Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 430

Monday, March 13 2000

• Re: Clinton's eulogy for YR
• Living in the USA
• Aliya and Moshiach
• Re: Marcus Lehman
• Most Pro-Israel President
• Clinton's eulogy for YR -humor alert
• Re: Most Pro-Israel President
• RE: Wife Beating
• US, Istael and Politics
• Re: birchat hagomel
• The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• Re: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• Ayin Tachas Ayin
• History's best Galus
• Re: Aliya and Moshiach
• Re: Ayin Tachas Ayin
• The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW) and fish
• Re[2]: Ayin Tachas Ayin
• Re: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• RE: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)

--- SBA <sba@blaze.net.au> wrote:
> Harry Maryles wrote:
> 
> >......How many Presidents have given a eulogy to an
> Israeli Prime-Minister that
> >compared with the one Clinton gave for Yitzchak
> Rabin....
> 
> If I recall correctly, of all the Maspidim,
> Clinton was the only one to say a Dvar Torah on that
> occasion...

That's the way I remember it.

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

  Nor is it
> proper for someone demean the current holder of the most powerful office
> in the world, by referring to him as if "slick Willy" was his nickname.
> It is particularly galling when the technique of character assassination
> is used in some posts, and lectures on the parameters of loshon ha'ra
> are detailed in other posts.  

Yesh le'chalek tuva. See Hilchos Lashon Hara Clal 8 s'if 5, Be'er 
Mayim Chayim Clal 8 s"k 8, 9, 10, Clal 4 s'if 7, Be'er Mayim 
Chayim Clal 4 s"k 30.

See also Hilchos Lashon Hara Clal 3 s'if 4, v'ain kan makom 
le'haarich.

-- Carl


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Chazal tell us that the only difference between now and
Yemos HaMoshiach is Shibud Malchios. (It's been a while, but
it's probably in the 4th perek of Kiddushin - where the
subject was that even Yichus errors won't be corrected).

Along these lines, once Moshiach comes, you won't be able to
just get on a plane, arrive in Israel and live happily ever
after.

You will still have to worry about parnoso (unless you're a
very popular Cohen / Levi?), chinuch, housing, transport and
other practical issues.

Picture this: Moshiach comes this afternoon - you get on a
booking to Israel no problem (as you are now a privileged
person who does not need a valid passport to travel - one
gain of no shibud malchios).

Then you become practical: by the time you've thought about
it, all the houses on your block are already for sale - how
will you pay for the trip, the moving, the new business? So,
do you opt for arriving as a pauper to greet Moshiach or to
stay in chutz lo'oretz as the president of the shul?

Food for thought...

- Danny (who could see the Har Habyis from home if there
weren't so many buildings in the way.)

Danny & Naomi Schoemann
Rehov Goldknopf 41/6
Ramat Shlomo, Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-571 0181
eMail: naomi@kosher.com

Chana/Heather Luntz mentioned that Marcus Lehman "starts at
least one of his books by saying something to the effect
that today, in Germany, it may be hard to believe, but it
was not that long ago that there was anti-semitism and
people were hated for being Jewish."

If you look at the last page of the (English) Lehman Hagadda
you will see something similar (where Lehman refers to
anti-semitism as historical) - and the translators footnote
to the effect that "who would have beleived that these very
same people could mastermind the holocaust a few years
later".

The scary part is that not only don't people realise it can
happen - but even when it happens they refuse to admit it. A
contemporary case in point is South Africa, where it's
perfectly normal to discuss daily who got murdered and/or
robbed the night before, and to insist at the same time that
it's safe to live there.

- Danny (who left South Africa once he couldn't take an
evening stroll without being considered as risking his
life.)

Danny & Naomi Schoemann
Rehov Goldknopf 41/6
Ramat Shlomo, Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-571 0181
eMail: naomi@kosher.com

I'd vote For Ronald Reagan, and a big part of myt cheshbon was George Shultz, 
who was one of the most level-headed, fair-minded, Secretaries of State wrt 
Middle East; he both respected Israel and had solidt credentials with the Arabs 
(as in Bechtel)

Circa 1988, R. Dr. Israel Miller one spoke to a Men's club breakfast at our 
congregation. He told as that he had asked Schultz, "why are you pushing so hard
for peace talks NOW?"

Shcultz's reply:  "Because the next Secretary of State will not be nearly as 
friendly to Israel as I am"

Schultz was right, because Bush's friend Jim Baker succeeded him, aurguably one 
of the most anti-Semitic Sec. of State we've had in a while.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


Have you read the Nixon tape transcripts? And he was without a 
doubt the MOST pro-Israel President the US ever had (although 
what his reaction would have been to the Yom Kippur war had 
Watergate not been going on at the same time is highly 
debatable)? 

-- Carl

Which prompted several of us to comment at that time  that when Bill Clinton 
leaves office he'd make a great Reform Rabbi <smile>

richard_wolpoe@ibi,com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Clinton's eulogy for YR 



Harry Maryles wrote:

>......How many Presidents have given a eulogy to an Israeli Prime-Minister that
>compared with the one Clinton gave for Yitzchak Rabin....

If I recall correctly, of all the Maspidim,
Clinton was the only one to say a Dvar Torah on that occasion...

Re: Clinton as Pro-Israel...

I have told frinds that I consider clinton by far and away to be THE most 
friendly Presidnet to Jews and Judaism within the USA.  I think he is the most 
comfrotable in donning a yarmulka and hagning out with Jewish advsiors etc.

But, this does not make him the best President for Israel.  personal camarederie
with Jews does not necesarily imply caring about the fate of the State of 
Israel.

Nixon probably chafed quite a bit about having Jews around him, yet his support 
for Israel in the larger geo-politcal context was amazingly solid.

I see Clinton as Jew-friendly but not so israel friendly, and Nixon the 
converse.

and fwiw I ocnsidered saw Secreatary of State Jim Baker as BOTH anti-Semitic and
pro-Arab.  But the two issues are separate, and overlap a lot less than one 
might think.

I get the impression that Ike was very sympatehtic to the Jewish question after 
the holocost, but not especially friendly to Israel.

And Sir Anthody Eden the converse, he was willing to fight alongside of Israel 
in the Suez despite his misgivings about Jews.

It's imporatant to make these distintions and not to let Nixon's anti-Semitic 
diatribes cloud our understanding of his pro-Israel stance.

And vice versa.  Clinton's friendliness to Jews might be quite genuine, but that
does not necesarily imply that he will do right by Israel in a negotiation.

We used to call this issues anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, but this is a bit 
mis-leading.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

The rambam in ishut 21:10 seems to be referring to beis din.  Beis din is
kofeh the wife to perform he obligations, as the rambam ends the halakha,
kmo sheyireh hadayan....

http://www.snunit.k12.il/kodesh/mtr/aisu021.html

Moshe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: wife beating

There was an article in the Jerusalem Post by Naomi Regan about
wife-beating.
Ignoring her diatribe it brings some interetsing strictly halakhic issues.

1. Rambam (Ishut 21:10) says that if a wife does not do  her work it is
permissible
to hit her (shot). The Raavad on the spot says he never heard of such a
thing.

I think we've beaten this one to death, people.

One could actually discuss the merits and faults of the US as a Jewish subject,
using our values to measure them. However, this has degenerated into arguments
over whose gov't is worse for the Jews and when. We've taken a non-core topic
way too far.

On to the next horse.

-mi

Daniel M Wells wrote:


> Are we talking about Bircat Hagomel or Tfilat HaDerech? Whilst I'm not
> aware of ROY's psak on Bircat HaGomel,


That was it. At least as far as air travel goes. He says in the same
siman that the criteria are the same for Tefillat Haderech, so
essentially any time you say T.H., you are hayyav to say Gomel.



> of Rav Ovadiah on tefillat HaDerech is based on the velocity, ie the
> NORMAL distance covered in 72 minutes when travelling from A to B in a

No, in my post I quoted him saying 

> > this also applies to one who travels in a speeding car, that the trip is
> > less than 72 minutes, even if it would take that long in a bus. A round


So yes, it would appear to be dependent on velocity, but not compared to
any "NORMAL" distance. If you drive 72 minutes, say TH and Gomel. If you
don't, EVEN IF the trip would normally take that long, don't say either.



> normal way, whilst most other Gedolim hold by physical distance of one mil
> which is suppopsed to take 72 minutes by walking. I would presume thus
> that both opinions would rule out pilots circling an airfield.


I'm not sure. You're in an airplane, in the air. Why wouldn't it count
toward flying time?

So to go back to R' Eli Turkel's question:

> Does that mean that birkhat hagomel depends on traffic conditions either
> on the ground or in the air.
> It would seem strange to me that the identical flight would sometimes
> require a beracha depending on whether the pilot had to circle or not.


Apparently it would though. He says explicitly that if you speed and the
trip is shorter, don't say it. I take it to mean a trip that one takes
regularly, so you know how long normal driving time is, and how long it
takes you. Otherwise, how could you know you're going to arrive 16
minutes early and shouldn't have said TH?

On a side note, for those who are curious, he says that driving through
Yehudah and Shomron requires Gomel even for trips less than 72 minutes,
and that someone who does so regularly should say Gomel every Shabbat.


---sam

In this morning's Chicago Tribune there was a rather
lengthy article about the Pope's apology for all
atrocities committed by the Christian (now Catholic)
Church to all people's over the course of it's 2000
year history.  This included admissions by the Pope
that not only were Christian LAY people involved but
even officials of the church including many Pope's. 
He stopped short of accepting direct culpability on
the part of Pius of complicity in the deaths of Jews
in the Holocaust.

My question is this: What if anything are we as a
Torah society to make of this?  Is this just another
ploy by the Church toward absolving itself of further
blame by admitting partial blame? Or is this a genuine
attempt by the Church at rectifying it's relationship
with Jews (as well as everyone else) to an end of
Mutual respect. R. Yisroel Meir Lau publicly welcomed
this statement but was disappointed that more was not
said about Pius's complicity with Hitler. OTOH maybe
the church needs to address all of it's atrocities
including all the pogroms done in it's name, the
Crusades... everything.  Maybe  what it did now is a
necessary step but is not enough.  Frankly after
thinking about it just a bit, it seems to me that if
the Church wants better relations with the Jewish
people it needs to, address each atrocity by itself
including the Holocaust, and admit culpability with
all the specifics involved.  They have to Klap Al
Cheit. I think Pope John tried to do this but died
before he had a chance. 

OTOH should we even care about what the Church's
attitude is about anything?  Does it even impact us in
the slightest?  And if so, how much? Maybe we should
look at this as an Aschalta DeGeula in the sense that
Christendom is moving a step closer to reproachmont
with the Jews? And if so, how so?

Sidebar: It has always been a pet peeve of mine that
the RW refuses to participate with rest of the Jewish
world in Holocaust rememberance ceremonies. They even
refuse to refer to the Holocaust as "the Holocaust". 
It's always Churban Europe.  What's the problem?  Why
not refer to it as everyone else does? Of course there
was Chorban in Europe.  But it seems to me that the RW
is always looking for away to separate itself from the
rest of the Jewish world.  It's as if they are saying
that because somebody not Frum coined the phrase
"Holocaust" they are not going to use it because they
do not want to be considered a part of the greater
Jewish community.   That is... since they are not Bnei
Torah,  they refuse to use the word Holocaust lest
they Ch V.  become associated even in the slightest
way with non Bnei Torah.

I believe the term "Churban Europe" should be dropped
from the lexicon and the word Holocaust be used
instead. Wouldn't this be an appropriate way to show
solidarity with the rest of the Jewish world? 
Wouldn't this be a positive step towards Kiruv? Why
always seek ways to be Merachek our brothers,
especially those who either have suffered themselves
or whose parents have suffered?

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

In a message dated 3/13/00 9:27:27 AM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< OTOH should we even care about what the Church's
 attitude is about anything?  Does it even impact us in
 the slightest?   >>

The Church's attitude does affect us. I remember when the Church dropped the 
requirement that its members eat fish on Fridays. Demand fell; prices rose; 
whitefish became a newly expensive Shabbos meal. One famous Gadol, the 
Freidyef Ish, condemned this just another anti-Semitic act on the part of the 
Church. 

David Finch

I posted something along these lines a while ago, nevertgheless, it bears 
repetition.

R. Gorelick asked us,"If ayin tachas ayin as after all kessef, what prompted 
the Torah to use the literal term which is after all so harsh?".

His answer was that this is what the perpetrator deserves, but a BD of humans 
cannot mete out this punishment precisely; as the Gemoro notes what if one had 
one good eye and the other 2, etc.  Therefore due to the imperfections of human 
BD, we cannot mete out an exact punishment, we can only measure the financial 
impact and use that yardstick.

Midinei Shamayim, it's different.  Somewhat analogous to the difference between 
lomdus and lemaase, the literal meaning and the halachic implications also have 
a  dichotomy wrt to dinei shamayim vs. dinei adam

Add to this the concept of visualizing oneself as being physically punished, 
akin to the Ramban's visualization of one's own death when bringing a karban, 
we now have a Torah that is operating on at at least 2 levels.

The figure of speech ayin tachas ayin implies halachically and legally one 
thing; and morally, psychologically, and spiritually it implies something 
stronger and harsher.

This is the power of machshovo; to visualize a powerful message even tho' the 
physical act is not so profound.  And this is implicit in naaseh v'nishma. In 
the olam ha'asiyah, we perform monetary compensation, and in the realm of bina 
we understand that the Torah is alluding to something stronger via its selection
of words.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

A couple of examples, see Hirsch on "lo sivasheil gedi". Or on para adumah.
(Or pretty much any other pasuk that describes a mitzvah. My assumption appears 
to underly his derech.) For that matter, isn't the idea of "ayin tachas ayin" 
trhat although one pays money, the indebtedness is deeper than that? (Be it 
derashah or pi hashemu'a of which translation "tachas" applies here).

-mi

Despite Haman, the most Jewish-friendly galus, as I see it, was in Bavel during 
the Persian era.

In Bavel, a quasi indepdendent government existed under the Reish Galusa, and 
the Yeshivos included, Sura, Pumbedisa, Nehardea, and Mechoza.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: living in America 
Not a historian by any means, I would be curious t o know in 1920, or 1910, what
was called the greatest galus in history? Was it p re-war Germany? Was it 
pre-channukah Greece culture? 
Mishtadel.
Good Shabbos!

On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 10:33:46AM +0200, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: Chazal tell us that the only difference between now and
: Yemos HaMoshiach is Shibud Malchios.

It's a machlokes Rav and Shimu'el. You are citing Shimu'el's opinion. However,
this machlokes is also carried by the Ramban (Rav) and Rambam (Shimu'el),
and continues ad hayom hazeh.

To quote myself (yet again) here's a comment on "Avadim Hayinu" from
<http://www.aishdas.org/seder.doc> page 10.

: The mishnah in Pesachim requires that in telling of the Pesach story at
: the seder, "we begin with troubles, and end with praise. There is a debate
: between Rav and Shimuel over what this applies to. According to Shimuel, the
: focus of the haggadah is the physical slavery and physical redemption. Rav
: instead stresses the spiritual side of the holiday.

: Our haggadah contains both. First, we say "We were slaves to Par'o in Egypt,
: and G-d took us out". This fulfills the notion of beginning with troubles
: and ending with praise according to the notion of Shimuel. We speak of
: slavery to Par'o. Later, we will say "From the start, our ancestors were
: idol worshippers", beginning the portion of the haggadah according to Rav,
: addressing the spiritual redemption.

: It would appear, though, that this debate isn't only over the proper way to
: conduct a seder, but part of a larger debate about redemption in general. In
: describing the messianic era, Shimuel holds, "There is no difference
: between now and the messianic era except the subjection to foreign dictators
: alone. To Shimuel, the messianic redemption as well is about Jewish autonomy,
: a physical freedom. Perhaps, Shimuel insists that only man can save himself
: spiritually.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  7-Mar-00: Shelishi, Pekudei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 5b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 10:38:28AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: R. Gorelick asked us,"If ayin tachas ayin as after all kessef, what prompted 
: the Torah to use the literal term which is after all so harsh?".

Doesn't this assume that the understanding that it's kessef is a derashah,
and not mipi hashmua? I understood the Rambam's point to be that fiscal
payment is a translation of "tachas" found elsewhere, and we know from the
people who first heard the words which meaning of "tachas" is intended here.
IOW, according to the Rambam it *is* the literal meaning of the term, or at
least, one of them.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  7-Mar-00: Shelishi, Pekudei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 5b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

sounds fishy to me, then again, is not adar mazal dagim? <smile>


Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW) 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    3/13/2000 10:35 AM


In a message dated 3/13/00 9:27:27 AM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< OTOH should we even care about what the Church's
 attitude is about anything?  Does it even impact us in 
 the slightest?   >>

The Church's attitude does affect us. I remember when the Church dropped the 
requirement that its members eat fish on Fridays. Demand fell; prices rose; 
whitefish became a newly expensive Shabbos meal. One famous Gadol, the 
Freidyef Ish, condemned this just another anti-Semitic act on the part of the 
Church. 

David Finch

AFAIK it's neutral on this issue.  The halacha is kessef, but the Torah COULD 
have chosen a more idrect way of saying kessef rather than using ayis tachas 
ayin. 

To answer why the Torah chooses this oblique reference came R. Gorelcik.

It is still not clear if Kessef was  a drashas chazal or based upon mesorah. 
afaik either way still fits.

My personal take - as I posted a while ago, is that ayain tacha ayin is a "legal
idiom" indicating just compesnsation; i.e. for every ayin get an ayin's wroth of
compenstaion.  Nevertheless, it still could have a harsh "tone" in that it 
sounds awfully similar to the more harsh forms used by Hamurabbi, etc.

IOW the torah maybe using an idiom common to other cultures butnever meant it to
be exectued literally, only understood literally on a certain psychological 
level.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Ayin Tachas Ayin 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    3/13/2000 10:54 AM


On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 10:38:28AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: R. Gorelick asked us,"If ayin tachas ayin as after all kessef, what prompted 
: the Torah to use the literal term which is after all so harsh?".

Doesn't this assume that the understanding that it's kessef is a derashah, 
and not mipi hashmua? I understood the Rambam's point to be that fiscal 
payment is a translation of "tachas" found elsewhere, and we know from the 
people who first heard the words which meaning of "tachas" is intended here. 
IOW, according to the Rambam it *is* the literal meaning of the term, or at 
least, one of them.

-mi

In a message dated 3/13/00 10:27:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<<  Frankly after
 thinking about it just a bit, it seems to me that if
 the Church wants better relations with the Jewish
 people it needs to, address each atrocity by itself
 including the Holocaust, and admit culpability with
 all the specifics involved.  They have to Klap Al
 Cheit. I think Pope John tried to do this but died
 before he had a chance.  >>
Maybe - but do you want HKB"H to demand the same of us on Yom Kippur? We know 
our chataim are way to many to list each one separately...

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS Do Bnai Noach have a concept of tshuva(is there any specific "halachik 
value")? Clearly there is an overarching ethical one.

> Sidebar: It has always been a pet peeve of mine that
> the RW refuses to participate with rest of the Jewish
> world in Holocaust rememberance ceremonies.

I thought the *existence* of the RW was your pet peeve.

> They even
> refuse to refer to the Holocaust as "the Holocaust".
> It's always Churban Europe.  What's the problem?  Why
> not refer to it as everyone else does?

at least partially because the word "Holocaust" is not specific (and
overused to the extent of almost being trite). The Armenian Holocaust, the
Russian Holocaust, the Indian holocaust, the holocaust of the whales, the
AIDS holocaust, etc.

Churban Europe is specific, both in space and in time -- which is important
to a people that have suffered more than one attempt at genocide.

> Of course there
> was Chorban in Europe.  But it seems to me that the RW
> is always looking for away to separate itself from the
> rest of the Jewish world.

The Torah world already has a time for mourning -- Av. The early state
refused the suggestion of establishing Holocaust Memorial Day during the
Nine days -- and decided on the day they keep today. Davka.

In Toldot Aharon, for example, on Tisha B'Av after kinot the older members
(who are almost all survivors of Auschwitz) tell stories of their
experiences to the younger (teenage) members -- which puts the Holocause in
it's proper perspective (as one of many tragedies which have befallen the
Jewish People).

"Holocaust Day" strips the Holocaust of any religious perspective -- turning
it into a social evil, nothing more.

> Wouldn't this be an appropriate way to show
> solidarity with the rest of the Jewish world?

Wouldn't eating treif do that as well? A nice shrimp dinner after a JNF
fundraiser?

Akiva

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


[ 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         ]