Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 393

Thursday, February 24 2000

• Re: Halacha and...
• Re: Denigrating frum sociopaths
• Re: Frum Sociopaths
• Re: Halacha and...
• Re: Halacha and...
• Re: Halacha and...
• Re: Avodah V4 #392
• Re[2]: Frum Sociopaths
• Re: Study of History
• Re[2]: Halacha and...
• Halacha and...
• Re: Re[2]: Halacha and...
• Re: Noah's Flood
• Chilonim/Charedim, Problems and Solutions
• Re: Torah and ...
• Re: Re[2]: Halacha and...

On 24 Feb 00, at 11:52, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:45:19 +0200 "Carl M. Sherer"
> <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes:
> 
> <<I understood the difference between TuM and TIDE to be that TIDE
> regards (most or all) secular learning as a necessary evil, while TuM
> regards it as an integral component of Avodas Hashem. While TuM
> adherents may believe that they are a truer version of TIDE, I  doubt
> that TIDE adherents would look at TuM as any kind of TIDE. >>
> 
>  I am not sure that your characterization of TIDE's viewpoint on
>  secular
> learning is entirely correct.  My impression is that it was a
> "lechatchila" ,  not,  as you describe,  a hora'as sha'ah or a
> bediavad.

Maybe that Artscroll biography of RSRH is coloring my viewpoint 
after all :-) 

>   If TuM is not TIDE,  then what authoritative basis does it claim? 

It seems to me that the whole argument really boils down to 
whether TuM is TIDE or something different.

-- 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.

The other day someone mentioned the fellow next to him who chopped up his
davening to catch up and then put on his R"T tefillin at the end.

Perhaps he was doing exactly what he was supposed to?

SHu"T Rav Pe'alim (Ben Ish Hai) Vol 2, Orah Haiim 4:

(I'm going to translate instead of transliterate)

If someone arrives late in shul and finds the minyan already saying
zemirot (pesukei dezimra?), and realizes that he will not be able to say
the Amidah with them if he starts from the beginning, what can be done to
catch up without loosing the spiritual benefits of the tefillot? Must he
"make up" what he skips? What if a person is in a hurry for an
appointment, and does not have time to say the entire seder of the
tefillot?

Answer:

One should pray from "lefichach anachnu hayavim" to "shema yisrael",
followed by parashat hatamid and the short bakasha before it, and the
parashat ketoret and it's explanation in the baraita, and the bakasha
'she'yehe siah siftotenu hashuv' up to and including 'veshahat oto'. One
should then say from 'hodu' until 'u'vinvi'ei al tare'u', and from 'E-l
nekamot Hashem' 'till 'Hashem hoshi'ah', followed by 'Hashem melech' and
'vehayah Hashem lemelech', 'Lamnaze'ah', all of Baruch She'amar, 'Mizmor
Letodah', 'Yehi Chevodh', 'Ashre', "Halelu E-l bekodsho', and 'vayevarech
David' untill 'kemo even bemayim azzim', and from 'Hashem  yimloch
le'olam va'ed' 'till the end of the parashah and then yishtabah. After
yishtabah, nothing may be skipped.

After tefillot, one must recite all the parts that were skipped, plus all
of Hodu and the shirah even though they've already been said.

One may also follow this pattern if it is necessary to shorten the
tefillot, for example if one is leaving on a trip.

-------

I know that much of this is different in the Ashkenazi siddur, but there
must be some comparable list somewhere for you, no?


---sam

In a message dated 2/24/00 10:51:26 AM US Central Standard Time, 
jschwrtz@ymail.yu.edu writes:

<< In actuality, a
 sociopath is a personality style where the individual uses a keen ability
 to read social situations extremely well and manipulate them to his
 benefit. Many of the criminals in prison today might show sociopathic
 tendencies but not all criminal acts are sociopathic in nature.  >>

Maybe yes, maybe no. Sociopaths are manipulative, but they lack empathy with 
the needs of others. They have no real conscience. Sociopaths make good 
criminals, but, as you say, not all criminals are sociopaths. Some criminals 
feel enormous guilt, but cannot control their actions or conform them to 
societal priorities.

David Finch, B.S., J.D., M.A.D.G. (Member, Avodah Discussion Group)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:05:03 +0200 "Carl M. Sherer"
<cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes:

<<Maybe that Artscroll biography of RSRH is coloring my viewpoint after
all :-)>>

	It certainly isn't coloring mine;  I haven't read it! 

<<It seems to me that the whole argument really boils down to whether TuM
is TIDE or something different.>>

	Which is what I was getting to.  Perhaps someone more familiar with the
TuM philosophy can flesh out the roshei prokim:  if it is or isn't
supposed to be TIDE.  If it is,  how it differs,  if at all,   and if
not,   mah tivo shel ubar zeh?

	I am still waiting for Micha to expand upon his ruminations (presumably
he is waiting until inspiration strikes again during tonight's walk to
the train <g>).

	(Maybe I shouldn't have used that word,  after reading the article on
buffalo in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society yesterday, 
and discovering the source of the verb "to ruminate" <g>)

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 06:45:19PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: I understood the difference between TuM and TIDE to be that TIDE 
: regards (most or all) secular learning as a necessary evil, while 
: TuM regards it as an integral component of Avodas Hashem.

Let me repost the SE's definition of TIDE, it's the one I meant in the
post.

    The Torah, according to Rav Hirsch, is the force that gives form. Form,
    to Aristotle's thought, means a thing's essential nature in distinction
    to the substance from which it is embodied. Derekh Eretz is merely the
    matter on which Torah works.
                    (Essay in "Shimshon Rephael Hirsch: Mishnaso viShitaso")

I think your description is more of those who take RSRH's TIDE as an "eis
la'asos Lashem". Also, I think R' Breuer's TIDE differs from RSRH's. I'll
work on articulating how, but I think it'd be better to let someone from
the community explain what TIDE means to them today -- first-hand.

:                                                           While 
: TuM adherents may believe that they are a truer version of TIDE, I 
: doubt that TIDE adherents would look at TuM as any kind of TIDE. 

Agreed with both halves of the statement. However, that doesn't mean RSRH
wouldn't have seen TuM as a kind of TIDE. Movements, even the Frankfurt
kehillah, evolve. I hope the Yekkes among us don't see that as an insult.

I actually think the SE's TIDE is closest to the original. I'm not sure that
makes it "more correct" as an ideal for Jews today. (Even if I desire to make
it my own ideal.) TuM, although it has a shorter history, is also an evolving
concept.


-mi

Acronyms: SE - Seridei Eish;   TIDE - Torah im Derech Eretz;    RSRH - Rav
Samson Refael Hirsch;   TuM - Torah uMadda.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In Avodah 4#392, CSherer replied:
> I understood the difference between TuM and TIDE to be that TIDE
regards (most or all) secular learning as a necessary evil, while
TuM regards it as an integral component of Avodas Hashem. <
I can't speak to TuM, but I disagree with your statement
re TIDE.  If an area of secular learning can be used as
a means towards Avodas HaShaim, it's necessary (or,
if you will, a necessary good), not a necessary evil.

(I then saw that) GDubin replied:
> I am not sure that your characterization of TIDE's viewpoint on secular
learning is entirely correct.  My impression is that it was a "lechatchila"
,  not,  as you describe,  a hora'as sha'ah or a bediavad. <
[[Netiquette violation censored]] Carl, have you
flown a white flag yet? :-)

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

> Date: Thu,  24 Feb 2000 16:34 +0200
> From: MOSHES@MM.HUJI.AC.IL
> Subject: RE: Avodah V4 #391
 
<<I notice that there is much give-and-take in these volumes. Where does
this take place?>>

	Two ways:

		1.  Some people,  rather than receiving digests,  receive all posts as
they are posted to the list.

		2.  Others,  who are in digest mode,  receive copies of posts related
to topics whose discussion they are taking part in.  

		Thus,  you are receiving this answer,  despite the fact that it will
not appear in a digest for a while (depending on how "hot" the list is at
any given time),  since it relates directly to a question you posed.

		Presumably,  if discussion on this topic proceeds,  you will be kept in
the loop,  as well as keeping others in the loop,  by direct cc:  to them
rather than just to the list.

		For further elaboration,  email our esteemed listowner privately.

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

My understand of psychopath and sociopath is that they lack feelings of guilt or
remorse.

It is usually associated with a highly narcisstic personality combined with a 
good deal of manipuliatve charm

The problem with the mainpulative charm is that a true psychopath will do 
mitzovs in order to ingratiate himself (iow as a "con" game) instead of out of 
any sincere sense of avoda

And true sociopaths are severely challenged in doing Teshuva since they 
rarely/never see thesmelves as wrong.

There are 2 classic models of ovrim, l'hahc'is  and l'tei'avon.  I recall that 
the Rosh in Chulin discusses the middle case - lo ichpat li. In his insight, he 
equates a lo ichpat li as if he were l'hach'is.  As I see it, a socipoath is a 
lo ichpat li type, he really doesn't care about the outcome or whom he injures 
etc.

That's perhaps what spurred R. Gorelick to be cynical about chitzonios types, it
tended to indicate either a superficiality or insincerity that could be 
downright dangerous. Irmember that drug dealer who would not trim a beard?  For 
those of you who thought his frumkeit re: the beard was sincere, I would suggest
that this is the kind of "con" a sociopath uses to take in the naive and the 
unsuspecting. IOW it's frumkeit for show. and in the back alleys this same guy 
is dealing drugs.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

I'd like to ask the other psychologists and mental health professionals to 
back me up here, but this line of discussion seems to be misusing the term 
"sociopath" as to be synonymous with the word "criminal". In actuality, a 
sociopath is a personality style where the individual uses a keen ability 
to read social situations extremely well and manipulate them to his 
benefit. Many of the criminals in prison today might show sociopathic 
tendencies but not all criminal acts are sociopathic in nature. 


Jonathan Schwartz, MA

We seem to have focussed on the contradiction between true history and lashon 
hara.  I think a much bigger problem is journalism.  How much of news is NOT 
lashon hara?  Does it help if the newspaper is weekly so the news is probablu 
already public?

this is a shorter version of my multi-pate draft

Briefly the differences between Hirsch and YU are:

1) Austritt/separatism
2) Wissenshaft

TIDE perceive TuM as equating Madda with Torah.  this is not quite true.  What 
TuM DOES say, is that one can discover Hasehm via Torah, AND one can ALOS 
discover Hashem via Madda.  It does not mean madda is equal to Torah, only tha 
it can provide a secondary way to relate to Hashem.  In talking with TIDE'ers 
this seems to come up.

TIDE sees all culture as being valid UNDER the "wings" of Torah. That Schiller 
and Schopenahuer can be understood with a Torah lense to tell us something 
meaningful.  TIDE is superimposing a Torah lense upon the entire brioh and using
that in service to Torah.

TuM is about learning Torah and learning Madda, and then making sense and 
reconcilling the 2.  It's a personal process.

TuM was a product of Revel and Belkin.  My sense is that RYBS accepted this a s 
a legitimate apporach but was not striclty an ahderent.  IOW RYBS said TuM is 
OK, but he did not necessarily practice it fully himself.

This is as opposed to R. Breuer who felt that TuM is NOT OK.

What YU preached (more or less) is that the entire disparate range of Torah-true
adherents were all OK. Others were more restrictive and limited as to what is OK
and what is NOT OK.

Imho it is fair to say that TuM took pieces of Hirsch, but did not follow the 
Hirschian philosophy as a whole.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Halacha and... 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate

	I am not sure that your characterization of TIDE's viewpoint on secular 
learning is entirely correct.  My impression is that it was a 
"lechatchila" ,  not,  as you describe,  a hora'as sha'ah or a bediavad.

	 If TuM is not TIDE,  then what authoritative basis does it claim?  RSRH 
was the proponent of TIDE;  a lesser person would have bogged down in 
trying to explain the concept to the more conservative (RW) elements in 
Klal Yisrael.   I am not sure that RYBS laid claim to the title either; 
maybe some of the experts on the list can help us out.

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R. Gershon Dubin asks:

>	Also,  I am a little fuzzy on your distinction between TuM and TIDE.
>Isn't the underlying assumption of TuM that there is an equality there?

And R. Carl replies:

>I understood the difference between TuM and TIDE to be that TIDE
>regards (most or all) secular learning as a necessary evil, while
>TuM regards it as an integral component of Avodas Hashem. While
>TuM adherents may believe that they are a truer version of TIDE, I
>doubt that TIDE adherents would look at TuM as any kind of TIDE.

And R. Gershon responds:

>	 If TuM is not TIDE,  then what authoritative basis does it claim?  RSRH
>was the proponent of TIDE;  a lesser person would have bogged down in
>trying to explain the concept to the more conservative (RW) elements in
>Klal Yisrael.   I am not sure that RYBS laid claim to the title either;
>maybe some of the experts on the list can help us out.

There is no one definition of any of these terms.  Since R. Hirsch
coined TIDE (Torah im Derekh Eretz) his definition shjould govern.
Unfortunately, there is a debate as to whether he saw Torah and culture
interacting (sometimes called "synthesis") or merely saw that culture
could complement Torah.  (Based on my reading, Ithinkit was the latter.)
In either case, Hirsch himself did not believe TIDE was be-diavad or a
hora'at shaah.   But many people today, including some who claim his
mantle, have taken that position.  (For an interesting variiation on
this approach, see R. Klugman's discussion of this issue in his
otherwise excellent biography of Hirsch.)

TuM (Torah u-Mada) does not have the pedigree of TIDE.  The term was
coined by the president of YU, Dr. Revel, who was a talmid hakham but no
gadol.  RYBS (that's R. Yosef Ber Soloveitchik) never employed the term,
nor did he ever write a discussion of the ideology of TuM.  But as a
practical matter he encouraged people to study in university and
affirmed that there was value in being engaged in the larger culture.
R. Lichtenstein (who has discussed the ideology) has stated his
preference for the phrase Torah u-Hokhmah, the latter term drawn from
Hazal and Rishonim.  R. Lichtenstein rejects the notion of synthesis.

In fact, whether one speaks of TIDE or TuM, there are at least two
different issues that need to be addressed.  One is strictly curricular.
 Should Jews study non-Torah subjects and should Jewish schools teach
them?  R. Lamm's book focuses on this issue, which obviously requires
analysis of various issues of issur ve-heter (hokhmah yevanit, hokhmot
hitzonniyyot, the controversies swirling around Rambam, Rema and
others).

Assuming it is muttar, however, there is the ideological-philosophical
question whether such studies have merely instrumental value (parnassah,
etc.) or have spiritual value as well.  This is not really a question
about curricula in Jewish schools or the permissibility of university
studies.  It is a question whether one divides the entire world into
kodesh and hol and restricts himself to the kodesh or whether one sees
the engagement with the entire universe -- nature, culture, society --
as part of one's avodat ha-Shem.  Thus, there are rabbanim who never
stepped foot in a university who nevertheless read widely and develop an
understanding and appreciation of the larger world; as religiously
sensitive individuals, this experience is not merely bittul Torah but
essential to their spiritual growth.  On the other hand, one can find
frummer yidden with fancy academic degrees who view their secular
studies as hevel from a religious perspective.

I have never met a serious Orthodox thinker who believed that there is
an equality between Torah and non-Torah.  However, I know some who would
expand their definition of "Torah" to include lots of other stuff.  I
have also met a few ideologues who believe that TuM is not only a valid
way but the best and only way.  (My sense, from the recent thread on the
Seridei Esh, is that our own RYGB uses TuM in that sense and therefore
rejects it.)  But I think that most thoughtful adherents of TuM or TIDE
are not so absolutist or simplistic.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:57:14 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<IOW RYBS said TuM is OK, but he did not necessarily practice it fully
himself.>>

	I'd be interested in any factual basis for this assertion.  Not that it
isn't true,  but having evidence of RYBS's hechsher on something even if
he didn't practice it means more,  at least to me,  than that of Drs.
Revel and Belkin.

<<This is as opposed to R. Breuer who felt that TuM is NOT OK.>>

	Would you say that R.Breuer was an authority on TIDE?

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R' Micha Berger writes:

>And yet there was at least one living olive tree when it was all over. Things
>/did/ survive or were recreated after the flood. I haven't seen anyone
>comment on it though.

See Ramban Bereishis 8:11.

>"'Practical' questions" about a neis???
> As I said, the lines of reasoning imployed here could be used, ad absurdum, 
> to  "prove" deism. Yitzchok doesn't believe in the argument, he just 
sympathizes
>  with those who are troubled by it. I don't understand how a frum Jew can 
be.

Ibn Ezra (Bereishis 6:15-6:21) does worry about practical issues with the 
Teivah, and he does not appear willing to give Ramban's "Muat Machazik Es 
haMerubah" answer (and I don't know what IE's "Sod" is).

Mordechai Torczyner
Cong. Ohave Shalom, YI of Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf

> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:52:38 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re: Chilonim/Charedim, Problems and Solutions 

<<What is not known is that - as an indirect result - other frum yeshivas
were thereby enabled to connitue provide 4-D and other deferments.  IOW
had YU not made this "deal" all yeshiva deferments would have been in
jeopardy.
 
I wonder if anyone in the yeshiva velt who availed themselves of  this
deferement ever took the time to give YU a "yasher koach"?>>

	They should all line up right behind the galachim.  This being America, 
B"H the government could not deny ministry/divinity students deferments
based upon their religion.  So while the men in uniform certainly owe a
yasher koach to YU for providing chaplains,  I am dubious that the other
yeshivas do.

Gershon

On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:03:49PM -0500, R' Michael Poppers
<MPoppers@kayescholer.com> quoted me and wrote:
:> Note that mod-O's and RSRH's "and" involves this world, Chassidus is
:> "and"ing with shamayim, and Mussar with the world between your ears. We
:> actually have divided ourselves along the same lines as the avos. (ayin
:> sham, or at least <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/vayeitzei.html>)

....
: Don't stop there :-) -- let's hear your compare&contrast
: of those three methodologies with the "har," "sadeh," and
: "bayis" concepts (or let me know if you want me to
: start/keep the ball rolling).

Below is the web page, to satisfy both RMP's and R' Gershon Dubin's
<gershon.dubin@juno.com> requests. FYI, I added a gabbai program at
<gabbai@aishdas.org>. It takes requests of two types (so far), which it will
read from the BODY of an email.

Type 1: To recieve by email a formatted version of the page pointed to by
the URL.
    view <URL>
e.g. "view http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n391.shtml" will download
a file from the Avodah archive

Type 2: To recieve the file unformatted, as a MIME attachment.
    get <URL>
e.g. "get http://www.aishdas.org/book/bookA.pdf" will download
a file from the archive

Type 3: The search engine -- not yet ready. For those who do have web access,
see <http://www.aishdas.org/search.cgi>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         


                         Aspaqlaria: Parshas Vayeitzei
                                       
   The Gemara (Pesachim 88a) discusses the future return to the Beis
   Hamikdash in terms of a quote from this week's parashah.
   
     And R. Elazar said: What is it when it says (Yeshaia 2) "And many
     nations will go and say 'Let us go and go up to the mountain of
     Hashem, to the house of the G-d of Yaacov!'"? [Does it mean] the
     G-d of Yaacov, but not the G-d of Avraham and Yitzchak? Rather,
     [Yeshaia means] not like Avraham, by whom it is written "har, a
     mountain, as it says (Ber 22) "which is called today The Har Where
     Hashem will be Seen", and not like Yitzchak, by whom it is written
     "sadeh", a field, as it says (Ber 24) "and Yitchak went out to
     converse [with G-d] in the field". Rather like Yaacov, by whom it
     is written "bayis", a house, as it says (Ber 28) "And he called the
     name of the place Beis-El."
     
   Each of the forefathers had an encounter with G-d at Moriah. To
   Avraham it was a har, to Yitzchak, a sadeh, and to Yaacov, a bayis. R.
   Elazar is saying that the third Beis Hamikdash will be similar to
   Yaakov's experience, a bayis.
   
   R. Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger (Divrei Yisrael I) explores the
   meaning of each of these terms, to help us understand how each of the
   avos related to G-d, and how this is reflected in the Batei Mikdosh.
   
   To Avraham, it was like climbing a mountain. Not everyone can climb a
   mountain, and even then you need favorable conditions -- rain can wash
   away the trail, wind can cause landslides. As King David wrote, "Who
   can climb onto the Har of G-d?" Avraham's encounter at Moriah was
   during the akeidah the last of ten challenges he faced to get to this
   point. He had to climb from an environment ignorant of G-d, and
   struggle until he reached the pinacle.
   
   Yitzchak was able to build from that platform. He didn't need to
   struggle go to some remote inaccessible place. He davened in the
   middle of the sadeh. With no borders, allowing the holiness to radiate
   to the rest of the world.
   
   Yaacov came to Moriah, and found a bayis. While a sadeh does not
   require that kind of struggle, it is still open to the elements. A
   bayis protects those who enter it.
   
   We can find these same three kinds of relationships looking at the
   three Batei Mikdosh.
   
   When Yehoshuah came to the land, after 40 years in the desert, he had
   to conquer it. We went through the struggles of that era, the Shoftim,
   and Shaul before we were ready to build the First Beis Hamikdosh. It
   was the top of the har, high and glorious, but hard to reach.
   
   The problem with the trail up the har is that if you veer even a bit
   from the road of halacha, you are no longer at the peak. R. YAA
   Krieger draws the image of the Yom Kippur scapegoat, pushed off the
   edge of the mountain, and falling until destroyed. So too the first
   commonwealth. When we couldn't maintain that spiritual height, we
   plummeted into exile.
   
   Zerubavel, Yeishua, Nechemia and Ezra regroup to rebuild the Second
   Beis Hamikdosh. It didn't have the loftiness of the first, the aron
   and other articles of the kodesh hakadashim were missing, as was the
   pillar of cloud that represented Hashem's presence over the aron. The
   elders who saw the second bayis remembered the first and cried, only
   the youth rejoiced. It was a sadeh, not as lofty, but there was no
   struggle to climb.
   
   As the Jews lost grounding, other nations, the Hellenes, the Romans,
   entered the sadeh. It has no border, no protection from the winds that
   blow us about the face of the earth. After a while, Rome -- whose
   ancestor Eisav was called in last week's parashah a 'man of the
   sadeh', destroyed the Temple, and scattered us.
   
   The Third Temple, however, will be in Yaacov's mode. It will be a
   bayis, a home, protecting us from the elements, spiritual protection
   insuring permanence to the kingdom and the ideals it will stand for.
   "For My bayis will be called a beis tephillah, a house of prayer for
   all the nations."
   
   When learning this dvar Torah, I was reminded of a verse which appears
   to imply the opposite, "And I will remember My covenant of Yaakov and
   even My covenant of Yitzchak, and even My covenant of Avraham, and the
   land I will remember". Here it appears that the final return to Israel
   will be built on Avraham's mode, not Yaacov's.
   
   There is a famous gemara which talks about Hashem "wearing tephillin",
   as it were. The verse in His "tephillin" is "And who is like Your
   nation Israel, a singular people in the land". While our tephillin
   speak of our attachment to G-d, His are about our love for Him.
   Similarly, we call the holidays by what Hashem did for us, while He
   calls them by what we do for Him. We call it Pesach, to recall how
   Hashem skipped our doors the night of the tenth plague. In the Torah,
   the holiday is named after the mitzvah of Matzos.
   
   We approach this relationship thinking of the bayis, the protection
   and home G-d provides for us. Hashem "remembers" the covenant of
   Avraham, the years of climbing the har, of 10 trials and wandering in
   the desert. This is typical of all good relationships, where each
   focuses on what they've recieved, and not what they've given.
   
   To this day, each new son is marked with the os bris, the sign of the
   covenant with Avraham. In the merit of this os and keeping the
   covenant of serving G-d even when challenges stand in our way, may we
   merit to soon see the day of the permanent bayis. © 1995 The AishDas
   Society

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> this is a shorter version of my multi-pate draft
> 
> Briefly the differences between Hirsch and YU are: 
> 
> 1) Austritt/separatism 2) Wissenshaft
> 
> TIDE perceive TuM as equating Madda with Torah.  this is not quite true. 
> What TuM DOES say, is that one can discover Hasehm via Torah, AND one
> can ALOS discover Hashem via Madda.  It does not mean madda is equal to
> Torah, only tha it can provide a secondary way to relate to Hashem.  In
> talking with TIDE'ers this seems to come up. 
> 
> TIDE sees all culture as being valid UNDER the "wings" of Torah. That
> Schiller and Schopenahuer can be understood with a Torah lense to tell
> us something meaningful.  TIDE is superimposing a Torah lense upon the
> entire brioh and using that in service to Torah. 
> 
> TuM is about learning Torah and learning Madda, and then making sense
> and reconcilling the 2.  It's a personal process. 
> 
> TuM was a product of Revel and Belkin.  My sense is that RYBS accepted
> this a s a legitimate apporach but was not striclty an ahderent.  IOW
> RYBS said TuM is OK, but he did not necessarily practice it fully
> himself. 
> 
> This is as opposed to R. Breuer who felt that TuM is NOT OK. 
> 
> What YU preached (more or less) is that the entire disparate range of
> Torah-true adherents were all OK. Others were more restrictive and
> limited as to what is OK and what is NOT OK. 
> 
> Imho it is fair to say that TuM took pieces of Hirsch, but did not
> follow the Hirschian philosophy as a whole. 
>

I agree with RRW on point #1, but not #2, and I also disagree with his
characterization of RYBS.

The use or disuse of Wissenschaft, to me, does not seem to be an indicator
or TIDE/TuM. Frankfurt, a less intellectual commnity, did not employ
Wissenschaft. Berlin, a more intellectual community, did. Nevertheless, R'
ezriel Hildesheimer and the Seminary were well within TIDE (and,
eventually, Agudist) parameters.

By contrast, RYBS was *not* a "tinok she'nishba" in the TuM camp! And he
did not employ Wissenschaft. He felt that TuM was not an admixture of the
two, which is what Wissenschaft (can we abbreviate tha word to W-t,
please?) essentially does, but a confrontation of sorts, which through its
clash builds a person.

Regardless, the adherents of TIDE definitely held it to be l'chatchila and
la'netzach.
 
YGB

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

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


[ 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         ]