Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 047

Monday, August 4 2003

• Re: Directions on Shabbat
• Re: Nissim and Miracles
• Re: almond growing
• Birthday candles
• Re: Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai
• Re: Prefix she
• Ahavas Chinam?
• Re: Ahavas Chinam?
• Re: Ahavas Chinam?
• Re: Ahavas Chinam?
• The roots of minhag Ashkenaz
• Birthday Candles
• [Areivim] destruction of the Temple
• Qabbalat Shabbat introduced
• Re: Ahavas Chinam?
• mturgman
• Re: TuM vs TIDE
• Yaakov Avinu and the spotted sheep
• Re: Directions on Shabbat
• Re: Qabbalat Shabbat introduced
• Good Motto for Aishdas!
• Re: TuM vs TIDE

[R' Akiva Miller] wrote:
>On Areivim, several people have been discussing what to do if a Jew who
>is driving on Shabbos asks you for directions.

>In "The 39 Melochos" by Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, p 93 (and footnote 360 there)
>he cites the view of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ...
...
>Rabbi Ribiat's translation: <<< It is Shabbos and one may not drive
>on Shabbos. However, so as to minimize your Shabbos transgression,
>the shortest route is as follows... >>>

This is very much in line with what RSZA has to say about weighing
potential Chillul and Kiddush Hashem in such situations (viz., giving
a kibbud of ma'achal u'mishteh to a guest who is unlikely to make a
berachah). Wow to a generation that has lost such a manhig v'ein lanu
temuroso ad halom!

Have a Good Shabbos, v'nizkeh liros b'nechomas Tziyon v'Yerushalayim,
YGB

>It would seem that Chazal use the word "neis" for things that can be
>understood within teva, but are far too unlikely and fortuitous to be anything
>but Yad H'.  Thus they serve as flags (nissim) of His Presence even within
>other natural events. This is true of the 10 things in the beis hamiqdash are
>called "nisim".

>True violations of natural law are "devarim nivre'u bein hashemashos". Which
>then leads back to our frequent discussion about the Ramban and when miracles
>were created.

But is there such a thing as a 'true violation of natural law'? As
defined by Quantum Mechanics, natural law is given by probabilities
of events occuring/being observed. There is always the probability,
however small, that strange things might occur. For example there is
an incredibly minute probability that a baseball will tunnel through a
solid wall. We would call that a miracle, yet it technically still did
not violate any natural law. What then would be called a true violation?

    Eliezer

R' Gil commented, via a friend, that the almond <<blooms in July or august
.. according to the websites. and ...[the] 21 days ..is very very very
clearly stated in the yerushalmi!!!!>>

Etmaha! Every child in Israel who sings "ha-sh'kedia porachat" on t"u
bishvat knows when the almond blossoms. Whenever we travelled about
in Sh'vat the kids could be depended on to notice the blossoming that
always occurs at about that time. July and August? Your websites must
be in Alaska or Siberia, not in Israel.

As to the Yerushalmi: The term used is 21 days from blossoming to "finish"
the fruit . Haza"l certainly knew the difference between months and
days. I suggest that"'ad shehu gomer et perotav" means until the fruit
is completely formed. There can be many months between the formation of
the fruit and its becoming ripe and edible.

k"t,
David

Rn TK:
> Nevertheless, R' Blumenkrantz concludes that birthday cakes are muttar,
> which is not surprising, since the custom of Jews eating cake certainly
> predates the worship of Artemis. The Greeks probably got it from us.
 
> To reiterate what I've said before, I agree with R' Blumenkrantz about
> the cake and about the candles.

Well, if you're going to postulate (without evidence) that the goyim
got cake-eating from us, maybe they also got candle-burning from us?
After all, candles are above all associated with times of simcha: shabbat,
yom tov, chanukah. Metaphorically, fire and candles are associated with
Torah & mitzvos - mitzva ner vetorah or, neiro ya'ir, etc. So even
if the goyim do it, it's a perfectly Jewish way to celebrate - adding
candles to things. Esp the way my parents did it, with "one to grow on"
- we should always grow in Torah & mitzvos.

Even the OU implicitly supports birthday candles, see "TTriddles" in
<http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5763/miketz63/print.htm>

While a Chabad newsletter disapproves of blowing out the candles,
because of the candle/soul analogy, it seems not to have any problem
with the candles themselves.
<http://www.meaningfullife.com/html/wir/archives/5761/Bereishit/W61-15vg.htm#p-insights>

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

R Ephi Sinowitz said:
> Nevuah is what the gemara is discussing (B"B 12a) - "From the day the bais
> hamikdosh was destroyed nevuah was taken from the neviim but not from the
> chachamim" One can argue that this nevuah, ruach hakodesh, intuition, daas
> torah or gefeel are all one and the same thing. Intuition (daas torah)
> doesn't exclude ruach hakodesh.

My question was about the reverse, are you saying it necessarily includes
ru'ach haqodesh? I could see how on the Rambam's scale, such inspiration
would be at the first rung.

This raises another unanswered Avodah perennial: being meyasheiv chochom
adif minavi and both this quote as well as as the Rambam's shitah
that chochmah is a prerequisite for nevu'ah, and therefor a navi is a
chocham plus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org            and her return will be through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (413) 403-9905

RMLevi:
>> I don't recall seeing the "she-" prefix in chumash. At the very least,
>> "asher" is chosen over "she-" almost always, if not always.

> There is "bshagam hu basar" end of parshas bareishis which is like "ad
> shakamti devorah".

> The real issue, as I see it, is exostence of dialects and iso-usage belts
> through the entire Israelite and even surrounding Semitic nations....

Still, the normal progression over time, not space, is that of
simplification and of softening of vowels. The rise of "sha-" as a synonym
for some uses of "asher" and the shift to "she-" fits normal patterns. The
linguistics may not prove conclusively the dating of texts as mesorah
teaches us, but it is the most likely scenerio for producing the pattern.

It does conclusively disprove other things. Like claims that "D" was
written in Yoshiahu's day, as that wouldn't explain why the language used
is not in Melachim. Or claims that the various alleged source texts were
written by different communities -- they have the same language pattern in
contrast to other texts. Or the notions of hexateuch or "the D history".

And for those who don't know what I'm talking about, I'm intentionally
leaving you in blissful ignorance. If you have real da mah lehashiv need,
write me privately.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org            and her return will be through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (413) 403-9905

From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
To: areivim@aishdas.org
>I believe that it was R. Kook who advocated ahavat chinam as the
>antidote to sinat chinam.

>In <http://www.shemayisrael.com/chareidi/ocaushate.htm>
>they attack ahavat chinam and advocate justified hatred as the
>true Torah position.

>I vote for R. Kook and ahavat chinam.

I have not seen the Yated essay, and do not really think the Yated has
any value as a source of Torah-true thought.

Be that as it may, I must take issue with the notion of "Ahavas Chinam.

The very concept of Ahavah is antithetical to the concept of Chinam! For
example, Ahavas Yisrael is based, at the very least, on the other's
being part of the Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh. No "chinam" there!

Have a Good Shabbos, v'nizkeh liros b'nechomas Tziyon v'Yerushalayim,
YGB

On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 03:33:26PM -0400, RYGB wrote:
: The very concept of Ahavah is antithetical to the concept of Chinam! For
: example, Ahavas Yisrael is based, at the very least, on the other's
: being part of the Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh. No "chinam" there!

Doesn't RAYKook mean unconditional love? Conditional love must be earned,
you have to work to satisfy the condition. Unconditional love is present
even when the person is acting very unlovably.

Or, to put it another way, ahavas Yisrae'el is loving someone for an
attribute (essence?) that HQBH gave him. Not for something he worked
for to earn. With the possible exception of geirim, but that's arguable.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org            and her return will be through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org       
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

At 07:52 PM 8/1/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Doesn't RAYKook mean unconditional love? Conditional love must be earned,
>you have to work to satisfy the condition. Unconditional love is present
>even when the person is acting very unlovably.

>Or, to put it another way, ahavas Yisrae'el is loving someone for an
>attribute (essence?) that HQBH gave him. Not for something he worked
>for to earn. With the possible exception of geirim, but that's arguable.

What is unconditional love?

It is not unearned or unmerited love - which would be the defintion
of Ahavas Chinam. It is love that has been earned or merited that is
maintained despite some significant shortcomings. But it is certainly not
"free." If one loves "for free" then one does not truly love, as love
requires the identification of some salient aspect - be it physical,
emotional, intellectual, ideological, theological, whatever, but some
aspect - in the beloved. It need not be a tangible identification -
it may be chen, a chemistry, but be there it must.

Have a Good Shabbos, v'nizkeh liros b'nechomas Tziyon v'Yerushalayim,
YGB

On 1 Aug 2003 at 15:33, R Yosef Gavriel wrote:
> The very concept of Ahavah is antithetical to the concept of Chinam!
> For example, Ahavas Yisrael is based, at the very least, on the
> other's being part of the Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh. No "chinam"
> there!

Then how do you explain Pirkei Avos's statement about David and
Yehonassan? I can see that there was a basis for that ahava that could
be argued to make it not be "chinam," but what is the mishna trying to
tell us by saying that it's an "ahava she'eina tluya b'davar" if every
ahava has to have some sort of cosmic basis.

-- 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. 

In the past (e.g. V4#12 & V5#121), a number of people on this list
have cited a theory proposed by Professors Agus, Soloveitchik and
TaShma that states that the roots of Minhag Ashkenaz lie in Eretz
Yisrael, while the roots of Minhag Sfarad lie in Bavel (or, at
least, Minhag Ashkenaz has a stronger orientation in the direction
of Eretz Yisrael than Minhag Sfarad and visa versa regarding Minhag
Bavel). I was wondering if someone familiar with the details of
this hypothesis can comment on the Tosphot Avoda Zara 38b (V'Ata)
(<http://www.e-daf.com/Avodah%20Zarah/38b.gifwhich>) which states:

"from the entire discussion it is apparent that we require that the
Jew make at least some contribution to the cooking (to avoid Bishul
Akum). The common practice to have the Jew (simply) toss a splinter into
the oven (i.e. even though the splinter contributes almost nothing to
the cooking) relies on the "(list of) differences between the citizens
of Bavel and the citizens of the West (i.e. Eretz Yisrael)". It is
found therein: "inhabitants of Bavel suffice by tossing a splinter into
the oven, while the citizens of the West say "what does this splinter
contribute?". [However] we follow the citizens of Bavel and their talmud
(anu nimshachim acharei bnei bavel vetaludam) ."

It seems to me that this Tosphot says that the people in Ashkenaz not
only follow Talmud Bavli (over Talmud Yerushalmi) but also Minhag Bavli
over Minhag Yerushalmi. How do Agus/Soloveitchik/TaShma explain this?

Saul Stokar

Found the 2002 Pesach guide, I see that R' Blumenkrantz had changed his
"birthday candles" listing to "CANDLES, COLORED (BIRTHDAY CANDLES)",
moved it to a spot between "buttermilk" and "canned fruit," and added
a paragraph in addition to those I quoted from his 1999 guide:

>>The blowing out of candles is also not Jewish. A Jew should never
blow out a candle. The reason is because the Neshomo is compared to
a candle. "Ki ner Hash-m nishmas odom." The Torah says that "Vayipach
beapov nishmas chaim"--Hashe-m blew life into us. Therefore, blowing
out candles is like blowing out life. We do not want to use breath
that gave us life to extinguish a candle that is symbolic of life.
Instead, we wave a hand, creating a wind, or any other method, but we
do not blow out candles.<<

Toby Katz 

From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
> Re the gemara in Gittin does anyone have any idea of the
> historical background of the story?

On the historical background of K and bar K see Yair Fuerstenberg's 20
page analysis of the historical background behind b. Gittin 55-56.Its
in a vol called __hamesh sugyot min hatalmud habavli___ which provides
an academic, shinui girsa and historical (archeological) approach to
sugyas. You wont find it in your beis midrash ;). But there are some
fascinating things in it.

Zvi Basser

Hi,

I have been looking mit lecht for any written record by Ramaq and Rav Shlomo 
Alqavetz on their activities in connection with the introduction of qabbalat 
Shabbat, but found no citations. Any help?

For those who don't understand the above:
Rav Mosheh Cordovero is credited with instituting qabbalat Shabbat, and Rav 
Shlomo Alqavetz with writing Lekhah Dodi. However, no article I found quotes 
any contemporary account (Tzfat, 16th Century) of this matter, and definitely 
not the works of those two mequbalim.
-- 
Rabbiner Arie Folger,
Israelitische Gemeinde Basel

At 09:04 AM 8/3/2003 +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2003 at 15:33, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M.  wrote:
>> The very concept of Ahavah is antithetical to the concept of Chinam!
>> For example, Ahavas Yisrael is based, at the very least, on the
>> other's being part of the Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh. No "chinam"
>> there!

>Then how do you explain Pirkei Avos's statement about David and
>Yehonassan? I can see that there was a basis for that ahava that
>could be argued to make it not be "chinam," but what is the mishna
>trying to tell us by saying that it's an "ahava she'eina tluya
>b'davar" if every ahava has to have some sort of cosmic basis.

Check out the Rav and Rambam there!

YGB 

When did this institution begin? Is it possible that in bayit Rishon
there was one? If no, did the Kohen Gadol only read the first parsha on
yom kippur from the torah and read the second baal peh(since we say the
reason we could roll to the 2nd is that the mturgman was still talking
and therefore no tircha?

KT
Joel Rich

RMS: <<TuM and TIDE differ about the value given secular subjects --
inherently part of torah versus utilitarian.... However, regardless
of why one studies physics -- as part of understanding niflaot habore
(which I would characterize far more as TuM) versus necessary to being
part of the world (TIDE)..>>

I fear I must disagree: TIDE, at least as understood by RSRH and the
Breuer/keepers of the flame, is anything but "utilitarian". It is
rather a full appreciation for the wonders of the culture, leavened by
assertions that these too were meant to enrich the torah perspective --
though that connection might in practice prove rather tenuous. In short
RSRH's TIDE is really quite close to the maximalist lefty position
(from the perspective of this list) which finds intrinsic value in
secular culture (if only to reflect back upon and enhance our Torah
insights). In fact RSRH's formulation actually goes much further than
that. His conception of derekh eretz encompassed the full cultural and
societal aspects of life. so in some sense even secular culture was
ultimately just "jewish" culture. RSRH believed that the more jewish
one was,necessarily the more universal would be one's strivings. kind
of a pan-judaism. Needless to say RSRH was diametrically opposed to the
particularistic weltanschauung expressed by a number of the regular
posters to this list who perceive nothing but x-ian (and christian)
acculturation in the cultural underpinnings of western society and
will have nothing to do with an educational process that promotes its
understanding. But RSRH's writings are quite clear on this point --
despite the work of twentieth century revisionists who have attempted
to clean him up for a current audience and have cast him, amongst other
things,as advocating some "utilitarian/parnosoh" or bideiovad/horo'as
sho'oh. Anyone who doubts this is advised to reread R Hirsch's quite
over the top paean to the poet F. von Schiller on the occasion of the
latter's 100th yahrzeit. Indeed best guess is RSRH would have been
rather positively impressed by the Columbia core curriculum. Of course
TIDE fell on rather hard ideological times in the twentieth century as
it was often rejected or "re-interpreted" away even by the very german
jewish community which continued to mouth the slogan as a more or less
meaningless mantra -- but that is another story entirely. (I exempt the
breuers from this but it is clear they were the only true believers left).

As for TuM. One can't really quite say just what it is since the slogan
never benefited from its own ideological redeemer a la RSRH. i.e. there is
simply no extensive and thematically coherent body of literature by which
its canonical parameters may be recognized. R. Lamm has doubtless given it
the old college try but as a sustained ideological program it pales into
incoherence in the face of RSRH's literary and polemical output. Nor is
anybody else out there really looked on as the authoritative law giver
whose vision bestows its authentic conceptualization. It is more of
an institutionally developed slogan, perhaps by the equivalent of an
educational ad agency, which was attempted to capture the flavor and
thrust of an educational mission which delivered both "traditional'
yeshiva torah learning along with secular learning in one pithy
phrase. Not much different than torah v'da'as (TVD) though perhaps
they meant to emphasize the role of the sciences a bit more -- I'm
not sure. basically, as has been famously said about another subject,
people tend to recognize it when they see it. This however does not an
integrated ideology make.

So what is the difference between TuM and TIDE -- well for many of us the
answer is -- nothing. They are identical. For others perhaps it means
something else. Without a canonical vision neither is determinative.
But the abandonment of RSRH's vision by the entire charedi community,
including the descendents of his own community may leave those of us who
view them as identical as the last upholders of TIDE in these latter days
when many of our co-religionists structure their educational programs
to avoid corruption emanating form those diabolically omnipresent (even
in ancient Greece!) x-ians.

As an intellectual exercise -- I invite any avodite to ask his favorite
charedi interlocutor (or himself if the shoe fits) to explain the
supposed difference between TuM and TIDE -- and throw in TVD as well.
Everybody knows that the answers must come out -- tomeih, tohore, tohore.
But observing them try to explain just why can be an endless source of
amusement (at least until you decide to get a life).

A historical note: RYGB asserted that <<This is the TuM perspective. Mrs.
Freedenberg's formulation is closer to the TIDE perspective. This, in fact
is the primary objection KAJ had to YU (lost in the shrouds of time) --
that secular subjects were taught (often) by non-believers in a spirit
of non-belief, as opposed to by believers...>>

this is true but only a partial truth. R. Breuer much preferred frum
teachers and preferred a non-jew to a non-frum secular jewish teacher,
but that is not the whole story. RSRH was notably non-zionist in
(though of course he was niftar before the formal stand up of the zionist
organization) and that tradition was continuued by the breuer's q'hiloh.
r. breuer felt that YU and yeshiva soloveitchik (the existing yeshiva day
school in washington heights) were entirely too close to the mizrachi
perspective and he waqnted nothing to do with that. finally -- and
those unfamiliar with the situation in washington heights may find this
surprising -- r. breuer objected to the fact that there was entirely too
much hebrew in yeshiva soloveitchik. as a kind of continuation of RSRH's
embrace of german culture and language, he has a very strong belief that
the children should be taught limudei qodesh in the language of the land,
i.e. english. yeshiva soloveitchik taught the entire judaics curriculum
in hebrew -- by the fourth grade it was entirely ivrit b'ivrit (i was
more fluent in hebrew after the 8th grade than I was graduating MTA four
years later). as a student in yeshiva soloveitchik myself i well recall
the puzzlement and mild contempt we felt for the educational attainments
of our contemporaries at breuers (which is what we called their yeshiva)
compared with our own. they couldn't speak hebrew or understand it as
we did and that clearly left them at a great disadvantage compared with
our own grasp of the textual universe that was jewish learning. and of
course we usually shlanged them in the annual 8th grade baseball game
held between the two neighborhood schools at 175th st park -- the only
officiial contact visible to the student bodies.

Mechy Frankel                                               H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil                                     W: (703) 845-2357
mfrankel@empc.org                                 michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

With my background (medicine) I never really understood how Yaakov Avinu
used applied genetics to get the spotted sheep (Parshat Vayetze 30:36-40)
until I just saw a "befeyrishe" post on the Internet in //news.google.com
how scientists had changed the coat colors of baby mice simply by altering
their mothers' diets which affected the Agouti gene which is involved
in fur color.

The same Agouti gene is the major genetic factor controlling color in
mosty breeds of sheep.

Then I looked back at the simple pshat of "Vaytzeg et ha'maklot asher
pitzel barhatim B'SHIKTOT HA'MAYIM". It's not that the sheep LOOKED at
the sticks of "livneh lach, luz v'armon", it's that they DRANK the water
with the peeled sticks inside. There thus must be a chemical compound
[lignin ? polyphenol ?] in the types of wood chosen (poplar, almond,
etc.). The white streaks that Yaakov Avinu made in the sticks were so
that the chemical compound *in* the wood could leach out into the water.

[The article appears in the latest issue of the journal Molecular and
Cellular Biology. The nutritional supplementation permanently altered
gene expression in the offspring without altering the genes themselves.]

Josh

Quoting Akiva Miller:

In "The 39 Melochos" by Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, p 93 (and footnote 360 there)
he cites the view of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach on this question, quoting
his answer as printed in a kuntres called "Pninei Hamaor", Letter 9,
Note 3. RSZA notes the problem that one must protest the Chilul Shabbos,
yet do it in a proper manner, and not do a Chilul Hashem in the process.
RSZA's words:

<<< Ulachen, ha'etzah she'yomar lo she'assur l'challel Shabbat, v'assur
lo linsoa, v'heyos v'ani rotzeh l'maet mimcha Chilul Shabbat, shelo
tistovev harbeh, lachen omar l'cha hamakom... >>>

Rabbi Ribiat's translation: <<< It is Shabbos and one may not drive
on Shabbos. However, so as to minimize your Shabbos transgression,
the shortest route is as follows... >>>
--------

I haven't been following the Areivim discussion, but just in terms of
Halakhah - Rav Yitzhak Yosef, in Yalkut Yosef Shabbat 2 - discusses this
issue - but comes to a different conclusion (he quotes the Be'er Mohse
[I don't remember where offhand] as agreeing with him). One should make
it known to the driver that driving is assur on Shabbat and as such he is
forbidden from giving him directions to where he needs to go - because
he would be aiding in his hillul Shabbat. He does not feel that one
should involve himself in a potential hillul Shabbat, to be "me'ma'et"
somebody else's hillul Shabbat - "Hal'itehu la-rasha' ve-yamot."

Incidently, R' Aharon Lichtenstein was fond of recalling this story
in several sichot he gave in which he discussed this issue with R'
Soloveitchik. He said that the Rav thought one should give directions
so as to minimize the total hillul Shabbat. In R' Ahron's words "ve-Ani
hit'avakti ito al zeh" (and I fought with him about this) - you had
to see the way he said this though, although he clearly meant arguing
Halakhically - you saw in his face and voice the deep passion that he
felt for Halakha (that is why I remember his phrase) - R' Ahron argued
that you may not involve yourself in hillul Shabbat - similar to R'
Yithak Yosef and the Debretziner Rav.

David Shabtai

Arie Folger wrote:
> I have been looking mit lecht for any written record by Ramaq and Rav Shlomo
> Alqavetz on their activities in connection with the introduction of qabbalat
> Shabbat, but found no citations. Any help?

Professor Kimmelman has a survey of the available (fairly scanty)
evidence in his book "L'cha Dodi V'Kabbalat Shabbat" (Magnes Press, 5763).

David Riceman

From: Cyber Nation <successquotes@cyber-nation.com>
Subject: Great quote to start your day on a positive note!
>
>Here's the Quotation for Monday, August 4, 2003
>
>We must not allow other people's limited perceptions to define
>us.
>
>Virginia Satir
>(American Family Therapist, Lecturer, Trainer, Author)

At 12:33 AM 8/4/2003 -0400, Michael Frankel wrote:
>I fear I must disagree: TIDE, at least as understood by RSRH and the
>Breuer/keepers of the flame, is anything but "utilitarian". It is rather a
>full appreciation for the wonders of the culture, leavened by assertions
>that these too were meant to enrich the torah perspective ­ though that
>connection might in practice prove rather tenuous. In short RSRH's TIDE
>is really quite close to the maximalist lefty position (from the
>perspective of this list) which finds intrinsic value in secular culture
>(if only to reflect back upon and enhance our Torah insights). In fact
>RSRH's formulation actually goes much further than that. His conception
>of derekh eretz encompassed the full cultural and societal aspects of
>life. so in some sense even secular culture was ultimately just "jewish"
>culture. RSRH believed that the more jewish one was,necessarily the more
>universal would be one's strivings. kind of a pan-judaism....

I am in agreement with RMF's definition of TIDE [this may cause him to
reconsider :-) ]. I should note, however, that in a forthcoming review
(next issue of Jewish Action, IY"H) of Prof. Levi's "Facing Current
Challenges" I consider the dispute between him, a scientist, and R' Aharon
Lichtenstein, an English major, as to the value of humanities. Ayain sham.

However, I regrettably must make you aware that (aside from myself and
some isolated kindred spirits as individuals), there are no longer any
official "true believing" institutions, at least on this side of the
Atlantic (and probably the other as well, kal va'chomer). As George
D. Frankel writes in a pamphlet entitled: "Dan Shall Judge His People:
5 Essays on Torah im Derech Eretz and the Breuer Community Today":

"Rav Gelley [current Rav of KAJ] has tried to get around this problem [how
does TIDE differ from Torah only] by proposing the following definition of
TIDE: we recognize that not every boy is gifted enough to sit in kollel,
which is the ideal. There will always be boys who have to make a living.
Because we are enlightened enough to permit this, even to provide for it,
we fulfill our obligations under TIDE." (p. 42).

Now, this pamphlet's agenda is somewhat extreme and somewhat untenable
(for example, he contends that kollels are inherently incompatible with
TIDE, a POV that emanates from a linkage of TIDE to Torah u'Parnosso -
a link that Mr. Frankel himself disavows), but the author contends that
the above paragraph is not his viewpoint, but that of Rav Gelley, and I
do not know why we should disbelieve him. Mr. Frankel himself concludes
from Rav Gelley's stance:

"There are two problems with this definition. Firstly, suppose I am
one of the "gifted" ones who have the ability to sit in yeshiva all
day. Then the only way I can be considered TIDE is if there is another
boy, less gifted than I, who goes to medical school. (If everyone were
gifted, like in Lake Wobegon [huh? not as I remember the stories, but
let's not quibble], then there would be no TIDE at all.) Likewise, the
other fellow can only be considered TIDE because of me, because I occupy
a bench in 'kollel. In other words, TIDE cannot exist in one person,
only in two. This is patently absurd.

"Secondly, it means that TIDE is a bdieved and not a lchatchilo. Sitting
in kollel is the ideal; TIDE is allowed only because of human
frailty..." (pp. 42-43).

I have occasion to daven this summer in one of the KAJ offspring
congregations in Monsey. They have a lovely attachment to Old German
nusach, singing and piyutim, but there is not a single sefer by RSRH
or the Rabbis Breuer, or even Rabbi Schwab, except for the Ma'ayon Beis
Ha'Shoeivah, in the shul!

>As for TuM. One can't really quite say just what it is since the slogan
>never benefited from its own ideological redeemer a la RSRH. i.e. there is
>simply no extensive and thematically coherent body of literature by which
>its canonical parameters may be recognized. R. Lamm has doubtless given
>it the old college try but as a sustained ideological program it pales
>into incoherence in the face of RSRH's literary and polemical output. Nor
>is anybody else out there really looked on as the authoritative law giver
>whose vision bestows its authentic conceptualization. It is more of an
>institutionally developed slogan, perhaps by the equivalent of an
>educational ad agency, which was attempted to capture the flavor and
>thrust of an educational mission which delivered both "traditional'
>yeshiva torah learning along with secular learning in one pithy
>phrase. Not much different than torah v'da'as (TVD) though perhaps they
>meant to emphasize the role of the sciences a bit more ­ I'm not
>sure. basically, as has been famously said about another subject, people
>tend to recognize it when they see it. This however does not an integrated
>ideology make.

As I see it, Rabbi Lamm's model is inherently flawed because he took
what is essentially a Lithuanian/Misnagdic approach (viz., as we have
noted in the past, TuM is Torah-only-plus, i.e., incorporating TO values
in its approach to Madda) and based its philosophical underpinnings on
Chassidic thought.

>So what is the difference between TuM and TIDE ­ well for many of us the
>answer is ­ nothing. They are identical. For others perhaps it means
>something else. Without a canonical vision neither is determinative. But
>the abandonment of RSRH's vision by the entire charedi community,
>including the descendents of his own community may leave those of us who
>view them as identical as the last upholders of TIDE in these latter days
>when many of our co-religionists structure their educational programs to
>avoid corruption emanating form those diabolically omnipresent (even in
>ancient Greece!) x-ians.

>As an intellectual exercise -- I invite any avodite to ask his favorite
>charedi interlocutor (or himself if the shoe fits) to explain the
>supposed difference between TuM and TIDE ­ and throw in TVD as
>well. Everybody knows that the answers must come out -- tomeih, tohore,
>tohore. But observing them try to explain just why can be an endless
>source of amusement (at least until you decide to get a life).

I would quibble on the TvD defintion: If you mean as practiced in Lida by 
RYYR, then I think any Charedi interlocutor who would know what you are 
talking about (there aren't many!) would pronounce it as tamei as TuM.

>A historical note:  RYGB asserted that <<This is the TuM perspective. Mrs. 
>Freedenberg's formulation
>is closer to the TIDE perspective. This, in fact is the primary objection 
>KAJ had to YU (lost in the shrouds of time) - that secular subjects were 
>taught (often) by non-believers in a spirit of non-belief, as opposed to 
>by believers ...>>
>
>this is true but only a partial truth.  R. Breuer much preferred frum 
>teachers and  preferred a non-jew to a non-frum secular jewish teacher, 
>but that is not the whole story.   RSRH was notably non-zionist in (though 
>of course he was niftar before the formal stand up of the zionist 
>organization) and that tradition was continuued by the breuer's 
>q'hiloh.  r. breuer felt that YU and yeshiva soloveitchik (the existing 
>yeshiva day school in washington heights) were entirely too close to the 
>mizrachi perspective and he waqnted nothing to do with that.  finally - 
>and those unfamiliar with the situation in washington heights may find 
>this surprising - r. breuer objected to the fact that there was entirely 
>too much hebrew in yeshiva soloveitchik. as a kind of continuation of 
>RSRH's embrace of german culture and language, he has a very strong belief 
>that the children should be taught limudei qodesh in the language of the 
>land, i.e. english....

Granted. But for the record I should note an interesting historical
factoid. I always thought that R' Joseph Breuer and Dr. Isaac Breuer,
although close in many ways, parted company on the application of TIDE
to the emerging State, with DIB more "liberal" than RJB. "Those in the
know," however, recently claimed to me that RJB and DIB were on the same
page in this matter as well, which I found fascinating.

YGB 

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


[ 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         ]