished here: That there
is an awareness and consciousness raised in the community of Ovdei Hashem
that there are great questions surrounding posthumous publications of highly
private and potentially controversial material from Gedolei Yisroel, and
there is little or no sanction in Yahadus - certainly not approbation - for
doing so.

Kano kin'eisi kinas ha'Seridei Eish zt"l. I believe that, in this case, this
is b'geder the kinah that is an integral part of Ahavas Hashem, as the
Mesillas Yeshorim describes in Sha'ar Ha'Chasidus.

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


----- Original Message -----
From: Jacob J Schacter <jacobjs@earthlink.net>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 5:53 AM
Subject: Rav Yechiel Ya'akov Weinberg zt"l


> As editor of The Torah u-Madda Journal and the one responsible for the
> publication (Vol. 7) of the correspondance between Rav Weinberg zt'l and
> Professor Atlas, I have been following the discussion regarding this issue
> in the last few days with great interest.  I applaud Rabbi Dratch not only
> for his erudite analysis of gezel akum but also for quoting from these
> letters.  It was appropriate for him to do so and I hope he will publish
> his entire presentation.  I also want to thank Eli Clark, David Finch,
Meir
> Shinnar and Jonathan Baker for their eloquent, thoughtful and reasoned
> responses.
>
> Furthermore, the membership of Avodah should be aware that I presented my
> rationale for finally deciding to publish these letters in a long and
> carefully nuanced article in Vol. 8 of the journal ("Facing the Truths of
> History," pp. 200-276) where I dealt at length with all the issues that
> were raised here.  I specifically raised the issue of the cherem of RG,
> citing the Be'er ha-Golah, Leket ha-Kemach, Shu"t Maharam b. Baruch, Kol
> Bo, R. CD Halevi's Aseh Lecha Rav, the Encyclopedia Talmudit as well as
> dozens of other primary and secondary sources and determined that this
> cherem is not applicable in this case.  I also presented examples of the
> posthumous publication of letters (not chiddushei Torah) written by
gedolei
> Yisrael (including Rabbi Weinberg zt"l) which include sharply worded
> pejorative comments about other great gedolim and Torah institutions and I
> also address the very complex issue of Rabbi Weinberg's own desires in
this
> matter.  I invite all those who have contributed to this discussion to
take
> the time to carefully read my presentation (with all its nuances,
> complexity, and footnotes) and then decide if it is convincing or if, chas
> ve-shalom, I was engaged in "a concerted effort to dredge up more 'dirt'"
> on Rabbi Weinberg zt"l as has been alleged here in Avodah.  I will be
happy
> to send a copy of this article to anyone who is interested.  I can be
> reached at jacobjs@earthlink.com.
>
> Finally, it behooves anyone interested in Rabbi Weinberg zt"l to read Marc
> Shapiro's excellent biography.  Having done so would save someone from
> writing in error that "People who know very little more about the SE now
> assume he was much more of a TuMnik than an associate of the CI or R'
> Dessler.  Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth."  Dr.
> Shapiro's thoughtful work shows how careful one must be from making such
> generalizations.
>
> Taking the time to read what is already available on this very complex
> subject can only enhance the level of discussion taking place here.
>

> On a separate but related matter: Rabbi YHHenkin quoted (his message's
ref: "Eidut Leyisrael no. 65 [Kitvei haGri"a Henkin vol 1, p. 161]") other
examples that his father wrote about... <
Correction: should read "his grandfather."  Sorry about that.  --Michael

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Carl M. Sherer wrote:

> On 13 Feb 00, at 16:30, Shalom Carmy wrote:
> 
> > 2) that relying totally on Meiri's view as the basis of our hashkafa is
> > apologetic, so that in the final analysis we simply recognize that halakha
> > is not identical with enlightened opinion (just as in the time of Tanakh,
> > the prophetic vision of universal peace was out of line with the
> > enlightened opinion of that age). After all is said and done, and with all
> > due respect to enlightened opinion, there will always be something in
> > Torah that stands apart from it.
> 
> How are you (or the SE) defining "enlightened opinion?"

For R. Weinberg, I recommend examining the essay in "LiPrakim." For myself
(or, on his behalf, if his own writing isn't clear enough on this point):
Let's define enlightened opinion as the opinion of those people who are
regarded as exemplifying the virtues of a society.

Example 1 (R. Weinberg's): When the Neviim spoke of an ideal world in
which war is unthinkable ("swords into ploughshares") it is safe to say
that virtuous people would have found this odd and offensive to their
value system. Part of being a king was making a great name for yourself on
the battlefield, gaining booty for your compatriots etc. Success in war,
heroic behavior etc. are the virtues which make life worth living.

Example 2 (also R. Weinberg's): Lo tehayeh kol neshama-- the idea that
religious uniformity can justify "ethnic cleansing" is certainly alien
contemporary enlightened opinion.

If your ONLY criterion is enlightened opinion then you must reject the
Neviim when they praise peace. Likewise you must apologize for, or excise,
all passages in the Torah that don't fit modern values.

It should be clear, based on the above, that R. Weinberg's conception of
what the Torah teaches is complex (it obviously simplifies things to
delete what you find disagreeable). It should be clear that he is not, in
principle, antagonistic to all modern enlightened values: the very fact
that he makes the effort to understand the perspective of the non-Jew, who
looks at Halakha and does not like it, betrays a measure of sympathy. And
yet, as he states explicitly in LiPrakim, we are not to offer apologies
when the Torah defies those human values.

On 14 Feb 00, at 11:06, Shalom Carmy wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> 
> > On 13 Feb 00, at 16:30, Shalom Carmy wrote:
> > 
> > > 2) that relying totally on Meiri's view as the basis of our hashkafa is
> > > apologetic, so that in the final analysis we simply recognize that halakha
> > > is not identical with enlightened opinion (just as in the time of Tanakh,
> > > the prophetic vision of universal peace was out of line with the
> > > enlightened opinion of that age). After all is said and done, and with all
> > > due respect to enlightened opinion, there will always be something in
> > > Torah that stands apart from it.
> > 
> > How are you (or the SE) defining "enlightened opinion?"
> 
> For R. Weinberg, I recommend examining the essay in "LiPrakim." For myself
> (or, on his behalf, if his own writing isn't clear enough on this point):
> Let's define enlightened opinion as the opinion of those people who are
> regarded as exemplifying the virtues of a society.

Regarded by whom? By us with hindsight? By the leaders of that 
time? 

> Example 1 (R. Weinberg's): When the Neviim spoke of an ideal world in
> which war is unthinkable ("swords into ploughshares") it is safe to say
> that virtuous people would have found this odd and offensive to their
> value system. Part of being a king was making a great name for yourself on
> the battlefield, gaining booty for your compatriots etc. Success in war,
> heroic behavior etc. are the virtues which make life worth living.

Unthinkable, yes, unenlightened, maybe or maybe not.

> Example 2 (also R. Weinberg's): Lo tehayeh kol neshama-- the idea that
> religious uniformity can justify "ethnic cleansing" is certainly alien
> contemporary enlightened opinion.

I suppose that is true except to the ethnic cleansers of the world.

But as you yourself must see, in the first case you are (or the SE 
is since you attribute these examples to him) defining 
enlightenment in terms of the people of that time, while in the 
second case, you are defining it in terms of "modern" society 
looking back. If you reversed the vantage point of the two 
definitions, the first case would be looked upon quite favorably 
(albeit unrealistically) today, while the second one would have been 
regarded as the norm for that time.

> If your ONLY criterion is enlightened opinion then you must reject the
> Neviim when they praise peace. Likewise you must apologize for, or excise,
> all passages in the Torah that don't fit modern values.

Obviously, throughout the course of history there are those who 
would not consider the Torah to be "enlightened." Wouldn't it be fair 
to say that the Torah stands independently of what we (or our 
predecessors) consider to be "enlightened?" That it is our duty to 
carry out the Torah's commands regardless of what society at large 
thinks of them? That's how I understand what you cite in the SE's 
name below:

> It should be clear, based on the above, that R. Weinberg's conception of
> what the Torah teaches is complex (it obviously simplifies things to
> delete what you find disagreeable). It should be clear that he is not, in
> principle, antagonistic to all modern enlightened values: the very fact
> that he makes the effort to understand the perspective of the non-Jew, who
> looks at Halakha and does not like it, betrays a measure of sympathy. And
> yet, as he states explicitly in LiPrakim, we are not to offer apologies
> when the Torah defies those human values.
> 
> 

-- 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.

R' Carl Sherer wrote: <<< Well, there's always the machlokes in where
"v'ishei Yisrael" in "R'tzai" goes.... (Does it go with "lidvir beisecha" or
with "u'sfilasam")? IIRC, RYBS felt very strongly that it goes with "lidvir
beisecha." >>>

The phrase "lidvir beisecha v'ishei Yisrael" is grammatically incorrect, as
the tav would have a sh'va, not a segol. *If* these four words are to be
read together, then it should read "lidvir beis'cha v'ishei Yisrael".

R' Micha's siddur Ashirah Lashem has the segol, and a period separating
"beisecha" from "v'ishei", which is also grammatically correct.

My thanks to Rav Elazar Teitz for pointing this out to me last fall, during
the "Moaday Kodshecha" thread.

Does anyone have any explicit first-hand info about which version RYBS used?

Akiva Miller

> > Let's define enlightened opinion as the opinion of those people who are
> > regarded as exemplifying the virtues of a society.
> 
> Regarded by whom? By us with hindsight? By the leaders of that 
> time? 

Society honors people who lead what they consider to be virtuous lives:
kibbudim when living; statues in death. People who disagree with these
evaluations are viewed as oddballs and subversives.

In hindsight, we may not regard an earlier society's virtues as virtues at
all. We may even regard them as vices. We may agree with the oddballs and
subversives.

> But as you yourself must see, in the first case you are (or the SE 
> is since you attribute these examples to him) defining 
> enlightenment in terms of the people of that time, while in the 
> second case, you are defining it in terms of "modern" society 
> looking back. If you reversed the vantage point of the two 
> definitions, the first case would be looked upon quite favorably 
> (albeit unrealistically) today, while the second one would have been 
> regarded as the norm for that time.

For human beings, the situation is asymmetrical. The (hypothetical?)
questioner whom R. Weinberg confronts asks him about Lo tehayye kol
neshama. He responds: the same G-d who said that also challenged the
world with the nevua of Yeshaya. But you (the questioner) don't want an
answer but an apology? That I won't give you.

We start with the perspective of our times (even if we rebel against it).
Part of R. Weinberg's point is precisely that the Torah is always, to some
degree, out of joint with human judgment, whoever refined (if you want a
synonym for the word enlightened).

> Obviously, throughout the course of history there are those who 
> would not consider the Torah to be "enlightened." Wouldn't it be fair 
> to say that the Torah stands independently of what we (or our 
> predecessors) consider to be "enlightened?" That it is our duty to 
> carry out the Torah's commands regardless of what society at large 
> thinks of them? That's how I understand what you cite in the SE's 

Absolutely yes!

My wife and I are planning a trip to Israel with our two children, ages
three and eighteen months, in late May.  We are thinking of staying about
two to three weeks.  I'd really appreciate any suggestions about relatively
inexpensive places to stay in or near Tel Aviv with kosher facilities (eg,
apartments to rent for a short time, or dati kibbutzim).  Thanks very much!

Amirom Singer
m-singer@uchicago.edu

Below is what I have written up on this subject.
Any other information is of course appreciated.

ari



Kenneth Miller wrote:

> R' Carl Sherer wrote: <<< Well, there's always the machlokes in where
> "v'ishei Yisrael" in "R'tzai" goes.... (Does it go with "lidvir beisecha" or
> with "u'sfilasam")? IIRC, RYBS felt very strongly that it goes with "lidvir
> beisecha." >>>
>
> The phrase "lidvir beisecha v'ishei Yisrael" is grammatically incorrect, as
> the tav would have a sh'va, not a segol. *If* these four words are to be
> read together, then it should read "lidvir beis'cha v'ishei Yisrael".
>
> R' Micha's siddur Ashirah Lashem has the segol, and a period separating
> "beisecha" from "v'ishei", which is also grammatically correct.
>
> My thanks to Rav Elazar Teitz for pointing this out to me last fall, during
> the "Moaday Kodshecha" thread.
>
> Does anyone have any explicit first-hand info about which version RYBS used?
>
> Akiva Miller

Misconception: In the bracha of Retzai the pause is before, not
after, the phrase V'eishay Yisrael.

Fact: Although there is logic to pausing before, the usually
accepted opinion is to pause after.

Background: The 17th bracha of Shemonei Esrei that begins with
Retzai is known as "Avodah" and requests that God accept the
Temple service and its replacement, prayer. It is such an ancient
blessing that it was one of the few recited by the kohanim as part
of their morning ritual in the Temple (Tamid 5:1). The translation
of the common Ashkenazik version is: "Be favorable, Hashem, our
God, toward Your people Israel and their prayer and restore the
service to the Beis Hamikdash. And the fire-offerings of Israel
(v'eishei Yisrael) and their prayer accept with love and favor,
and may the service of Your people Israel always be favorable to
You." This rendition puts a pause before v'eishei yisrael thus
requesting the acceptance, rather than the return, of the fire-
offerings. This is how the bracha is punctuated in the common
Birnbaum siddur, the Rinat Yisrael, and the English Artscroll
(1986, HC, p. 110). Netiv Binah (1:331) addresses this point and
states clearly that the prayer is asking God to accept the eishei
yisrael and their prayers and that the grammar dictates such a
translation. The phrase "l'dvir beisecha" - to your Beis hamikdash
- interposes between the phrase service and fire-offerings. If the
request was to restore both, "l'dvir beisecha" would have occurred
after v'eishei yisrael. In addition, the fact that beisecha has a
segol rather than a shva indicates it is a break point. See
Taz OC 120 who defends this position. Rashi would also seem to support this
reading of lumping eishei yisrael and prayer. In Berachot 11b and Yoma 68b he
offers his rendition of the bracha as it existed in Temple times when
there was no need to prayer for a restoration of sacrifices and
the blessing includes a request that God accept eishei yisrael and
the prayers of Israel. A problem with this is that it is strange
today to be asking God to accept the eishei yisrael when there are
none.
 There is however, a very strong alternative that reads the
bracha as "and restore the service and the fire-offerings of
Israel. And their prayer accept with love." This version is found
in the Minchas Yerushalayim siddur (1983, p. 175), The Tikkun
Meir, the "gra siddur", and the Hebrew Artscroll. Rav Yaakov Emden
in his siddur has no commas in the paragraph but explains that the
desire is that the eishei yisrael, which he explains is the fire
that was on the altar, should be restored. The Gr"a (Orach
Chaim:120) and MB writes that the correct
meaning of the phrases in that part of Shemoneh Esrai is "and
return the service to your house and (return also) the offerings
of Yisrael". Thus, according to the Gr"a, the pause should be
after V'Eishai Yisrael.
The sephardi version adds words that making it clear that the whole brachah is
referring
to the future and is not at all asking for curent acceptance of
prayer or sacrifices.

There is a new edition (actually 2 new editions) of the Roedelheim Sfas Emes 
Siddur now in print.

One version has all the piyyutim (so-called "yotzrros") for special shabbossos 
etc.

The other is the same w/o the piyyutim in the back.

The major change is that all instructions are now in Hebrew instead of German.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

In a message dated 2/14/00 11:03:12 AM US Central Standard Time, 
carmy@ymail.yu.edu writes:

<< > Obviously, throughout the course of history there are those who 
 > would not consider the Torah to be "enlightened." Wouldn't it be fair 
 > to say that the Torah stands independently of what we (or our 
 > predecessors) consider to be "enlightened?" That it is our duty to 
 > carry out the Torah's commands regardless of what society at large 
 > thinks of them? That's how I understand what you cite in the SE's 
 
 Absolutely yes! >>

I'm having trouble with this line of thought. As R'Micha Berger points out in 
all of his posts, the Proverbs say the mitzvah is the lamp. The light of the 
lamp emanates from HaShem. To quote the much-maligned A. J. Heschel, 
"Holiness is not exclusively the product of the soul but the outcome of 
moments in which G-d and soul meet in the light of a good deed." Heschel 
called this the "ecstacy of deeds."

So how can even the most refined among us consider as "enlightened" anything 
that isn't imbued with the spirit of Torah? Enlightenment -- literally, 
en-"light"-enment -- can only come from the spiritual fulfillment of mitzvot. 
To that extent Torah does *not* stand "independently" of what we or our 
predecessors consider to be enlightened. Torah is enlightenment.

Heschel's concept of the ecstacy of deeds -- of the transcendent joy of 
mitzvot -- may or may not reflect his Chassidus. But it certainly describes 
the overwhelming personal payoff (in this world, now, and not the next one) 
from observing Torah. Outside of Torah there are plenty of legal, ethical, 
and philosophical systems designed to raise man to various states of 
refinement. But ours is the system with Micha Berger's lamp. 

David Finch

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


[ 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         ]