Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 411

Friday, March 3 2000

• TIDE v. TuM - I Think I Got it
• Re: TIDE v. TuM - I Think I Got it
• Re: TIDE v. TuM - I Think I Got it
• Re: Avodah V4 #408 (Ten Commandments)
• Re[2]: TIDE v. TuM - I Think I Got it
• Re: Just what is Torah uMada
• Re: Avodah V4 #408 (Ten Commandments)
• Ten Commandments
• Aseres Dibros
• Re: Ten Commandments
• Re[2]: Avodah V4 #408 (Ten Commandments)
• MD Tendler, PhD -humor alert
• Re[2]: Just what is Torah uMada
• Principles For Sale

TIDE'niks I know consider any thing of cultrue as SUBJECT to Torah, and can be 
scrutinized with the lense of Torah and thereby be made subject to it.

It is not a lechatchilo vs. bedieved, it is FIRST knowing Torah and then using 
that ahskofo to view things such as Schiller or opera, etc.

TUM and synthesis is similar.  It is also taking Torah principles and then also 
learning secular principles and doing one's best to make sense out of both.

E.G. (disclaimer I am not a lawyer just astudent of history)

Torah teaches us respect for tradition.

Common law teaches us respect for precedent.

A TuM philophy of psak might evolve that we should not look to lomuds to 
legislate law but to existing Shut to based psak upon precedent.

Hirsch would NOT like this because he saw Torah as being validated internally 
only.

TuM syntheis is imho an AHA! a EUREKA!  I can draw a parallel between a Torah 
principle and a secular principle and come up with a modus operandi

Another illustration:

In demcocracy - a majority rules.  a TuM might see this as a paralle (or even an
outgrowth) of acharie rabbim lehattos

A Torah only person might see the 2 as co-incidentla and unrelated.

A TIDE person might see this as strictly an aoutgrowth of Torah, but not having 
intrinsic valud on its own nad that any evolution of this principle in the 
secular world might not be reliable.

A TuM might note the parallel where one must convict by a mjority larger than 
one to the need for super-majorities to override vetoes, etc. amke consittuional
amendments etc.

Her are some other paralles, Teh 5th amendment to hte consitution is based upon 
the Talmudic principle of ein adam meisim atzmo rasho BUT it is applied very 
differntly.  A Torah only person would say so what?  A TuM might say AHA, there 
is a parallel, The Western tradition used Talmudic priniclpes BUT they evoled 
differently outside the halahcic system.  Perhaps we can interact with thei 
principle and elnighten and inform soeicty via article of jsut how things have t
changed. We MIGHT go a step fruther and speuclate if the Western model has any 
use for us.  To a Torah-only Jew this is heresy.  To TIDE, Hirsch might have 
said hey we ONLY look internally for Torah knowledge (this is lossely based upon
his apparently veiled criticims of the Rambam in his 19 letters).  The SE might 
have sais YES we can leern from the secular society and see their POV as 
legitimate in the area of lomudus, but he probably would have derawn the line 
about putting into hahlacha lemaase.  (See Shapiro's book on this dichotomy 
between lomdus nad lemaase of which I am so fond).

But unlike the rw allegations, TuM would NOT say because the seculairst have it 
is is ipos facto superior. I think that rw Torah only think that becaue TuM 
deals with secualr cultrue that it gives it preference instead of mere 
deference.

Seeing parallels betwen the American consitution and  Talmuidc jursirpudence 
teaches me that THIS society has a vastly differnt attitude towards Jewish 
principles than di czarist Russia and therfore we ought to relate to it 
differntly.  That sticking to isolationist or separatist models is living in the
past and presming that all goyim are the same. This is imho terribly myopic.  
The nisayon in America is NOT the nisayon of the Pale.  It ougth to be addressed
differntly. YU and TuM is one model of how that differnce is manifested in a 
highly western culture.

Socilogically speaking it is  silly t point to the Netziv's stand against 
czarist seculariztaoin as a precdent for America.  There there was a kulturkampf
between an opressive regime and the Yeshiva world which was a sanctuary.

Here and now, we hae a much more frioednly regime (a medinah of chessed said R. 
S. Schwab)   and much more asimlation to address.  If TIDE and both Berlin and 
Frankfort were more Western than the yeshivos only a few hundred miles to the 
East, it makes sense that in the the USA we would take it a step further.  Even 
tho' Germany was more ope nan Western thatn was Russia circa 1900, it was still 
an authoritarian regime run by a citator (i.e. Kaiser Wilhelm).  The USA is far 
more integrated than was Germany and the fact that it produced a far more 
liberal version of TIDE that is TuM is imho a valid response to same.

I certainly would not see YU or TuM as being so desirable in caarist Russia,  
OTOH I do not think hihgly sepratist communities in the USA make sense either.  
if you want to remain free of Gentile cutlure than aliyo makes the most senses 
to me.     
 
Remeber that most of the anti-YU stuff on this list is a reflection that YU is 
ahead of its time.  60 years ago the anti-YU bashing was about speaking Englsih 
isntead of Yiddish!  Now virtually all the rw yeshiva world is in English, this 
was heresy at one time.

Stern college, etc. was also considered "dnagerous" at one time.  But many 
seminaries today had programs that are at least similar.  RYBS was racial for 
teaching Talmud to women.  Yet last Shabbos an anit-YU rw kiruv rabbi included 
several women in his Talmud class!  

While NCSY allowed for mixed gneder events in the 1950's and 1960's and this was
considere horoas sho'oh, R. Breur encouraged similar events in his TIDE 
community.  He felt the danger of assimilation and intermarraige far outwighed 
the risks of mixing genders at social evnts.  YU has said the same thing for a 
long time.  When communities in oshkosh were assimliating, YU was provding 
musmachim while Torah lishma yeshivas wer not. does that mean YU is anti torah 
l;ihsma. not ncecesarily, YU was saying there was a void to be filled so they 
filled it. The same migh be said for torah lihsma insitutions.  My impression at
YU was that it saw the Lakewoods as neccesary, so why not the converse?

As far as TIDE goes, that's ok, but in an open society does AUSTRITT really make
sense?  I think that it DID make sens in Farnkfort in many ways, but the USA is 
not Frankfort.  I think Austritt is not a good idea, and is a real bedieved in 
our society.

The TuM philosophy as I see it is to pre-emptively strike against society 
instead of pasively waiting and needing to be reactionary.

My LOR when I was growing up said that the goal of the Rambam is to show the 
scientific rationale for the mitzvos, that chukim would eventually all be seen 
as mishpotim as the mysetry behind them becomes reveled. At that time 9circa 
1965) mila was considered hygenic. IOW it had migrated from strct chok to at 
least a quasi mishpat, the ath Rambam hismefl did notsee the medical benefits 
thereof. Now we can view the article re: AIDS via all kidns of lenses.  The 
lense I chose to see is Toras Hashem temimah, that every mitzvo is in concert 
nad harmony with our physial reality and it is part of our avoda to se  that 
connection.  This is imho classic Maimponidean TuM. this doe NOT mean that on a 
SOD or mystical level there are not other meta-physical layers of meaning. There
are!   But there were rational types of mystics such as Maharal and Gra who saw 
the science and tehcnology as being mroe-or-less in harmony with Torah concepts.
 TuM is a positvie mindset saying, I wonder HOW I can reconcile maggots in the 
Gemoro to the reality...  it assumes that both sides have validity and works 
from there.  

The torah only school works to show how Torah is DIFFERENT. the TuM shows how 
Torah is SIMILAR.  Torah only seeks to show how Jews are fundamentally andish, 
while TuM shows how Torah and Judaism underlies science, law etc.

TIDE is similar in its ability to confront society on its own terms, BUT Hirsch 
also proposed AUSTRITT and this is a confrontational approach. 

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:04:15AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: TIDE'niks I know consider any thing of cultrue as SUBJECT to Torah, and can
: be scrutinized with the lense of Torah and thereby be made subject to it.

Do I see someone agreeing with my "derive kedushah" theory?

BTW, I overlooked an important distinction noted by RYGB. Tying it in to my
theory, I would say that TIDE gives secular knowledge that is usable in
living al pi haTorah a derived kedushah. Therefore a TIDE community lauds
the professional.

TuM, by giving mada inherent kedushah, are going to laud knowledge for its
own sake and scholarship.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  3-Mar-00: Shishi, Vayakhel
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 3b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

In a message dated 3/3/00 10:26:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> BTW, I overlooked an important distinction noted by RYGB. Tying it in to my
>  theory, I would say that TIDE gives secular knowledge that is usable in
>  living al pi haTorah a derived kedushah. Therefore a TIDE community lauds
>  the professional.
>  
>  TuM, by giving mada inherent kedushah, are going to laud knowledge for its
>  own sake and scholarship.
>  
Would it then follow that the Kllolim used for Torah is applied to the DE in 
TIDE or M in TuM, namely "Im Horav Domeh Lmalach..." and "Me Sheyirosoi 
Kodemes Lchochmosoi..." etc. etc.?

Gut Shabbos V'Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

>>Pardon my ignorance but what are the other versions?
I thought everyone agreed on the text of the Bible.>>

Catholics translate "lo sirtzach" as "You shall not murder" but most Protestants
(who generally use the NIV translation) translate it as "You shall not kill."

Remember that based on the Torah SheBe'al Peh we consider "lo signov" to refer 
to kidnapping.  Christians don't.


Neither Catholics nor Protestants include "anochi" as a commandment which would 
leave them with nine.

Protestants separate "lo sa'aseh lecha.." and "lo yihyeh lecha phesel..." into 
two different commandments to add another (I think it is a jibe against 
Catholics using statues).

Catholics separate "lo sachmod" into two.

Caveat:

Only with a Torah Background

Mada does not stand alone rather it is soemthing to be syntheszzed (or as a I 
prefer it harmonized) with Torah.

As a I see it there is no mitzva in TuM to be a sicentist

BUT

There is a mitzva or a positove benefit in being a FRUM scientist.

If a Gentile printer reads a Tanach in order to print it, is he makeem Talmud 
Torah?

If a TuM scientist reads Euclid with the intention of tyring to see what the Gra
saw, he is studying science or torah?

The point of TuM is that one can learn Torah-values even while delving into 
scientific tomes and one can ignore Troah even while staring at the text
IOW

It is NOTnt what one reads rathert HOW one reads.

{foremer?} chaver Josh Backon has written numbers of artilces explaning the 
scientifc rationale for hesibo etc.  This to me is classic TuM.  I don;t know if
his conclsuions are accurate or not, but his approach is TuM.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

TuM, by giving mada inherent kedushah, are going to laud knowledge for its 
own sake and scholarship.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  3-Mar-00: Shishi, Vayakhel 
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 3b 
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

<Snip>

The Lancet editorial ends with a plea to the international health community to 
assist the public with education, training and circumcision services, and they 
urge their colleagues to assist them in this mission. 
salon.com | Feb. 28, 2000

for entire article, see:
http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/world/2000/02/28/nakedaids/index.html




4) Seeing the Yad Hashem in the various aspects of the brio.  EG looking into a 
forest and saying ma noeh ilan zeh (but not while learning Torah!)

5) Believing that IF Torah is indeed emes, then it should be independently 
verifiable by any objective investigator.  therefore there is a presumption of 
harmony between Torah and science and that the 19th century kulturkampf between 
religion and science was an aberration.  Perhaps because 19th century religion 
was too narrow and perhaps because 19th century science was too iconoclastic.



Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


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

A TUM sees the Yad hashem as manifest in the prophylactic apsects of mila.  That
possilby Hashem vis HIS chessed ordered Bris as a form spirtiual and physical 
shield from the variosu evils out there.

And as per #5, scientiests ARE indeed finding a validity that makes unexplained 
chukim more in line with "rational" misphotim, something I understand that th 
Rambam sough as a goal, to udnerstand the ratoinal for each Miztvo on a physical
plane.

This does not necessarily contradict the metahpysical aspectcs, rather it shows 
an example of Torah living is in harmony with healthy natural living and shoud 
not be seen as swomthing magical, but as hashem's informing us 3,300 years ahead
of time of the wonderful benefits of Torah living. That to me is the essence of 
TuM syntehsis as seeing Torah as a gift from a Hashem that leads us to greater 
udnerstanding of HIS creation, and He has guided us to take the correct path,
BUT
even with that guidance, an honest investigator will be mechavein to some/many 
of hte same principles - much in the way Avroaham Avainu did.

The article about AIDS and cirucsumcision can be viewed as using Mila to 
promulage an anti-Torah liestyle this is waht I call cynicism/leitzonus.  The 
postivie point as seen by a postive person is to view hashem's torah and mitzvos
as beneficial, and hashem as benfiecent Creator and Protector, and to give 
hoda'ah again on His chessedin providing us with guidelines taht safeguard us, 
even though those safegurads may take thousands of years to fathom.

The hope is that by honest science and positive Torah, a torah that sais ki 
amoasti olam chsessed yhibone, that we will discover the ways and means hashem 
has provivded us with Providence all along, and see His hand in the brio as well
as in the Torah.

Certainly, we can see the negative side of how AIDS stieks down those who ignore
the Troah's prosceriptions agains certain behvairo, cannot we also wee His 
goodness in his providing positve portections against infections (not JUST 
AIDS!?)

Do We see hshem as only attacking those who disobey Him, but not protecting and 
shielding those who comply with His mitzvos?  Is there some issur about showinga
mitzvo to have medical and hygenic dividends?  Adam ochel perisuehim bo'olam 
hazhe v'hakeren kayyemes lo l'olam habo?  Arent' miztvos by nature giving us 
thisworldly dividneds as well as other wordly principles?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:48:29AM -0500, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
: Catholics translate "lo sirtzach" as "You shall not murder"...

Yes and no. The KJV says "Thou shalt not murder", but the use of the word
"murder" is as archaic as the "thou shalt". In those days "slay" meant
what we not call murder, and to "murder" meant to kill in general. "Killing"
was something you did to animals, not people.

Similarly, in King James English, an "apple" was what we now call a fruit,
in addition to being a particular kind of fruit. Much like the French "pomme"
or the modern Hebrew "tapu'ah". (Tapuach adamah = pomme de terre = potato;
tapuach zahav, a/k/a tapuz = orange.) They didn't mean that the eitz hada'as
was an apple tree -- that's a modern error even according to them.

But enough Christianity.

: Neither Catholics nor Protestants include "anochi" as a commandment which
: would leave them with nine.

This touches on the biggest difference. We have 10 devarim/dibros, not 10
of the mitzvos. There isn't supposed to be a one-to-one mapping between
dibrah and "commandment".

The reason for not counting "anochi" is also found in the Ramban. How can
one accept a tzivui without presupposing a Commander?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  3-Mar-00: Shishi, Vayakhel
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 3b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

R. E. Turkel asked
>>>
>>> "But if they (candidates) say they are for prayer in schools, for the
>>> Ten commandments in public schools - and it might not be the Jewish
>>> Ten Commandments, it might be the Protestant or Catholic versions - ..."

>> Pardon my ignorance but what are the other versions?
>> I thought everyone agreed on the text of the Bible.

R. J. Rich replied:

>They break them up differently than we do! I can get the specifics if you
>like.

Not so fast.  The popular impression of how we enumerate the Aseret
ha-Dibberot is based on what we see on aronei kodesh and the mantel of
the sifrei Torah.  This is, I hardly need point out, a less than
authoritative source.  In fact, if one looks INSIDE the sefer Torah (or
in a tikkun or Koren tanakh), one sees that the paragraphing of the
Aseret ha-Dibberot (in both Yitro and va-Ethanan) more closely resembles
the enumeration adopted by the Christians.  [Personal note: I first
encountered the "non-Jewish" enumeration as a young person, when I read
the Book of Lists, which includes the Ten Commandments as the final
list.  Ironically, the compilers of the book were Jewish.]

If one looks at the Rishonim, one sees a multiplicty of views: for
example, several Rishonim challenge Rambam's assertion that Anokhi is
counted as a Dibberah; and most of us are aware that there are 14
tzivuyyim all together.  In sum, there is no consensus on how "we" count
the Dibberot.  This issue is discussed, I believe, by R. Kasher in Torah
Shelemah, and (if memory serves) in a chapter of a volume called Aseret
ha-Dibberot be-Re'i ha-Dorot (Magnes Press).

Shabbat shalom,

Eli Clark

>"But if they (candidates) say they are for prayer in schools, for the
>Ten commandments in public schools - and it might not be the Jewish
>Ten Commandments, it might be the Protestant or Catholic versions - ..."
>
>Pardon my ignorance but what are the other versions?
>I thought everyone agreed on the text of the Bible.

The text is pretty much the same, but it's broken up differently.

In fact, the "Jewish version" and "Catholic-Lutheran version" and the
Protestant version" are all different.

Catholics, e.g., combine what we call the first and second into the first,
so that shabbos it their "3rd" commandment, and coveting is split up into
the 9th (coveting another's spouse) and 10th (coveting another's
possessions).  Protestants do not have "I am HaShem" in the 1st, but rather
split what we have as our second ("no other gods" and "graven images") into
two parts: the 1st and 2nd.

-- Eric

Below is something I wrote up on this subject.

Ari




Misconception: The "Ten Commandments" contain ten commandments.

Fact: There may be ten "saying," but there are more than ten commandments in the
"Ten Commandments." In addition, exactly how to divide the verses to arrive at
ten "sayings" and what the commandments are is subject to debate.

Background: The so-called Ten Commandments appear twice in the Pentateuch, once
in Exodus 20:1-4 and again in Deuteronomy 5:6-18. That there are ten
"somethings" is a given, since at least thrice the Bible refers to the "aseret
ha'dvarim" - the ten sayings.1  How the ten items are divided is unclear, but it
is clear that it is not referring to commandments (mitzvot) in the technical
sense. Those who listed the mitzvot found many more than ten. For example, The
Sefer Hachinuch lists 15 commandments that are found in the two versions.
Commandments 25-38 of his list are based on the Ten Commandmrents as found in
Exodus and based on the version in Deuteronomy he adds number 424. Thus, all 15
of these commandments are found in the 10 commandments
 The biblical passages themselves also do not easily divide into ten
identifiable distinct statements. Grouping the verses can be done in a variety
of ways.2  There are three main points of disagreement: Is verse 2 (Anochi ... -
I am the Lord) an introduction or the first statement?3  Do verses 3 through 6
(You shall not have ..., make ... bow down ...) constitute one saying or more
than one? Do the two phrases beginning with you shall not covet (verse 17)
constitute one or two sayings? There is remarkable uniformity in the Jewish
sources on this issue throughout the Talmud and midrashim. With near unanimity
they treat "I am the Lord" as the first, lump verses 3-6 as number two, and
group the coveting laws as a single saying.
 It is surprising that although the division of the text into psuchas and stumas
("open" and "closed" sections),4  yields ten sections, they do not conform to
the standard division into ten sayings. For example, as per the Minchat Shai,
they divide "You shall not covet" into two sections.5  Nor do the standard
cantillations appropriately divide the verses into ten sections. However, when
the Torah is read publicly a different set of cantillations, known as the upper
cantillation, is utilized and it indeed follows the traditional division into
commandments.6  It is interesting to note that these two systems are both
preserved in the masoretic counting of verses. The number of verses recorded for
Exodus (1209) and Deuteronomy (955) are correct if the Ten Commandments are
treated as 12 verses as per the Lower Cantillation. However, the totals given
for each weekly portion (72 for Yitro and 119 for Va-etchanan) are correct only
if the Ten Commandments are read as ten verses, as per the Upper Cantillation!7
Our system of weekly portions is a Babylonian custom8  and hence the portion
countings reflect the Babylonian custom of reading with the Upper cantillation.
The division into books is obviously much older and that count reflects the
earlier Palestinian tradition of using the Lower Cantillation. It is important
to note that the use of the two cantillation systems not only affects that
melody and the pauses but also the actual pronunciation. For example, using the
Lower system the pronunciation of Exodus 20:9 is kol melachtechah, while using
the upper system it is chal melachtechah.
 The major exception to the uniformity of how to divide the commandments is Ibn
Ezra. In his commentary to Exodus 20:1 he points on that some people treat "I am
the lord ..." as an introductory statement and make up for it by either
splitting "You shall not have" and "You shall not make" or by splitting the two
"You shall not covets." In Deuteronomy he makes it clear that his position is
not like the traditional division, but rather like the second of these two
options.
 Non-Jewish sources have shown some variability in their divisions.9  Philo,
Josephus, and Calvin treat "I am ..." as an introduction and "you shall not
make" as the second commandment. Augustine, and following him, the Catholic
Church,10  viewed "you shall not swear falsely" as the second commandment and
divide "You shall not covet" into two. Many of these variations, as well as
"unsanctioned" varieties, can be seen in artwork.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   1   The three places are Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4. In Hebrew
the "Ten Commandments" are known as the "aseret hadibrot" which would more
accurately be translated as the ten statements or sayings. I am unsure as to the
origin of that phrase in lieu of the biblical one.
    2  Many of the sources in this section are from the last quarter of the
excellent article: Gad B. Sarfatti, "The Tablets of the Law as a Symbol in
Judaism" that appeared in Hebrew (1985) and English (1990) in The Ten
Commandments in History and Tradition, Magnes Press, Jerusalem, edited by
Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi, pages 383-418.
    3  In the course of deriving that there are 613 commandments in the Torah,
the Talmud (Makkot 23b) states that "God Himself gave two additional
commandments: "I am the Lord ..." and "You shall have no other ...". This would
seem to indicate that "I am the Lord ..." is the first commandment and not an
introduction. There is of course much debate among the commentators about how to
understand this talmudic statement and how to count the commandments in these
verses.
    4  As indicated by the pehs and samachs in the printed chumash.
    5  There is some variability in the different editions regarding how
Maimonides divided it. See Hilchot Sefer Torah following 8:4 where he details
all of the psuchas and stumas in the entire Pentateuch.
     6 The two systems of cantillations are really complimentary. The usual, or
"lower cantillations" divide the text into 12 verses, while the special, "upper
cantillations" divide the passage into 10 commandments. For details on the two
systems see: Mordechai Breuer, "Dividing the Decalogue into verses and
commandments" that appeared in Hebrew (1985) and English (1990) in The Ten
Commandments in History and Tradition, Magnes Press, Jerusalem, edited by
Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi, pages 291-330. He demonstrates that the Lower
Cantillations had been the standard in Israel, while the Upper Cantillation was
used in Babylonia.
     7 In Nefesh Harav (page 141) it is noted that both Rav Chaim and Rav Moshe
Soloveitchik objected to reading the ten commandments in ta'am elyon since the
verses are then not divided the way Moshe divided them.
  8    Israel had a triennial cycle, not a yearly cycle. See Encyclopedia
Judaica 15:1386-1389. The use of the triennial cycle continued relatively late
historically, as we find Maimonides in the late 12th century trying
unsuccessfully to halt that practice.
   9   There is a strange opinion shared by Goethe, Wellhausen and others that
the Decalogue is not at all what we usually think, but rather is found in Exodus
34:14-26. See Sarfatti, page 411.
  10    This is also the division used by Lutherans. The Greek church,
Calvinists, and the Anglicans follow Philo's division.

Similarly, in King James English, an "apple" was what we now call a fruit,
in addition to being a particular kind of fruit. Much like the French "pomme" 
or the modern Hebrew "tapu'ah". (Tapuach adamah = pomme de terre = potato; 
tapuach zahav, a/k/a tapuz = orange.) They didn't mean that the eitz hada'as 
was an apple tree -- that's a modern error even according to them.

-mi

FWIW I heard that FRuIt comes from PRI

The French pronounciation of fruit ~=  phri

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

Rumour has it that R. MosheDavid Tendler sought a degree in medicine so that his
name would be

MD Tendler, MD

To compound this, I have an aquantance named Jonathan D. who is a lawyer

So My nickname for him is JD so-and-so, JD

Anf fwiw one LOR said  "When Rabbis started becoming doctors yiddishket became 
sick!" <smile>


Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

(can Purim be far away?)





______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #408 


> 
> I thought R. Tendler was an MD.  R. Michael Rosensweig and R. David Horowitz a
re
> two roshei yeshivah who have PhDs.  If you start looking at other faculty you 
> quickly find many more Rabbi Doctors.
> 
Rav Tendler has a PhD in biology not an MD.
Story has it that he applied to several medical schools but was turned 
down because he was Jewish so he went into biology instead.
He works closely with Dr. Rosner who has an MD.

Eli Turkel

In the 19th century Science was seen as anti-thetical to Torah.

The open, ready, and willing attitude for a frum yid to learn - even master - 
science - IS one of the essential chidushim of TuM.  The fact that it is widely 
accpeted in America today outside is a paradigm shift as far as I am concerned.

Yes there IS an aspect of syntehsis too. And that is waht prompted me to list 
MANY facets of TuM, and not to limit it too narrowly

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Just what is Torah uMada 


<<3) while being a professional or a scientist and being shomer mitzvos - 
as in the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists>>
	
	Do you mean that as a shomer mitzvos you are also a professional,  or a 
professional and also a shomer mitzvos,  or do you mean membership in said 
organization?  Again,  this is not about the interface between T and M,  
only their co-existence.  My impression of TuM was that it was 
specifically about the interface.


<<4) Seeing the Yad Hashem in the various aspects of the brio.  EG 
Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Es Chatai ani mazkir hayom

Last Yom Kippur the president of my congregation begged me for a hosafo. 
Apparentely he had promised so-and-so an aliyo and so-and-so was a Levy, and we 
MUST accomodate him. (I am not sure why he was not called as Levy, perhaps he 
came to shul later on).  

I told him that sicne YK was not a shabbos, it was a no-no.  Yet, I felt bad and
being sort of a nice guy I said ok, but I will NOT call mi as shvi'i but as 
"acharon",  so at least it will make a sign that only 6 aliyos are "regular" and
that this was not really a 7th aliyo but a hosofo, etc.

Well I called this Levy to acharon, and he shenodars $1,000! (our usual top is 
$100.)   I said to the president - what's going on?

Later, the president told me that this guy pledged LAST YEAR that if he lives 
one more year he will come to shul and pledge $1,000 when he gets an aliyah! 

I thought this was a beautiful story

BUT

I told the president (and some other insiders) that people might witness this 
and say that Wolpoe will sell "illegal" hosafos if the price is right! IOW, they
don't know that all I was doing was trying to keep the president from breaking 
his pledge, and they will conclude that I don't give out extra aliyos but for a 
thouand dollars I'll gladly make an exception!

My point? It is easy to see how the facts appear one way to the 
audience/observers and that the insiders may have a totally different POV and 
angenda! or IOW what might appear to some as a sell-out to some might appear to 
others as merely an accomodation to a pledge made by the president.

And taht I was probably the ONLY person in the shul who would have preferred 
that this Levi shenador a minimum like chai, becasue his generous pledge gave 
the *appearance* of a sell-out. 

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

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


[ 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         ]