Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 456

Wednesday, March 22 2000

• pope visit
• Re: how can we condemn etc.
• Re: Re[2]: Takanos Redux
• Re: how can we condemn etc.
• re:takanos
• Re: Avodah V4 #455
• Re: Avodah V4 #454
• ad d'lo yada
• Bnai Torah and Parshat Zakhor
• Re: How can we condemn etc.
• Re: birkhat hagomeil
• Re: Takanos Redux
• Re: pope visit
• Re: ve-laharog
• Re[2]: Takanos Redux
• horseradish
• Re: Parshas Tzav
• Re[2]: Avodah V4 #454
• Takanos Redux

From Shlomo B Abeles
Shoshana L. Boublil" wrote:

>The official cars will have both the Vatican and Israel flags.

Do you think that this may upset Israeli anti-religious parties.

SBA

In a message dated 3/21/00 4:05:38 PM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< 
 This is a complete and total shock to me. I have
 always believed that Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the
 most altruistic people in American history. And I
 thought that there was virtually universal acceptance
 of that view. Do you have any proof of this
 "anti-Jewish invective"? >>

It has been discussed in a number of her more serious biographies, 
particularly two recent ones that quote at length from her letters to 
friends. Of course, the consensus on the Avodah line is that one shouldn't 
quote from such letters if they prove embarrassing. So let's pretend the 
letters do not exist. In that case, the historians lack complete proof of 
Mrs. Roosevelt's personal feelings -- so maybe let's fuggedabahtit.

Eleanor Roosevelt presents an instructive case. She was raised by upper-crust 
social anti-Semites of the old school, and picked up her private habit of 
saying nasty things about Jews from this milieu. Yet she did act upon such 
feelings in public, particularly where she had a role to play to shaping 
public policy and public perceptions. Where it counted, she didn't allow any 
feelings of prejudice to interfere with her judgment. She had a number of 
private demons -- she was abused by her mother as a child, felt the pain of 
her father's alcoholism, suffered a bad case of the Ugly Duckling syndrome, 
and had to put up with her husband's infidelity as well as her own sexual 
ambivalence. I don't judge her, and hope others wouldn't, either, at least 
not as easily as they've judged (or badly misjudged) her husband.

David Finch

In a message dated 3/21/00 1:17:02 PM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< I don't think Jews are stupid, just maybe not Thoreau in understanding the 
 subtle points of HD Thoreau >>

Very good. 

For those who might be interested, the Thoreau quotation at issue is: "Why 
should we be in such a desperate haste to succeed, and in such desperate 
enterprises." I like the sound of that. It has a lot of Chassidus in it.

David Finch

In a message dated 3/21/00 4:05:38 PM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< 
 This is a complete and total shock to me. I have
 always believed that Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the
 most altruistic people in American history. And I
 thought that there was virtually universal acceptance
 of that view. Do you have any proof of this
 "anti-Jewish invective"? >>

WHOOPS!! I didn't proofread my earlier response, which makes no sense at all, 
not even to me. It should have read:


It has been discussed in a number of her more serious biographies, 
particularly two recent ones that quote at length from her letters to 
friends. Of course, the consensus on the Avodah line is that one shouldn't 
quote from such letters if they prove embarrassing. So let's pretend the 
letters do not exist. In that case, the historians lack complete proof of 
Mrs. Roosevelt's personal feelings -- so maybe let's fuggedabahtit.

Eleanor Roosevelt presents an instructive case. She was raised by upper-crust 
social anti-Semites of the old school, and picked up her private habit of 
saying nasty things about Jews from this milieu. Yet she did NOT act upon 
such 
feelings in public, particularly where she had a role to play to shaping 
public policy and public perceptions. Where it counted, she didn't allow any 
feelings of prejudice to interfere with her judgment. She had a number of 
private demons -- she was abused by her mother as a child, felt the pain of 
her father's alcoholism, suffered a bad case of the Ugly Duckling syndrome, 
and had to put up with her husband's infidelity as well as her own sexual 
ambivalence. I don't judge her, and hope others wouldn't, either, at least 
not as easily as they've judged (or badly misjudged) her husband.

David Finch

When mention was made about takanos for minimizing wedding expenses,
attention was called to those who are in the simcha business.

Aside from the fact that they are part of the problem (for example,
photographers who force the parties to purchase parents' albums in
addition to one for the couple, and the equivalent for caterers,
musicians,etc.), we find that Rabban Gamliel made a takanah (still in
effect today) about what is appropriate garb for burial. Certainly his
takanah affected those in the burial clothing industry, but the public
good had to take precedence over individuals' losses. This was true even
if the problem was caused by the need people felt to keep up with the
Schwartzes. The takanah barred even those who could afford it from being
buried in expensive garments.
Sadya N. Targum
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

In a message dated 3/21/00 7:20:00 PM Central Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< Several answers to this kasha are provided by the Ben
 Shota, the son of the afforementioned Kol shota, who forgot his question
 before he could answer it.  >>
Reminds me of the new Alzheimer's Yeshiva opening in Bovinia.....but, I just 
can't remember its' name. Hmmmmmm..................
Say Good Night, Gracie.
Barry Schwarz

In a message dated 3/21/00 11:01:05 AM Central Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:36:19 -0500
 From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
 Subject: Re[2]: How can we condemn etc. 
 
 In the 1970's there was an accusation that Jews controled the media (I 
forgot 
 who said it) >>
This demagogic garbage has been uttered by many wannabe Jew haters over the 
past decades. Can someone explain the concept of "control?" I'm more 
comfortable with the concept of influence, rather than control or domination. 
William Paley (CBS), General Sarnoff (NBC), and, Marvin Goldberger (ABC), all 
created, owned, and, operated their own TV Networks until recently. Gerald 
Levin was Chairman of Time-Warner, until AOL bought them out (he's now 
Vice-Chairman); All Networks, and, most larger market network affiliates 
still have high ranking Jewish producers, and, executives (to our dismay); 
Most major newspapers, and, wire services--the same; Sony may have bought 
Paramont, and, all of its' hugely profitable syndication rights to TV reruns, 
but, their executives are mostly Jewish; Sony has also invested in the music 
industry, and, guess who "controls" that group? Commodity markets, investment 
markets, insurance brokers, and, even a few, choice public corporations, we 
are there. Do we "control" or strongly influence business decisions? After 
the Yom Kippur War, sugar prices went ballistic, and, many fahrblozener 
goyim, in influential positions, maintained that it was our fault. You see, 
since we "won" the YK War, the Arabs became enraged, and, bought up huge 
sugar future contracts, which skyrocketed prices. Great fiction, but, it 
worked for a while. The sugar shortages during that time were coincidentally, 
but, artificially created by Amstar, to make more money, but, once again, 
Jews were blamed for goyim having to pay more for their XMAS cookies. 
Barry Schwarz

Mori v'Rabi HaRav HaGaon R. Elazar Meir Teitz mentions in the name of his
great illustrius father, Mori v'Rabi, Rav Mordechai Pinchas Teitz Zt'l that
the Avudraham notes a custom to sing a zemer...

The Avudarham referred to may be found in Avudarham Ha-shalem (Yerushalaim
5723) p.109

A few days ago, Eli Turkel posted what he believed to be Purim Torah,
namely that Bnai Torah were Patur from Parshat Zakhor (and hence can't
be motsi the tsibbur) because they are freed from army service. 
	My brother Dov pointed out that this is not as "Purimy" as it would
seem. HaRav Shlomo HaKohen (author of the Heshek Shlomo on Shas) raises
this very svara with regards to Kohanim. It is found in his Shu"t Binyan
Shelomo, Maftehot to siman 37 (it's an addition to the teshuvah which
appears in the Maftehot). I assume that the leap from Shevet levi to
bnai torah (based on the Rambam) is known to all...
	I've learned to be guarded in my laughter, since today's joke is often
tomorrow's reality...
	Happy Shushan Purim

I think a lot of interesting things could be said on the subject of whether
involvement in public affairs is halachically mandatory, whether it's
appropriate when there are so many intra-communal affairs that need the same
activists' time, etc...

I'm not sure how deciding which political figure one wants to recriminate
for their historical role (or lack thereof) has any value or fits the charter
for this list.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 20-Mar-00: Levi, Tzav
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 12a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 09:56:33PM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
[RGD, earlier post:]
:}> 	Is there another situation where one person can be motzi another with
:}> a birchas hashevach,  as opposed to birchas hamitzva or birchas
:}> hanehenin? 

[Me:]
:} How about Chazaras haShatz?

: These are not birchos hashevach.   As a matter of fact,  Rav Hutner says
: that even the three first brachos which were put in "lesader shevacho
: shel Mokom" are not considered birchos hashevach because they are only
: prefatory to birchos hatefila.

Thanks for the chiddush. What about the three leading berachos in chazaras
hashatz for Shabbos or Yom Tov?

-mi

On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 11:57:00AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: Then let's stop condemning others for being passive.  True you can condemn an 
: Eichmann ysv who diverts military trains to kill Jews - no question.

Let's stop condemning others. Spending our lives counting others' flaws is just
a mechanism for avoiding dealing with our own.

Eichmann y"sh may be an exception, midin "zachor es asher licha Amaleik".

To get a bit more theoretical, why do you think finger pointing over "lo
sirtzach" is significantly different than doing so over "lo sa'amod al dam
rei'echa"?

: Let's either accept that the world is governed by "what's in it for me"
: across the board or take on the same universalistic concern we demand from
: others.

Someone who is swimming well has the ability to save a drowning man. Someone
who is drowning -- as the Jewish community and Judaism certainly are -- doesn't
have that luxury.

I think R' Amital is correct on this particular point, though. (I'm being
particular because I don't want to discuss Meimad in general.) Perhaps
getting involved in these non-particularist issues is exactly what we need
to get the non-observant majority involved and unified.

B"H Soviet Jewry aren't a cause we march on the UN about anymore. But I think
that annual rally in NY did much for the health of NY's Jewish community
that we now lack.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 20-Mar-00: Levi, Tzav
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 12a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On 22 Mar 00, at 12:47, SBA wrote:

> >From Shlomo B Abeles
> Shoshana L. Boublil" wrote:
> 
> >The official cars will have both the Vatican and Israel flags.
> 
> Do you think that this may upset Israeli anti-religious parties.

Which flag? :-) 

Freilichen Purim from Yerushalayim Ir HaKodesh.

-- 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

On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 02:21:48PM -0500, Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote:
: can you post your dvar torah?

As I didn't see your request until Shushan Purim I'm not sure there's interest
anymore. But in the interest of vanity, here it is.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 20-Mar-00: Levi, Tzav
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 12a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Rava said, "A person is obligated to get drunk on Purim until he does not
know between 'cursed is Haman' and 'blessed is Mordechai.'" - Tr. Megillah 7a

The obligation to drink on Purim is well known. Machzor Vitri (465, "Leil
Shikurim") associates it with the night of Purim, recommending in particular
white wine, enjoying it with drinking songs and until "a man can no longer
recognize his friend". On the other hand, it is equally well known that the
custom is problematic. Is Rava actually telling us we are to drink until you
can't distinguish between Haman and Mordechai, between good and evil? The
Magein Avraham takes the subsequent story in the Gemara to be a cautionary
tale advising against such excess.

Rabba and Rabbi Zeira made a Purim feast one with the other. They got drunk
[ivsum]. Rabba woke up and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, [Rabba]
prayed for mercy and [Rabbi Zeira] was revived. The next year, [Rabba] said
to [Rabbi Zeira], "Come, master, and we will make a Purim feast, one with
the other." He replied to him, "Not on each and every time can you expect
a miracle."

It also runs counter to a basic notion of Judaism; halachah is first
and foremost a discipline, presupposing the value of self-control. For
example, both the KolBo (45 "Ve'achar Tzeisam") and the Beis Yoseif (695:1,
"Mitzvah leHarbos") assert that "there is no sin greater than this one",
since drunkenness leads to sexual immorality, murder and other sins. Shu"t
Yechaveh Da'as (5:50, "Al haKol") complains about the behavior found at many
Purim se'udos, which involved insulting Rabbanim, aside from the problems
of insulting any person, speaking lashon hara, and other sad consequences
of losing one's restraint.

It is therefore common to offer interpretations have been offered to explain
that Rava's views should not be taken at face value. There are a number of
different approaches.

The first originates with the KolBo (ibid.), defining "livsumei" as drinking
enough to feel joy. He contrasts it with "lihishtakeir", which indicates full
drunkenness. This is hard to understand, as the Gemara's story uses "ivsom",
from the same root, to describe the state of Rabba and Rav Zeira. The Nemukei
Yoseif on our Gemara also rules that one should drink only until the point
of feeling joy. The aforementioned Yechaveh Da'as adds that one should kid
around and speak such silliness as if one didn't know the difference between
Haman and Mordechai, thereby explaining the rest of Rava's words. The KolBo
also quotes the Avi Ezri that it is a mitzvah to drink, but not a chiyuv,
an obligation. (Presumably the Avi Ezri has a different version of the text
in the gemara.)

The Maharil (Hilchos Purim, 10) explains "ad dilo yada" as drinking until one
gets sleepy. After all, when someone is asleep he isn't aware of anything -
including whether Haman is cursed or Mordechai is blessed. The Kitzur Shulchan
Aruch (695:6) gives drinking until sleepy as a minimal requirement.

The Rama (Orach Chaim 695:2) cites both the idea of drinking until happy,
and of drinking until asleep. "Whether one does less, or one does more,
as long as his heart is aimed at heaven." An interesting choice of idiom,
since it appears to rule out following Rava's words literally, since that
would make one unable to concentrate on heaven., not merely one option of many.

The Maharil also offers a second approach. He does allow "livsumei" to mean
"lihishtakeir", to get drunk. (As does Rashi.) However, he dives a limited
definition of how drunk one should get. The Maharil notes that not only is
"arur Haman" 502 in gematria (1+200+6+200 + 5+40+50), "baruch Mordechai"
(2+200+6+20 + 40+200+4+20+10) is as well.

Along similar lines, Haman and Mordechai have some history in common. Haman was
born only because Sha'ul haMelech took pity on Agag the Amalekite and spared
his life. David haMelech's authority as king was challenged by Shim'i, and
despite the fact that Shim'i's life was therefore forfeit, David spared his
life. Shim'i was an ancestor of Mordechai. The obligation could be understood
as drinking until one can't make such subtle distinctions.

				      * * *

I would like to suggest my own observation. The contrast made in the
gemara is not between Haman and Mordechai but between "cursed is Haman" and
"blessed is Mordechai". Both actually show the right attitude. To describe
the difference in the words of King David (Tehillim 34:10), it is between
"sur meira" (avoiding evil) and "asei tov" (doing good).

There are two basic approaches to G-d. The first is "Heseg Sichli",
intellectual comprehension, a philosophical approach like that of the
Rambam. In Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah (2:1-2) the Rambam states that such
speculation is the key to fulfilling the mitzvah of Ahavas Hashem, loving
G-d. In contrast, there is the need for "Emunah Peshutah", simple unquestioning
faith of a child in his Father in heaven. R' Yoseph Ber Soloveitchik commented
on this dialectic numerous times in his talks. There is a role for each in
one's avodas Hashem.

The problem of the understanding the existence of evil is also subject to
this dialectic. One can speculate that Hashem had to create the possibility
of a Haman because of the value of free will, of allowing Mordechai to
choose to be a Mordechai. Or perhaps evil is an absence of good, similar to
darkness being the absence of light. It would therefore not be a creation,
but a kind of vacuum. One could even suggest that evil is an illusion,
and that with proper hindsight we would be able to see how everything fit
in Hakadosh Baruch Hu's plan for the world.

If evil exists, then cursing Haman, trying to destroy evil, is different than
blessing Mordechai, advancing good causes. However, if evil is merely the
absence of good, then the only way to destroy the darkness is by providing
light - cursing Haman is the same as blessing Mordechai. And, if we say that
Haman only exists to serve the same ends as Mordechai's, how do we curse
him at all?

Or, one could overlook these questions and simply cleave to Hashem. Do
what you are supposed to, and trust in G-d that all will be well. We see
Mordechai taking this stance in the Megillah (4:14) when he tells Esther,
"for if you are silent, relief and salvation will stand for the Jews from
another place." He was sure that somehow all would work out.

Perhaps Rava is telling us that Purim is a day for the latter. We drink
to simply be in the day, feeling happiness for the salvation provided,
and having pure childlike faith in those yet to come. We take a break from
philosophizing, from drawing deep analyses about the differences between
destroying evil or doing good. Purim is about simple trust that all will be
well, even when we can't see how.

Does Hashem care that we put on Tefillin.

It says ki shem Hashem nikro alecho ....

We are taught to dress up for Shabos even when we are in isolation.

IOW the protest is for OUR benefit to show OUR concern OUR senstivity,

It is a taikkkun for Hashemer Achi anochi

I frankly do not care if the goyim read it or not; that's THEIR issue.

Ours is to do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may!

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

	Call all the media,  stop the presses;  we will be having a press 
conference.  The entire listmembership of Avodah (except lurkers?) will 
be announcing their position on Bosnia,  Serbia,  Sudan,  or whatever 
trouble spots are current.

	Who will come?

	Who will care?

	R' Carl said it very well that nobody really gives a hoot what any one 
of us,  or any organization of us says;  it does not compare to the Pope,
 upon the diyukim in his every word millions of Catholics hang.   So, 
for action,  you agree;  for policy statements you may take a stand on 
whatever you choose to;  I'll save my breath.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: 
        MBernet@aol.com
                                                                               
Tue 8:35 PM

 Subject: 
        Re: maror v horseradish
     To: 
        sheilat@pipeline.com




send this back:

The problem is not necessarily an issue of lettuce not growing in colder 
climates.  Rashi referred to it as latiche, which is from the Latin
lactuca.  
At the time of the Talmud (and probably Rashi) lettuce was quite
bitter.  It 
has since been bred to be sweeter and sweeter, and it may have been this 
bitterness that brought horseradish into favor.

In my family (Nurnberg, Germany) we covered allm bases;

On the seder plate we had a horseradish root which HAD to have a crown
of 
leaves.  For the brakha `al akhilat maror we dipped lettuce into
charoset. 
For Hillel's qorekh we used grated horseradish.

I don't know the sources, but I always thought that she'ar yeraqot in
the 
MahNishtanah made it clear that it had to be a leafy vegetable or the
leafy 
part of a vegetable; if a root had been intended, it would have been
referred 
to as shoresh.

Michael Bernet
New Rochelle, NY

fwiw the hakdomo in the Artsroll Ba'al haTurim descibes Gematra in detail.

It seems that the word itself can be counted as 1.

So Tzav is 96 PLUS 1 = 97.

this is one of several geamtria techniques outlined in the hakdamah ayein sham

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Parshas Tzav 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    3/21/2000 8:06 PM


From Shlomo B Abeles

I often look at the siman at the end of the Parsha
(as noted in most Chumoshim) which gives the total number 
of Pesukim in the Sedra as well a Siman (or 2) being a word 
which is b'gmatria the number of Pesukim.

This week's sedra is Tzav and we are told that there are 
Tzadi-Vov (96) pesukim and Tzav (Gematria 96) siman.
Which is all very cute (Parshas Tzav, Tzav Pesukim & Tzav Siman) 
- except for the fact that there are actually 97
pesukim in this weeks Parsha!

Does anyone have any information about this or generally about those 
end-of-parsha simonim? Who wrote them  and when etc.
I think the Artscroll Stone Chumash brings
an explanation on each weeks siman from R' D Feinstein shlita, 
but I am really inteested in their history and background.

Happy Shushan Purim to all.

SHLOMO B ABELES

I hope the irony of the original post was not lost

The point was that the media was accuses of cowtowing to Jews, therefore the 
American Jwish Committee *demanded* that the media deny it.

I do NOT recall what the media did do, that was not the point of the story. The 
point of my sotry was to show the absolute fooloishness of the Am Jewish 
Comittee to think that by forcing a denial they would PROVE to the world that 
Jews do NOT control the meida.  (as if Bill clinton's denials proved he did 
nothing?)  What they would acuatlly prove - venahapoch hu - is that the Jews 
pull the strings of thee the meida like marionettes and give plenty of fodder 
for any intellignet anti-semite - now there's an oxymoron! - to really make a 
case for jewish control...

Jews  - as in this case - can be their own worst enemies.

And anyone watching Peter Jennings realizes that Jews do not control the media -
as far as I'm concerned.

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #454 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    3/22/2000 8:00 PM


In a message dated 3/21/00 11:01:05 AM Central Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:36:19 -0500
 From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
 Subject: Re[2]: How can we condemn etc. 

 In the 1970's there was an accusation that Jews controled the media (I 
forgot 
 who said it) >>
This demagogic garbage has been uttered by many wannabe Jew haters over the 
past decades. Can someone explain the concept of "control?" I'm more 
comfortable with the concept of influence, rather than control or domination. 
William Paley (CBS), General Sarnoff (NBC), and, Marvin Goldberger (ABC), all 
created, owned, and, operated their own TV Networks until recently. Gerald 
Levin was Chairman of Time-Warner, until AOL bought them out (he's now 
Vice-Chairman); All Networks, and, most larger market network affiliates 
still have high ranking Jewish producers, and, executives (to our dismay); 
Most major newspapers, and, wire services--the same; Sony may have bought 
Paramont, and, all of its' hugely profitable syndication rights to TV reruns, 
but, their executives are mostly Jewish; Sony has also invested in the music 
industry, and, guess who "controls" that group? Commodity markets, investment 
markets, insurance brokers, and, even a few, choice public corporations, we 
are there. Do we "control" or strongly influence business decisions? After 
the Yom Kippur War, sugar prices went ballistic, and, many fahrblozener 
goyim, in influential positions, maintained that it was our fault. You see, 
since we "won" the YK War, the Arabs became enraged, and, bought up huge 
sugar future contracts, which skyrocketed prices. Great fiction, but, it 
worked for a while. The sugar shortages during that time were coincidentally, 
but, artificially created by Amstar, to make more money, but, once again, 
Jews were blamed for goyim having to pay more for their XMAS cookies. 
Barry Schwarz

This was not posted to the list,  I believe inadvertently,  so I am
posting my reply together with RDF's post:

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:03:39 EST DFinchPC@aol.com writes:

<<If, as Jews, we feel comfortable equating Henry David Thoreau with
Eldridge Cleaver, then we'll continue to victimize ourselves with our
ignorance.>>
 
to which I wrote:

Only in the sense that they do not set our priorities.
 
<<Goyim think of Jews as smart. Maybe they should think again.>>
 
to which I wrote:

The Torah says goyim will consider Jews smart when they keep the Torah.
Maybe we should focus a bit more on that if appearing smart to the goyim
is important.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.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         ]