Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 068

Tuesday, December 11 2001

• Re: PIKUACH NEFESH: Yoreh Deah 117
• Pelishtim
• Re: REED and Rambam
• yeshiva system
• Re: Out of context: Rambam and REED
• Re: Rambam and REED
• Re: Rambam and REED
• Ram and Gemara
• Re: Precedent
• halacha methodology
• Maaseh Avos Siman L'Banim
• Birthdays
• Re: Nusach
• Chashmona-ee vs. chashmonai
• RE: halacha methodology
• Techeiles me'akkeves?
• Re: Dr. Eliezer Berkowitz and the Shulhan Arukh
• Re: Rambam and REED
• Re: Out of context
• Re: Out of context: Rambam and REED
• R' Akiva Miller's Question
• Re: Out of context: Rambam and REED

At 08:43 PM 12/8/01 +0200, backon@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>QUESTION: whereas the Beit Yosef in TUR Yoreh Deah 117 equates *sikka*
>with *shtia* thus prohibiting shmearing oneself with lard, the Bach there
>and most Ashkenazi psak is much more lenient (see: Nekudot haKesef for a
>list of those that permit]. However, even here the qualifying parameter
>seems to be a need (e.g. skin disease or TZAAR)...

>SPECIFIC QUESTION: would the inyan of pikuach nefesh [no bus would be
>blown up by a suicide bomber] be equated with TZAAR ? [the type of lard
>that would be purchased is *food grade* not the type that would be used
>in soap or lotion]. Would placing sealed bags of lard on busses (and
>in front of stores) be b'geder "sechora"? Would there be a difference
>between Sefardi and Ashkenazi psak on this [as per Beit Yosef] ??

I cannot understand why there is possibly a tzad to be machmir here R"L,
but if you are concerned for Sefardim. you need to be asking ROY, as
RYSE's psak will not necessarily be accepted amongst the Eidot ha'Mizrach.

YGB

The Pelishtim in Breshit occupy different regions than the Pelishtim
of Shoftim and later: In Breshit they are in the Negev; later on, on
the coast.

The Pelishtim of Breshit have Semitic names. The later Pelishtim tend
to have Greek names (Achish=Anchises; seren=tyrannos).

Thus the two groups are different.

If the Torah, in Bereshit, were anachronistically retrojecting the
Pelishtim of later times into the period of the Avot, the two groups
would occupy the same geography and be otherwise similar to each other.

See further, Yehoshua Grintz (late professor at Tel Aviv U) in his book
Motsaei Dorot. This book reprints his articles on the Pelishtim.

> If the world was 
> created for the purpose of achieving YS (=yechidei segula), then the system 
> that best promotes that goal is the one that should be put in place. It is 
> quite a simple and straightforward argument.

> (You are also viewing a statement made when yeshivos were not a mass 
> sociological tool through the prism of their current status. This is not 
> fair. Traditionally, yeshivos were akin to universities, i.e., the ivory 
> towers intended to produce the YS... )

It's hard to disagree with the notion that the world was created for the
purpose of YS. The larger question, perhaps, is how we define yeshiva-bred
Torah achievement in context of the community's current needs.

 From my perspective -- far, far away from the islands of frumdom in
Brooklyn, Monsey, and EY, from which I might know better -- traditional
deep scholastic Judaism is a dying religion. I'm not talking about
halachic observance, which might even be on the upswing among BTs,
assimilated MOs and even Conservative Jews. I'm worried more about
keeping the great texts and scholastic traditions alive. These traditions
are, frankly, elitist. Very few of us have the intellectual ability
to understand them thoroughly, much less keep them alive by personal
devotion. So the question is this: Does the yeshiva system produce, at
the very top, the type of YS that will perserve the scholastic tradition
for future generations?

I think this is a very difficult question. RYBS thought that the solution
involved the inculcation of yetzirah and chiddush, of sophisticated
analytic approaches that engaged the thinking of Derech Eretz and met
the bright student's need for personal intellectual autonomy. (The
Chazon Ish disagreed, believing that older values of toil, repetition,
and unremitting study were the key to the humility that underlies
even the most advanced Torah learning.) I tend to think RYBS was
right. The modern yeshiva has to embrace the whole world if it is to
produce first-rate Torah scholars who can stand up to that world. The
old texts and scholastic traditions cannot be kept alive unless they,
too, are taken out and used as tools to understand the whole world.

That's the paradox: The more we isolate ourselves and turn inward, the
less likely we will be able to produce the type of Torah scholars who
can keep our intellectual traditions alive in the modern world.

David Finch

There are two major issues which need to be addressed.

1) What did Rav Dessler intend to say in his letter?
2) Is his view correct?

1) Based upon a conversation I had with Rabbi Ronny Greenwald about this
letter , Rav Dessler (in consultation with the Chazon Ish) was noting
that after the holocaust it was critical to rebuild Torah leadership as
well as appreciation for Torah scholarship. He was asserting that this
was best done by a system which was elitist and was focused on greatness
in Torah. The fact that such a system would inevitably result in losses
was acknowledged but it was felt that there was no alternative to try to
recover from the devastation of the war. It was now a time to fight for
Torah and as in every war there are losses. We are not talking about
a lack of concern for the masses. His point of view was simply that
the entire world requires and benefits from having gedolim. The fact
that there were many who would not develop to their potential as Torah
scholars because of the focus on producing gedoim would be compensated
by the production of gedolim.

Rabbi Greenwald pointed out that this approach has succeeded but now
that we are no longer facing the same crises. The issue now is whether
the system would not be better served by altering the single focus to
one that allows a multiple tier educational system. Are the losses
justifiable anymore? It is not that Rav Dessler was wrong but that
the circumstances are no probably longer best served by the approach
he advocated then. Rabbi Greenwald stated that the gedolim have been
reorienting their goals as a result of the changed circumstances.

2) Regarding the correctness of Rav Dessler's assestment, I would suggest
reading the analysis of Prof Low which is published in *Encounter* of
the Jewish scientists "Some remarks on a letter of Rabbi Dessler" page
204-218. He argues that gedolim are not produced by the system. The system
at best produces compentent scholars who can appreciate gedolim. "Rabbi
Dessler takes it as axiomatic that there is a direct relationship between
Gedolei Torah and yeshivot....However, a deeper analysis shows that the
majority of real Geonim had not received their important training in
yeshivot...I have discussed this fact with many Rashei Yeshiva of the
last generation, and the general consensus was that yeshivot served the
good and very good student but not the brilliant student. The brilliant
students went their own way...It seems reasonable to conclude that it
has yet to be proven that the present yeshiva system produces Gedolei
Torah. What does seem to be true is that the yeshiva system produces
many new competent Rashei Yeshiva and an envirnoment that can support
a Gadol ba Torah should one emerge."

A cogent attack on Rav Dessler's assertions was written by Rabbi Shwab.
It was published anonymously in HaMa'ayan. A translation of this was
published in Tradition.

In sum, contrary to the assertions that have been flying around, Rav
Dessler was not advocating the creation of a slaughter house but was
concerned with the awesome task of rebuilding Torah after the war. The
losses he anticapated were not viewed as desirable but were viewed as
inevitable and justifiable sacrifice for the greater good. Other such
as Rav Shwab disagreed with the approach as well as the rational.

                                                    Daniel Eidensohn

At 06:26 PM 12/9/01 +0200, Moshe Rudner wrote:
>Although I appreciate your response, I must say that I see nothing in it
>that merits a rebuttal. I think that the original post speaks for itself and
>that the issues raised have not been addresses. A number of straw men though
>have taken a severe beating. But, lest it be said that Shtika K'Hoda'a
>Dammi, I'll have a go at it.

Ha'me'ayein yivchar. As I have noted, I am personally not convinced that
Derech ha'Yeshivos is working out the way the CI and REED would have
wanted, and, of course, our institution, Beis Medrash Harav Shmuel Yaakov,
the IDT Center for Torah and Technology, is certainly not the classic
Lithuanian yeshiva. But I continue to maintain that the CI/REED/Volozhin
model is a natural ramification of the Rambam/YS philosophy.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

If I may, I'd like to redirect the focus of this conversation a bit.

To me, the ikkar is NOT exactly what the Rambam said, or whether Rav
Dessler misinterpreted him, or whether Rav Dessler based himself on some
other source. Regardless of what the logic was, or what the sources were,
or whether any of us agree with it, like it, or even enderstand it,
the bottom line is: this particular shita was widely accepted by many
roshei yeshiva.

That's what I want to focus on: Why did so many gravitate towards
this view?

Or we can phase it differently: Why did so many in Eretz Yisrael gravitate
towards this view, while it was less unaninmously accepted elsewhere?

How did that view get seen as "right", when most of us on Avodah see
serious problems with it?

Any ideas?

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 12/9/01 11:37:27am EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> (indeed, were the Rambam here!), they would have taken into 
> account the different status of near-universal yeshiva education and come 
> closer to the German model, perhaps advocating a two-tier system.)

IIRC RSR Hiurch advocated just such a 2 tier system
When I attned Ner Yisrael in the 1960's there was a defacto 2-tier system.
Everyone learned, but there was a definite elite of elter bachurim and
kolle-lite that were consiously being groomed for gadlus. At that time
this group included R. Moseh Brown, R. Yissachar Frand and others.

Rather than isolate these up and coming roshei yeshiva types, they were
given the chane to be meishiv shei'los in the night seder. We certainly
tested their mettle both in learning and middos.

Unfortunately - imho - the kollel system as it was then in many yeshivos
is no longer and there is no more elite. As a result grooming dozens or
hundreds in the kollel and then weeding them out only at age 30 or so is
a big disservice. In the old system they were weeded out more around
age 20, allowing the non-elite to go to night college or the Machon
chinuch program. This in effect fostered TIDE for the non-elite and
Torah-Only for the elite - both under the same roof.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

RMR>One final note. Rambam would definitely not have agreed with the
> Yeshiva system as it is today and would have argued vehemently with R'
> Dessler. Rambam felt that "Iyun" (which then involved no R' Chaims,
> just explaining how R' Yehuda is L'Shitato) was a spectacular waste of
> time for the masses. "The purpose of the writing of the Talmud and its
> contemporaries [Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc.] has already been cut off and
> lost. And the purpose of the teachers waste their time in the give and
> take of the Talmud, as if the reason for it is the energy spent in debate
> and nothing else. That was not the reason for the creation of the Talmud"
> (Igrot, ed. R' Shilat, Vol. I p. 257).

I think that this is a serious misquote of the Rambam. In my simple
edition of Igrot on pg 31b there is a similar quote.

However, the first sentence is completely missing in my text.

Preceding your second sentence, though, the Rambam advises "iyun
haTalmud"! He is merely advising a halachic approach to learning Gemara as
opposed to a "debater's" approach. Talmud is serious work, not [just] fun.

Please note that every tshuva of the Rambam is discussing Gemara as the
basis for learning halacha. In Yad the Rambam discusses the MITZVA of
learning "mishna" and analysis/Gemara. See also this same understanding
in Tshuvot #140 to R' Pinhas Dayyan Alexandria.

Shlomo Goldstein 

In a message dated 12/4/01 7:34:49am EST, Shlomo Goldstein
goldstin@netvision.net.il writes:
> What do you mean? Certainly by definition all great Shut are NOT a
> collection of previous Shut, but novel interpretation of new questions.
> For example Noda b'Yehuda, Chasam Sofer etc

> RRW>If you follow the Traditional School, you know that whe nit comes to
>> Halachah the Talmud has been filtered by Rif Rambam. Rosh, Tur SA Mappah
>> etc. into a form that is accessaible to us today in such sefarim as MB
>> or Aruch haShulchan etc.

> This is a contradiction to your intro! Except for MB, none of these is
> a collection of Shut!!

I'm not sure I disgare with you!

let's put it this way:

When I was in Ner Yisrael, they pointed out to me that Rav Ruderman was
a bakki in Shut and therefore could pasken readily.. while RM Feinstein
was more innovative

This goes back to the old Sinai vs. Oker Harim

The problem AISI, is NOT making in making chiddushim per se, but in
ignroing pfrecdent by going back to the Gamara and ignroing subsenquent
Shut and/or poskim

My underlygin shita is simple

Sanhedrin is nor more. The model for rendering psak is based upon Masorah
which is a rough equivalent of Common Law. Common Law is esentially this:
W/O a legislative body, precdent is used to determine law. Stare Decisis,
let the decision stand.

Going back to original sources - w/o seeing precdents such as Shut -
uses another model for Halachah then the one I know and love. If you
can articaulte it please do

AISI, if you say that precdent is not important, but rtaher seeing
the Gmara and going forward again is, then you allow for EACH dor to
re-visit the Gmara and come up with its own verions of what Halachah is
w/o reference to Shut etc.

This means there is NO Sinai - save the Gmara- and we can have a parade
of Okeir Harim from both Right and Left re-manufcture Halachah as they
see fit. IMHO this is a very unstable system.

If you follow the methodolgy of Beis Yoseph and Aruch Hashulchan, you
will see a similar approach ot tracing halacha as developed by poskim
over time. While this allows for SOME element of Okeir harim, it is more
stable in that each step is taken and no steps are skipped.

When it comes to lamdus, I have no problem in skipping steps and learning
one's own chiddushim in Shas it is ONLY in Halchah that I see the need
to address precedent

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

RRW>If you follow the methodolgy of Beis Yoseph and Aruch Hashulchan,
> you will see a similar approach ot tracing halacha as developed by
> poskim over time. While this allows for SOME element of Okeir harim,
> it is more stable in that each step is taken and no steps are skipped.
 
Please note the AhS is quite ready to toss out chumros of acharonim. Not
exactly "stare decisis".
 
Kol Tuv,
Shlomo

What is the source for the primciple in Chumash of "Maaseh Avos Siman
L'Banim" that the Ramban quotes several times in his perush?

Chaim Schild
hgschild@hotmail.com

[See also our earlier hunt for the origin of this quote in v2 and v4,
as well as David Hojda's comment in v8n31. -mi]

I seem to recall Rabbanit Boublil asking for sources on birthdays.
I came across a sefer dedicated to this topic. It is called Yemei
Shenoseinu by R. Yosef Tikotski and was published in Bnei Brak in 1996.

Due to Chanukah preparations and the usual Sunday craziness, I was not
able to look through it beyond the table of contents.

Gil Student

"Carl Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il> seems to have entered the following to 
Avodah V8 #67:
>> My son ...    said that after shemoneh esrei of ma'ariv, they say
>> kaddish shalem and then shir hama'alos mima'amakim. Then they told him
>> to say kaddish and then borechu and alenu....

>This is standard Nussach Sfard (and Eidot HaMizrach) for during the
>week.

In my experience, for Ashkenazim this is Nusah Yerushalayim only, and not
even in all of Yerusalayim (such as Gilo). In such cases, Ashkenazim say
qaddish after Shir Lama`alot and then again after Aleynu. Sefaradim (who
practice this all over) recite qaddish only after Shir Lama`alot.

And Sefaradim have a similar practice in Minha: reciting Lamenatze'ah
Bi'neginot before Aleynu, qaddish, Aleynu and then no qaddish.

>And in Nussach Sfard there is generally no Kaddish after Aleinu.

That is "Nusah Sefard" of the Sefaradim, of course.

IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

In al ha'nisim, most siddurim have chashmona-ee (kamatz under the nun
and a chirik under the aleph) but I see that Rinat Yisrael siddur has
chashmonai (patach under the nun, nothing under the aleph). Can anyone
comment on this variance in nusach?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: S Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
>RRW> If you follow the methodolgy of Beis Yoseph and Aruch Hashulchan,
>> you will see a similar approach ot tracing halacha as developed by
>> poskim over time. While this allows for SOME element of Okeir harim,
>> it is more stable in that each step is taken and no steps are skipped.

> Please note the AhS is quite ready to toss out chumros of 
> acharonim. Not exactly "stare decisis".

But the AhS tends to throw out such chumros primarily when they conflict
with minhag yisrael.  IOW, he takes the position that an Achron's words
won't automatically have the power of a U.S. court decision (which has the
power of stare decisis in the relevant jurisdiction).  Once an Achron's psak
is ratified by either (a) minhag yisrael or (b) the preponderance of
achronim, the AhS is likely to consider the psak to have the power of stare
decisis.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:06:28AM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: IIRC it is not universal. I believe it is a Maclokes and one Rishon... I
: believe it is the Bal HaMeor but I'm not sure... holds that Techeles IS
: me'akkev es halavan.

Despite the stam mishnah in Menachos 4:1? How does he justify it?

-mi

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:38:51PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Solmon Schahcter - hardly a right wing radical - saw the dangers inehdrest
: in lack of consensus and formualted "Catholic Israel."

Solomon Schechter's problem is that he formulated this notion of CI,
but gave a circular definition for it. The consensus of CI determines
halachah, and membership in CI is determined by who is observant --
of halachah. This means that any arbitrary pair of definitions for CI
and halachah could be used -- even Reform. (A result Schechter himself
would not have agreed to.)

One needs to acknowledge a constitutional law, ideas that are not up
to consensus. And, like most constitutions, this would include laws
about how to coin and interpret law.

There are halachos about how to make halachos. About when precedent is
binding and when not. About rov, the power of the am vs the rabbanim,
etc...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 12/10/2001 6:26:18pm EST, Akiva Miller
kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> That's what I want to focus on: Why did so many gravitate towards
> this view?

> Or we can phase it differently: Why did so many in Eretz Yisrael gravitate
> towards this view, while it was less unaninmously accepted elsewhere?

As I posted a while ago ad as I stil see it now 
1) The holocaust created the urgency to replace Gdloim ASAP
2) REED was issuing a legitimate Hora'as sha'ah
and 
3) IMHO it is time to move on to a new paradigm

Like many temporary measures, they have become enshrined with permanence
(yes I know I'm porbably one of the most likely suspects to perpetuate
jsut such a perpetuatoin!) Minhaggim get inertia when NO ONE objects.
It is time to move to a more reaclistic model

AISI today, EY is mvoing towards a Torah-Only model while Galus - led
by the USA - is moving towards a Westernized TIDE model.

Perhaps the era of AShekenaz and Sefard will owevolve to new dichotomy
of EY and the USA/ as the new Bavel - a Bavel containing a mixture of
Yiddn from all over the place.

Even the Lieberman nomination echoes the instiution of Reish Galusa

Just some thoughts...

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@AOL.com
Moderator of TorahInsight <email>
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 05:45:55AM +0200, Moshe Rudner wrote:
: Although [the Rambam] makes no indication (that I am aware of) that later in
: life he changed his opinion vis-a-vis the purpose of the world (i.e. the
: Wise man), in Sefer Hamada, Hilchot Tshuva 5 he does seem to indicate
: that anyone can achieve the greatness of Moshe Rabbeinu. This sounds a
: different tune than his earlier writing about the world being created
: only for the few smart, wise people.

Why not?

Perhaps the Rambam holds that the world is created only for the few wise
people -- and anyone can be one. (Which is why I removed the word smart
from the criterion.)



On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 11:38:10PM -0500, RYGB wrote:
:               I have never ever seen the Rambam's position on this
: relationship between the Chacham and the rest of the Beri'ah as anything
: other than his consistent position (and see no contradiction from the Yad
: cited below - aderaba, there the Rambam says anyone may be a *tzaddik*
: like Moshe, not a *chacham* (in actuality, however, this is another
: matter...

Since the Rambam defines man's mission in terms of yedi'ah, it is hard to
see how he could argue that someone could be a tzaddik and not a yodei'ah.

Would he say that a non-chocham could be a yodei'ah? Aside from the causal
connection (which he may not hold of, as he may use different definitions
than do the mequbalim), reishis chochmah yir'as Hashem -- a yodei'ah must
have at least the beginings of chochmah.



On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:01:45AM -0500, RYGB wrote:
:                                                       If the world was 
: created for the purpose of achieving YS (=yechidei segula), then the system 
: that best promotes that goal is the one that should be put in place. It is 
: quite a simple and straightforward argument.

I would not assume the Rambam is choleik with the general consensus that
the world was created for the piurpose of having someone for HQBH to be
meitiv.

This would include anyone who is tzaddiq bedino. No? That is far broader
than YS, and probably not maximized with the system promoted by REED.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 12/10/2001 6:25:55pm EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:
> Ha'me'ayein yivchar. As I have noted, I am personally not convinced that
> Derech ha'Yeshivos is working out the way the CI and REED would have
> wanted, and, of course, our institution, Beis Medrash Harav Shmuel Yaakov,
> the IDT Center for Torah and Technology, is certainly not the classic
> Lithuanian yeshiva. But I continue to maintain that the CI/REED/Volozhin
> model is a natural ramification of the Rambam/YS philosophy.

There is always a need for an elite. If you will there was Sura and
Pumbeditha and l'havdil Oxford Cambridge and Yale Harvard.

The question comes down to this, do you provide a 2nd tier too or do
you provide ONLY for the elite?


E.g. Lubavich. Shluchim are learned and trained but they are not on
the same tier as the central Bes Din which were headed by R. Dworkin
and R. Marlowe.

In Moshe's time there were sarie alafiom down to sarei assoros etc. and
there we shiv'im zkeinim.

E.g.: YU has a large scale Yoreh Yoerh progam and a small scale Yadin
Yain program.

As mentioned before...Germany and England had local rabbis {ministers?}
from seminaries and more learned Avos Bes Din on a regional basis.

In the 1950's and the 1960's YU provide the rabbis for pulpits and for
the chaplaincy while Lakewood et. al. was grooming Gdolim.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@AOL.com"> 
<A HREF="TorahInsight@Yahoogroups.com">Moderator of TorahInsight <email></A>
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

I believe the answer to RAM's query as to how matters evolved in EY may
be summed up succinctly in one of our more common acronyms here: The CI.

I believe the CI was the last leader of non-Chassidic Jewry to have a
holistic vision of how Jewish society should function, and, critically,
it is evident that individuals who were of very different perspectives
before meeting the CI - Mussarists meeting the anti-Mussar CI, Yekkes
meeting the supremely Lithuanian CI, talmidim of RAYHK meeting the CI
- all were so powerfully impacted by him - in ways that perhaps older
members of this group might have some inkling of - I certainly do not -
that they actually adjusted elements of their thinking, reconciled their
differences, to be more in line with the CI.

The CI was very complex - he was not an Agudist, although he supported
them in the elections. He settled in the Polish-Chassidic village of
Bnei Braq - a much more PAI like milieu than, say, Sha'arei Chesed or
Sanhedria, here he might have settled had he gone on to Yerushalayim; was
active in sustaining Kibbutz Chafetz Chaim (the split with PAI, of course,
was after the CI's petirah), and was instrumental - perhaps the supreme
instrument - of the application of halacha to contemporary essentials,
as disparate as eruvin and agriculture. I believe the CI truly believed
in the pro-active development of a semi-agrarian, petty-shopkeeper and
craft-based society in EY. Thus, the "other 999" would find their places
in Moshavot and Kefarim, guided by "the 1." That being said, he was,
of course, not a Zionist by any stretch of the imagination, renowned
for saying Hallel at a bris since it occurred on Yom ha'Atzma'ut.

And, I believe, a critical nugget of information that I gleaned years ago
from R' Schlesinger in Sha'alvim is essential to completing the picture:
The CI stated, in R' Schlesinger's presence, that it was not possible
for the State to survive more than ten years. Of course, the CI did
not survive that long, so it was not possible for him, in any event, to
adjust a course that may well have been set with that reckoning in mind.

I believe that all subsequent evolution may be traced along these lines.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On 10 Dec 01, at 21:49, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/10/2001 6:25:55pm EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
> writes:

> The question comes down to this, do you provide a 2nd tier too or do
> you provide ONLY for the elite?

As an ideal or l'maase?

[In a 2nd email. -mi]

On 10 Dec 01, at 21:26, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/10/2001 6:26:18pm EST, Akiva Miller
> kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
>> That's what I want to focus on: Why did so many gravitate towards
>> this view?

> As I posted a while ago ad as I stil see it now 
> 1) The holocaust created the urgency to replace Gdloim ASAP
> 2) REED was issuing a legitimate Hora'as sha'ah
> and 
> 3) IMHO it is time to move on to a new paradigm
> 
> Like many temporary measures, they have become enshrined with permanence...

All well and good, but would you argue that REED would agree? And if so,
based on what? I don't see anything in the Michtav that would indicate
the REED viewed his model as a horaas shaa. That's my problem with it.

> AISI today, EY is mvoing towards a Torah-Only model while Galus - led
> by the USA - is moving towards a Westernized TIDE model.

I could argue fahrkert - that EY is already at a Torah Only model
(at least in the Charedi community) and is trying to find ways out of
it because as a community we cannot sustain it. The West has been very
successful as a TIDE model, but now more and more young men are choosing
Torah Only (or so I have been told).

-- 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.

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


[ 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         ]