Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 258

Tue, 15 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: ra-ah - da-ah (from areivim) (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: ra-ah - da-ah (from areivim) (Micha Berger)
• 3. TIDE and Austritt (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: ra-ah - da-ah (from areivim) (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: TIDE and Austritt (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: T'uM (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Likut Atzomos (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: public bet din (Micha Berger)
• 9. (no subject) (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 10. public bet din (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Mevatlin TT lehotzoas hameis (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 12. Re: davening in a bedroom (D&E-H Bannett)
• 13. Re: Mevatlin TT lehotzoas hameis (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: TIDE and Austritt (Richard Wolpoe)

saul mashbaum wrote:

> In the context of the g'mara, this is a morally neutral statement; the 
> g'mara is describing the excellent vision of the bird in question, not 
> passing judgement on it or explaining why it is a tamei bird.
> 
> That's on the literal level. Homiletically, IMNSHO this phrase very 
> aptly describes those who live in chu"l and are constantly harping on 
> things in Israel.

The problem with this homiletics game is that it is just a game; the
darshan is really giving his own view, not the gemara's, so nobody is
obliged to accept it.  But some people are left with the impression
that this is the gemara's or the medrash's view, and cite it (as was
done on Areivim) as if it had some authority.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:00:13AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: The problem with this homiletics game is that it is just a game; the
: darshan is really giving his own view, not the gemara's, so nobody is
: obliged to accept it.  But some people are left with the impression
: that this is the gemara's or the medrash's view, and cite it (as was
: done on Areivim) as if it had some authority.

Yes, if the audience is misled it can be reduced to transvaluing terms to
create a whole new religion that only has the right quotes and buzzwords
to sound like Yahadus. There are movements of Jews in which such "derash"
is the norm, and even HS children could be invited to craft their own
"derashos" (if they have more creative teachers).

It's a danger, but I have a difficulty in calling it a problem.

There is a long history of sloganeering by pulling from a maamar chazal
or pasuq. Most famously perhaps is the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah".
If it's good enough for the Chasam Sofer, how can I call it problematic?

(TiDE is not. It's RSRH's peshat in "yafeh talmud Torah im derekh
eretz". I don't think the mishnah serves as proof, as the burden rests
primarily in showing that the DE of the mishnah is what RSRH uses it to
mean. But it's not an idea attached to a quote that the acharon didn't
actually believe was the plain meaning of the quote.)

Or my rebbe, RDLifshitz's annual Adar banner, hung in YU's beis medrash:
    Mishenichnas Adar Marbim Besimchah
    Ein Simchah Elah Torah
    Vekhol haMarbeh Harei Zeh Mechubach

RDL didn't think these three quotes were really intended by Chazal to
refer to each other. It's sloganeering.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
micha@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

At 11:15 AM 7/14/2008, R Arie Folger wrote:

>Regarding nowadays, since RSRH passed away, and 
>circumstances changed, one can
>argue almost anything sensible in the name of Austritt and TiDE, as posters
>have been doing, and so I do not desire to enter this debate too deeply.
>
>Kol tuv,
>--
>Arie Folger

Thus, Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L,  used to say: 
"He who properly understands TIDE understands the 
'Austritt'?the principles are the same."

 From http://tinyurl.com/5oc8r6

YL



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080714/43d5cb2b/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:

> There is a long history of sloganeering by pulling from a maamar chazal
> or pasuq. Most famously perhaps is the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah".
> If it's good enough for the Chasam Sofer, how can I call it problematic?

It's well-understood that the authority for that statement is that of
the Chasam Sofer, not the Torah.  What I objected to was such a pshetel
being cited *as the view of the medrash*.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 02:19:17PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: RMB:  >>For that matter, what challenges the supremacy  of Torah?
: NCSY's anthem closes with the words "see what it means /
: that  Torah reigns supreme!" And yet they are the product of RYBS's
: kelapei chutz  / kelapei fenim dichotomy.<<

: TK:  Where do you see that NCSY is "the product of RYBS's
: kelapei  chutz / kelapei fenim dichotomy"?!  Does NCSY have joint activities 
: with  non-O youth groups?!  

The Israel Day Parade. When I was a kid -- they helped us get to SSSJ
rallies. And of course the OU and the SCA.

...
: TK:  It is obvious that in today's terms austritt has a different,  maybe 
: less radical, application...

Then it's not Austritt.

: RMB:  >>Now, on to the  third question... Can the American-style chareidi be 
: said to be living TiDE  whether he acknowledges it or not?....

: It is relevant because RnTK said  she believes that most of the Torah
: world today is TiDE, they just don't know  it. If they do, it's not TiDE
: as RSRH formulated the idea.<<

: TK:  It is DEFINITELY not TIDE as Hirsch envisioned it!  

How can we discuss whether RSRH crafted TiDE in a manner that includes
Austritt if you aren't speaking of RSRH's TiDE or RSRH's Austritt?

Of course I could come up with some variant of each which wouldn't work
together, and another pair which couldn't work in isolation. Thus, I
could force either answer just by playing by what TiDE and Austritt mean.



That said, I like RGS's position, and am inclined to conclude not that
TiDE includes Austritt, but that both are parts of one larger picture.
One you can not split and still claim to be following RSRH on either.

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 09:21:20AM -0700, Gershon Seif wrote:
: First there's the universal plan for Man. (the hope for no need for
: Austritt since Mankind is all on the same page)
: When Man fails and society declines, Avrohom Avinu emerges.
: 
: He is told "lech l'cha." Austritt...

: Klal Yirsrael is live apart in Mitzrayim, Is to live apart in Ertez
: Yisrael.....

When I was in school, the US was descrived as a cultural Melting Pot.
That pot cost many Jews their Yahadus, as they sought to become Real
Americans. As a voter in NYC, I got a taste of Mayor Dinken's rhetoric,
describing NY's culture as a glorious mosaic.

A mosaic in interestingly different than a melting pot. He jetisonned
the implication that we're all to end up with a single blended culture,
and instead spoke of the beauty of painting a larger picture by each of
us retaining our ethnic identities.

Looking over RGS's references, I hear RSRH as trying to walk that
balance. Making sure that Judaism constributes to and participates
the big picture of humanity, but doing so in a way that we retain our
integrity. TiDE plus Austritt provides that balance between Universalism
and Particularlism.

As for why Austritt applies to R and not Schiller... I actually think that
was a product of the metzius about which he was pasqening. O Jews weren't
running straight into German Protestant arms. Schiller wasn't threatening
integrity. Rather than my previous idea, that Austritt is from rebels
(and thus would include few in the liberal communities today), after
reading those parts Bereishis as RGS spins them I'm inlined to believe
that Austritt is from whatever Ism is actually succeeding in pulling
people away. I would argue that there is no such Ism today, except if
you want to call it Instant Gratification-ism or Creature Comfort-ism.

It's not "chokhmah bagoyim ta'amin" that distinguishes them, as the notion
that anyone can have chokhmah (that isn't Torah) would include R as well.

And so, I would still argue the ukimta that Austritt has no target
bizman hazeh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
micha@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 06:48:11PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
: > 3- Mitzvos that are defined in sheqalim, such as pidyon haben and
: >   machatzis hasheqel.
: 
: Corecton Kitzur SA re: pidyon  164:1. Further, Morechai Eliyahu Kitzur says
: se Chasam Sofer 289. KSA says bransilber is kosher, Banotes are not. IIRC he
: says shaveh kessaf IS OK which means shaveh kessa and banknotes are NOT one
: and the same

Yeah, turns out pidyon's issue isn't that the mitzvah requires kesef but
that the shaveh kesef must be assessed as such by the kohein before the
pidyon. See R' Yosef on Qidushin 8a, as explained by the Rashba.

BTW, RSShkop (Chidushei RSS #16) writes that if the kohein thinks the
calf used for pidyon haben is worth less then 5 sela'im, he will sell
it for that amount, and thus it is really worth less than 5 sela to him.
This seems to reflect directly on the market value of little green pieces
of paper.

RSS seems to provide a basis for my instinct that the value of fiat money
is like the value of artwork -- as long as you can find a buyer for it,
it has value as opportunity to get something else.

(Kind of like money as potential energy...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:10:57PM +0300, Akiva Blum wrote:
: I was hoping for some sort of Jewish source. I see that it was done,
: but could it have been a Saducee thing (or Roman, Greek, etc.)? Did the
: everyone do it? Was it continued after the churnan?

In Bet She'arim a number of tannaim's remains (and their families' were
found. R' Yehoshua ben Levi's wife and daughter to give a well-known
example. See <http://onthemainline.googlepages.com/RabbisEpigraphical.pdf>

Also, in writing, see Mo'ed Qatan 1:5, and Semachos 12:7-9. R' Meir in MQ
is far more positive about reburial than R' Aqiva (Semachos) or R' Yosi
(MQ) were, as R' Meir allows the children themselves to do so because
"mipenei shehi simchah lo".

According to R' Meir it would seem to be laudible, but both permit
lechatchilah, as long as the children get a shaliach.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
micha@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rabbi Israel Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 07:10:37PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: That is mashma behedya if you will. Why I don't know. But if a witness were
: testifying in total secret [in camera] then what's the motzi sheim ra - to
: the dayynim? They're not suppose to believe him anyway.

No one is supposed to believe the speaker of LH or MSR, regardless of
the context. If the fact that the dayanim aren't allowed to believe him
is sufficient, then speaking MSR would always be permissable.

So I reask, how do we know the gemara assumes an audience, rather than
accusing the eid echad of speaking LH to the dayanim?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The Tiferes Yisroel in pesachim says that people would bury 
their dead in a temporary grave, and after the meat had rotted, the 
bones would be reinterred in their ancestral cemetery. Can anyone point 
to a source, and perhaps also an explanation for this practice? 

Perhaps it could be inferred from Yechezkel 39:15 which states: "V'gam
ha'ovrim ba'aretz v'ra'a etzem odom u'vo-no etzlo Tziyun ad kovru oso
ham'kabrim el gai hamon gog."  
(Just a wild guess).
ri

<<It is obvious from the Gmara that Audiences are a pre-suppostion. That is my
point
Furthermore the gmara states that a witness MAY not testify w/o an auftu
because eif he fails to effect anything he is merely motzi shiem ra.  This
clearly indicates that if he CAN effect something he msut tesfity and the
audicen is nto construed as hearing LH.

That is mashma behedya if you will. Why I don't know. But if a witness were
testifying in total secret [in camera] then what's the motzi sheim ra - to
the dayynim? They're not suppose to believe him anyway.>>

I checked with R. Michael Broyde who stated that at least today all proceedings
of the bet din are completely closed

-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Josh Backon asked me to post (regarding a recent Areivim thread about
autopsies and demonstrations to prevent them):

On this sugya in Megilla (23b) the RAN paskened "reshut b'alma"; the 
Korban Netanel
on the ROSH in Ketuvot (perek ha'isha shenitarmela) exempts 
someone  she'torato umnato;
as does the ROSH there (exempts a "tani v'kari") [and a ROSH in eilu 
megalchin exempts
a melamed tinokot shel beit raban].

In other words, there is NO justification for a demonstration to 
prevents autopsies.

I have been at a number of autopsies (including forensic)  and only 
tiny samples are taken
for study (and this is muttar: see Iggrot Moshe YD II 151). In rare 
occasions whole organs
are checked but always pl\aced BACK into the body cavity.  There is 
neither nivul ha'met
or issur ha'na'ah. [There is no nivul ha'met if here is a *tzorech* 
[see: Shoel u'Meishiv mahadura
kama Chelek Alef  231; Maharil Diskin YD 31]. And finally there are 
many poskim who rule
that kevurah is only a mitzvat d'rabbanan (see: Rambam Hilchot Avel 
14:1; Chavot Yair  139).

KOL TUV

Josh

KT,
MYG

I've heard mention of such a thing. However, see TBavli, 
Brakhot 4: which sort of recommends the opposite, i.e., that 
sh'ma' should be said samukh l'mitato.

Is your bed in the living room?


David 

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 04:47:41PM -0400, R Moshe Y. Gluck forwarded
from R Dr Josh Backon:
: In other words, there is NO justification for a demonstration to 
: prevents autopsies.

Just to add missing context: when it means bitul Torah. Ways of having a
rally without such bitul were also proposed on Areivim, to which RDJB's's
argument would not apply. (E.g. Have the rally be a shiur by a major
adam gadol right outside the Keneset. Or, simply don't invite full time
learners.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
micha@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Samuel Svarc <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com> wrote:

>
> No connection. The question by Acher wasn't whether or not to acknowledge
> his Torah knowledge, it was if it's possible to learn from him without
> being
> affected. Something that the rest of Chazal felt was too difficult.
>

Do Chazal say this?



>
> >    2. Austritt at KAJ implies that no offical of the kehillah may dine at
> > an
> >    OU Glatt hotel or restaurant.
>
> Huh? Wouldn't RSRH eat from the Wurzburger Rav's hechsher?


>
> As did RSRH with the Wurzburger Rav, who he got along better then with the
> Reform of his day. But when someone does something that cuts to the heart
> of
> Yiddishkeit (as does Austritt, which deals with one of the "gimmel
> chamuros"
> namely AZ [in this case minis]) what one considers the din will oblige him
> to strong actions. As it did BH who didn't marry those they considered
> mamzerim. Where was their Eilu V'Eilu?? But such an interpretation of EvE
> is
> a misinterpretation. EvE never meant, does not mean, and never will mean,
> failing to live up to what one considers to be the halacha.
>

I'm not sure where you are going. Rav Hirsch's polemic Against the
Wurzburger Rav was quite sharp.

But your argument is inherently siecious. You are saying that w/o Austritt
you are FORCED to recognize non-Hlachic systems. But the Rasha is at the
Seder and if he sits quicetly we leave him alone,. and if rebels we blunt
his teeth.  But we ARE social with him and we do nto convery "ligticimacy"
to his shita jsut because he's at the Seder.

Austritt says: You cannot FAIL to convery legitimacy to C rabbis [or to
schiller} by taling with them or about them. Rav Salamon Breuer wouldn't
even discuss Rabbi Nobel when he died! Ad kdei kach!

And RYBS was largely persona nongrata in the "yeshivishe velt" in the 1950's
- 197'0s when I was there

>
>
>
> So for the sake of Jewish unity let's not keep Shabbos.


A highly speciosu argument. You don't mehcalel shabbos by co-operating
against Nzais but I can tell yo uit is a mtizvah to be mechalle shabbos for
pidyon shevuyim

See The Siyyum of Sota in which 2 rabbis in the same city who do NOT learn
from each other [nocheh to learn] one dies and one is exiled. This sounds a
LOT like the areality of the holocasut, that rabbis who refused to talk
where either killed or exlied from their homes. How prescient of hte Talmud
tos see taht Rabbis who cannot get along.....

Furthermore, the Austrit Gemeinde ALLOWED mechalleie shabbos as members only
they could not serve as officers. the only restirctions were intermarriage
and failure to practice bris milah. Shemiras Shabbos as NOT a criteria fro
joinging KAJ...



>
> The truth is clear, "Oker hadin es hahar", we must follow it even when it's
> not pleasant. As Austritt is an halachic imperative (something that no O
> Jew
> denies; the question is one of degree, not if the principle exists) one
> must
> follow it even post-Holocaust.


Austritt made sense weh nteh lines wer not drawn and you didn;t know who the
Red Sox were and who the Yankees were. At one time people thought that
schollars such as Geiger or Graetz HAD legitimacy. But once the teams were
clearly drawn it really became obsolete. But like many other obsolete
institutions it survives after it has outlived any reasonable rational
usefulness.

Austritt nowadys would be like telling Titanicc survivors to walk around
with life jackets 24-hours a day even after they landed on dry land

As Koheles said, there is a Time [and place!] for Austritt and a time and
place where it is senseles.

Austritt today is about undoing Hirschian TIDE by putting the genie back
into the bottle and restoring halchic Judaism to the mivtzarim of the
Ghetto,

Hirsch [and hsi followers suc has Grunfeld et. al.] realized that Torah
Judaism would remain WEAK if one the defensive. Austritt is putting up wals
that will leave Trorah as inadeqaute to handle the WORLD so you might as
well throw out TIDE. It's like keeping the caterpillar in the cocoon
forever.

The whole process of a cocoon is for the emerging butterfly to chip away and
to gain strength to Fly. Austrit is [as used today]] about staying IN the
cocoon.

It is different in Hirsch's day.  There the R and C were predatory.  Perhaps
if R/C's were predatory today it might still applly.





>
>
> I can bandy about mamarie chazal as well. What lesson did you learn out
> from
> tanur tachnie, where the ones who where in the right died? Don't pasken
> when
> it might hurt someone?


Huh?

>
>
> Respect for someone (as stated above) is not predicated in subverting what
> one knows is the halacha, R insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.


Hhuh?h


>
>
>
> "Let your ears hear the words you are saying". Who throws out Reshoim from
> a
> community via Austritt?


See above re: the 2 talmiddim from POland who could not meet int hte USA due
to Asutritt.




>
>
> The same applies to the example of the Rasha by the seder. Whose seder is
> the ba'al Hagadah referring to, some "humanistic" farce, where the mention
> of G-d is verboten and "lessons of freedom" is expounded on, including
> "personal freedom of orientation [no, they aren't klerring on which side to
> do haseiba...]"? Where the Rasha seats at the head and guides it? No! A
> thousand times no! "[W]e let him join in" to *our* seder, our community.
> When he starts his own community "l'chem v'lo lo, v'lfi sh'hotzi es atzmo
> min haklal..." Then the ba'al hagadah pronounces halachic judgement,
> "...kufar b'ikkar", and the halachic implications flow from there.


YOu are missing the point. Even though we disgrew with the Rasha we still
talk to him. Austritt would not permit him at the seder in the first place.
No Opportunity for Keiruv



>
>
> The Tam who is witness to the whole episode, bewildered, asks, "Ma zos?"
> What is the whole fuss about, what happened to EvE? We answer, "B'chozok
> yad
> hotzieonu Hashem m'Mitzrayim m'beis avodim", Hashem took us out and
> acquired
> us as his slaves, we are now duty bound to obey his commands.


No one is defening resh'aim that is again a psecious argument,  any
co-oepration with theses communites can be very well-defined [as per RYBS]
and need confer no legitimacy.

In the era of 1850 when R was ATTACKING Orho's and virtually ALL R rabbis
had Ortho training it was hard to tell the players w/o a scorecard.  Later
on this is silly.

Of course a Red Sox is not welcome in the Yankee Dugout. any child would
know that! But he IS welomce on the field to join in the competition.  The
boundaries are clear.

If you are an Ortho, you don't JOIN the other team by talking to them,
Sitting intheir dugout is different. The only Austrit neeed is NOT to go
theri schools [e.g. PHilntropin] or their shuls etc. RYTS made this claer
wrt to hearing shofar in a non-O shul!  Any child can understand that we
don't hold anything from thier Schools, services, Torah etc.

But that does not mean we cannot talk about "other" matters.

The fact taht RYBS said it is suerpfluous. the lofic is unassailable.
Chaplains in HOpsitals and the military could NOT function if they strictly
followed Austritt.
And if the O community were to request for Police Protection on RH/YK I see
no reason to exclude protecting R & C congregations! .

Also CI has stated - except for the leaders - most congregants are tinokkos
shenishbu.

I wiil BEH post about some C rabbis that would also udnermine Austritt a
bit.




-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080715/158b69e3/attachment.htm>

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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 258
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."