Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 260

Tue, 15 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: the Shoah [was: TIDE and Austritt] (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Re: TIDE and Austritt (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Re: TIDE and Austritt (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: TIDE and Austritt (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Mevatlin TT lehotzoas hameis (T613K@aol.com)
• 6. Re: ra-ah - da-ah (from areivim) (Zev Sero)
• 7. The Gift of Illness (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: No Right to Mezuzot at Condos (Zev Sero)
• 9. ra'ah bird - nevelah in EY (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: ra-ah - da-ah (from areivim) (saul mashbaum)
• 11. Re: ra-ah - da-ah (from areivim) (T613K@aol.com)

 
 
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
>>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 reality of the holocaust, that rabbis who refused to talk
were  either killed or exiled from their homes. How prescient of the Talmud
to  see that Rabbis who cannot get  along.....<<




>>>>>>
I've heard some pretty far-fetched explanations of what caused the Shoah,  
but this is a new one on me.  Whenever anyone even hints that such and such  a 
sin was the "reason" for the Holocaust or that the actions of such and such a  
group (Reform, maskilim, Zionists, anti-Zionists) "led to" the Holocaust, or  
that a particular group somehow "deserved" to die or brought their fate on  
themselves, there are always cries of outraged indignation.  Let me be the  
first to express outraged indignation on this occasion.  It is outrageous  to 
suggest that the principles of austritt ("rabbis who refused to talk to  each 
other") somehow led to or triggered the Holocaust or were foreseen by the  Talmud 
as the reason for chachamim being "either killed or exiled" in the  Shoah.  


--Toby  Katz
=============






**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music 
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!      
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080715/c4b312f4/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
RMB wrote:
 
>>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.<<




>>>>>
"Chachma bagoyim ta'amin" with regard to Reform and Conservative means that  
you can use a secular textbook that happens to have been written by a  Reform 
Jew, or you can go to a doctor who is a Reform Jew.  
 
It most certainly does NOT mean that on anything in which the fact of their  
being R or C is relevant -- that you can read or use the "wisdom" of Reform 
and  Conservative Jews.
 
As for your "no target bezman hazeh" I am having trouble even grasping what  
you mean to say, but I suspect that you have been influenced by RRW's many 
posts  decrying austritt and defining austritt as the shunning of some O rabbis 
by  other O rabbis.   However, R' Gershon Seif addressed this  question 
absolutely correctly when he wrote, >>I think Hirsch's insistence  on separating his 
Kehilla from the WR etc. wasn't the Austritt he was really  trying to make 
happen. That was a bitter and unfortunate result of "stuff that  happened." He 
stuck to his guns because of the other Austritt from the Graetz's  and the 
Geigers. He felt without a clean separation from R & C, Orthodoxy's  mission would 
be diluted. That was all a side fight that was a distraction from  the real 
fight. I have a hunch that was RNB's understanding too.<<
 
The intra-Orthodox struggles, IOW, are a side-show -- NOT the main  show.
 
The "target bizman hazeh" remains what it always was, the Reform and  
Conservative movements and any body or program in which Conform clergy  share a 
platform with Orthodox rabbis on a basis of collegiality and equal  status.   
 
There is no reason people can't be friendly on a private, personal basis  
with R and C Jews and even with some R and C rabbis -- depending on the  
circumstances.  A private "friendship" with, say, a Reform rabbi who had  Orthodox 
smicha and who had made a public career of denouncing Orthodoxy would  still be 
inappropriate.  But the main "target" of austritt is communal,  official, 
public Heterodoxy.
 
No one has ever showed me why the same policy we follow with regard to Jews  
for Jesus should not apply equally to the Conform movements.



--Toby  Katz
=============






**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music 
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!      
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080715/eea36eae/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:29am EDT, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: I've heard some pretty far-fetched explanations of what caused the Shoah,  
: but this is a new one on me. Whenever anyone even hints that such
: and such a sin was the "reason" for the Holocaust...

Which RRW didn't. He said that the outcome of the HOlocaust was as
foretold in the gemara.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:13pm EDT, T613K@aol.com added:
: As for your "no target bezman hazeh" I am having trouble even grasping what  
: you mean to say, but I suspect that you have been influenced by RRW's many 
: posts decrying austritt and defining austritt as the shunning of some
: O rabbis by other O rabbis. However, R' Gershon Seif addressed
: this question absolutely correctly when he wrote, >>I think Hirsch's
: insistence  on separating his Kehilla from the WR etc. wasn't the Austritt
: he was really  trying to make happen. That was a bitter and unfortunate
: result of "stuff that  happened."...

I was quite clear, that my opinion is biased by my greatgrandfather's
experience in Frankfurt, and RRW was a johnny-come-lately WRT my
opinion. Which, as already noted by RSS, is probably biased way beyond
objectivity by stories from my grandfather a"h (which in turn had all
the objectivity of childhood memories).

RGS, IMHO, captured it more in another part of his post -- Austritt was
not about who to exclude, but in well defining what it was the kehillah
stood for. One can't be a contributing community to the greater society
unless one preserves the community's meaning.

And so, it was anyone who didn't have a clear line between them and
reforming Judaism was a danger, because Austritt was about preserving
the line. By our discussing who was on the other side of the line,
we're viewing it differently than I think RSRH would have.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
micha@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

As for who Austritt would apply to today...

Who today threatens the integrity of the O message? It's certainly not C
or R. They aren't trying to change us.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

 
 
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" _kennethgmiller@juno.com_ 
(mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com) 

>  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).  [--RJB]

>>Do we actually hold this way?

If we do, why would  a Kohen Gadol interrupt his d'Oraisa involvement with 
tzorchei tzibur, merely to  do a d'rabanan of mes  mitzvah?<<

>>>>>



I don't know the answer to  your question "Do we really hold this  way?" but 
it seems to me that even if the body doesn't have to be /buried/  it does have 
to be protected in some way.  Cf the halacha about not leaving  the body of 
an executed criminal hanging overnight.  You can't leave the  body exposed to 
the elements, to wild animals, even to the stares of passing  people.  If it 
doesn't have to be put in the ground, it has to be covered  and put /somewhere/ 
that is honorable and safe from desecration.  
 


--Toby  Katz
=============







**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music 
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!      
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080715/74dd11aa/attachment-0001.htm>

T613K@aol.com wrote:

> What does the Gemara actually say?  What is the context in which this 
> bird's vision is discussed?

Just explaining why it has that name.

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

The Wall Street Journal today (pg A19) quoted the following:
> Tony Snow in The Jewish World Review, 2005:

> The art of being sick is not the same as the art of getting well. Some
> cancer patients recover; some don't. But the ordeal of facing your
> mortality and feeling your frailty sharpens your perspective about life.
> You appreciate little things more ferociously. You grasp the mystical
> power of love. You feel the gravitational pull of faith. And you realize
> you have received a unique gift -- a field of vision others don't have
> about the power of hope and the limits of fear; a firm set of convictions
> about what really matters and what does not. You also feel obliged to
> share these insights -- the most important of which is this: There are
> things far worse than illness -- for instance, soullessness.

I guess the trick is to figure out how to avoid soullessness without the
RBSO needing to provide a wakeup call.

Interestingly, the first quote relevent to health and survival is the
"sam chayim" --
    Netzor lechonekha meira
    usefasekha medabeir mirma.
    Sur meira
    va'asei to
    baqeish shalom
    verodfeihu.

But now I was left with the dilemma: What exactly does not speaking ill
or duplicitously (which the Gra in Even Sheleima identifies with
thinking ill but not expressing it), avoiding evil, and asking and 
pursuing peace lead to an appreciation of the power of hope/bitachon and
the limits of fear?

Or can someone find a more appropriate pasuq?
Or maybe someone thinks Mr Snow's description isn't a primary facet of
what one can learn from illness?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

Micha Berger wrote:

> RDL suggested (my memory is that RDL was speaking lehalakhah with no
> consideration of lema'aseh) that if the person doesn't have control over
> whether or not he can hang the mezuzah, he lacks sufficient baalus over
> the condo to require him to hang it anyway.

If the law gives your neighbours the right to prevent you from painting
your house with bright purple and yellow stripes, does that mean you
don't own it?  A condo (as opposed to co-op) owner owns his own apartment
absolutely; his neighbours can only object to what he puts in *their*
corridor.

In this case the owners retain the right to put up a mezuzah, but only
inside; the fight is over whether they can put it up where lechatchila
it belongs, on the outside.  My sympathy is certainly with them, but in
the meantime they can put it up inside.  It's certainly not true, as
they are reported to have claimed, that the rule makes it impossible
for an O Jew to live there.  If you want to drive your O neighbours
away, the thing to do is to put up sensor-driven lights on Shabbos :-)

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

from R. Scheinman of the Hebrew Academy in Cleveland:
http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/peninim/archives/shmini66.htm

"he daah and the ayah according to its specie. (11:14)

In the Talmud Chullin 62a, Chazal say that the daah, ayah and raah are
all one specie of fowl. Why is it called raah? Because it sees very
far. It stands in Babylon and sees a neveilah, carcass, in
Yerushalayim. Horav Meir Shapiro, zl, notes the "character" and
possibly the reason for this bird's siman tumah, sign distinguishing
it as a non-kosher food, is its tendency to be in the spiritual filth
of eretz ha'amim, the land of the pagan nations. Yet, it notices the
tumah, the carcass in Eretz Yisrael. It does not see the tumah of the
environment of which it is a part of. It sees the tumah in the Holy
Land. This is a character defect. An individual who can stand amidst
tumah, but notice only the tumah of others, especially those who are
in a holy place, is an individual of a flawed character.

Rav Meir Shapiro interprets this into the pasuk in Zecharyah 3:2,
Yigaar Hashem becha ha'Satan v'yigaar Hashem becha ha'bocher
b'Yerushalayim, "May Hashem, denounce you, O' Satan! May Hashem, Who
chooses Yerushalayim, denounce you!" Why are two denouncements
necessary? The answer is that there are two types of "satans." There
is the individual who is always finding fault, always presenting a
critique, but does not distinguish between the holy and mundane. He
finds fault in everyone. For him, one denouncement will suffice. There
is, on the other hand, a satan who only finds fault with Yerushalayim,
who only maligns the holy, whether it is the people, the city, the
Torah, anything that is reserved for sanctity. It is specifically in
this area that his perverted and malignant mouth finds a place. For
him, two denouncements are necessary. "

I am willing to bring slogans based on Horav Meir Shapiro Zt"l

-- 
Eli Turkel

RZS responded to my homiletic explanation of the phrase "omedet b"Bavel v'roah 
n'veila B"eretz Yisrael" as describing people who live in chu"l and see only bad in EY. 

>>
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.

>>

When I wrote that homiletically, the phrase means such and such, I of
course was giving my own homiletic explanation, which indeed others have
developed as well. I myself did not imply, or mean to imply, that chazal
gave this homiletic explanation.

To newcomers in learning, whether children or BT, everything written in
Hebrew in a book is perfectly authoritative. As sophistication progresses,
one becomes more aware of who says what, and the relative 
authoritativeness of various sources is discerned. Participants in this
forum are presumably aware that a drasha of Saul Mashbaum, even one which
liberally cites maamarei chazal, is just that: a drasha of Saul Mashbaum.
In no way are the drashot of the Chatam Sofer binding and authoritative as
are the Tshuvot of same, nor are they intended to be.

Drush is intended to inspire, not to prescribe. Indeed, often people will
cite the drashot of a gadol as "proof" of some hashkafic point,
particularly if it quotes maamarei chazal. All this does prove is that the
gadol in question holds that way, not that chazal intended the gadol's
conclusion in the quoted statements. 

Having said all this, essentially agreeing with RZS, I am uncomfortable
with the phrase "The problem with this homiletics game is that it is just a
game". I hope that RZS did not mean to be so derogatory and dismissive of
homiletics as this phrase makes it seem. I do not think that homiletics is
just a game, or that those who engage in it are merely playing games,
occupying themselves with a trivial activity. Drush is the the "literature"
of Jewish religious literary activity, and like literature often contains
profound insights into the human condition, society, and our relation to
Hashem, Torah and mitzvot. However, for all its value, it does not "prove"
these insights but rather presents them , just as a play does not "prove"
the points it is trying to make.

In Biblical commentary, exegesis and holmiletics move in opposite
directions. Exegesis  starts with the text, analysing it and reaching some
conclusion which resolves difficulties in the text. Homiletics often starts
with the conclusion, and works back to the text, interpreting it in light
of the desired conclusion. It's vastly different from exegesis or halacha,
but it's not a game.

Saul Mashbaum

 
 


> What does the Gemara actually say?  What is the context  in which this 
> bird's vision is discussed? [--TK]

Just explaining  why it has that name.

-- 
Zev  Sero               



 
 
>>>>>
Thanks, but what's the larger context?  Is it  talking about birds in 
general?  Unclean birds? Unusual Hebrew words?  

 

--Toby  Katz
=============






**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music 
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!      
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080715/b09a3a86/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 260
***************************************

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..."