Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 276

Wed, 30 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: siruv (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: siruv (Saul Guberman)
• 3. Re: vsalachta (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: siruv (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 5. chaplains (Eli Turkel)
• 6. (no subject) (Micha Berger)
• 7. Misayei'a L'Dvar Aveira - cashier situation (Gershon Seif)
• 8. Can you build a community around Halakhic Man? (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Differences between Charedism and Modern Orthodoxy (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Can you build a community around Halakhic Man? (Micha Berger)

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 02:44pm EDT, I forwarded:
: 1- if someone is placed in siruv etc for get issues, what is the
: responsibility of the shul he davens in?

I think you're assuming that a siruv includes a standard set of rules.

Each siruv differs, depending upon how defiant the BD considers the
person to be.

In Jan 1993, JO carried an article by R' Chaim Dovid Zweibel that said
the Agudah (US? global?) developed the following guideline for the
treatment of anyone subject to a pesaq siruv ladin. He may not:
>    (1) be a member-in-good-standing of any Agudah branch shul;
>    (2) be called to the Torah for an aliya;
>    (3) be a shaliach tzibbur;
>    (4) to host any kiddush or simcha; and
>    (5) the individual is to be explicitly advised that he is not
>        welcome in the shul.

 The RCA writes <http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=101025>:
> Resolved, that any person against whom there is an outstanding Shetar
> Siruv, issued by a Beit Din consisting of three Orthodox Rabbis, in
> regard to matters of issuance or receipt of a Get:
> 1. Shall not be permitted to occupy any elective or appointed position,
>    or position as employee, within the Synagogue organization or within
>    any of its affiliates.
> 2. Shall be excluded from membership in the Synagogue or in any of its
>    affiliates.
> 3. Shall not be called to the Torah nor be given any other liturgical
>    honor on any occasion.

> Further, that such person who reside within our community:
> 4. Shall have his or her name announced on a regular monthly basis at
>    the conclusion of Sabbath services.
> 5. Shall have his or her name published in the Synagogue bulletin with a
>    call to the membership to limit their social and economic relations to
>    such persons.

The RCA doesn't mention anything about semachos, perhaps with concern
that it could be the bar mitzvah age son who would be punished. OTOH,
they take a much harder line by not only letting the person know he is
no longer welcome, they're telling the community monthly and in the shul
bulletin to shun him -- and outside shul too!

But ideally the shetar siruv should spell out the steps they want to see
taken.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
micha@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rabbi Israel Salanter

On wrote:


> 1- if someone is placed in siruv etc for get issues, what is the
> responsibility of the shul he davens in?
> must he be asked to leave? is he allowed to be a member?
>
> 2- if the shul knowingly harbors such an individual does it affect the
> status of the shul?
>
> 3- is there a policy on this issue by the OU, aguda, RCA ?


 Our shul (Yavneh Minyan of Flatbush) has written into the by laws that any
member obstructing giving a get is to be expelled until the issue is
resolved.  A siruv is part of the criteria used to determine if someone is
obstructing the giving of a get.

This actually happened about six months ago in our shul.  The first time in
the history of the shul  The Rabbi conferred with the BDA, who had issued
the siruv.  The person was given about 2 weeks to correct the situation &
told the ramifications of not correcting it.  At that point, the Rabbi, at
the Shabbos drasha time, taught some hilchot of Seruv & announced the name
of the person.  He explained the Minyan's policy but stopped short of
putting him in Cherem.

I am not sure I understand point # 3 as there are halachos that deal with
the ramifications of a person who ignores a seruv of a Beis Din.   Maybe
there would be a question if it is of a Beis Din that the shul does not
recognize.

Hope this helps,

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080729/c0ed9189/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 07:18:13PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: We have a Tetragrammaton form of both Adnut and E-lohut...

Yes and no. We use Adnus as a stand-in for sheim Havayah by default,
and only use E-lokut when needed to avoid saying sheim Adnus twice. (I'm
sure there is an exception or two I'm not thinking of or am unaware of.)
It's not like the two are on equal footing.

:                                                      Hence, I believe that
: the form of writing is about whether G"d emphasizes His Essence, meaning, 
: lema'alah min hazeman, or the immediacy, as you note indeed later in your 
: post, that "yeileih na Ad-nai beqirbeinu" is one of my sources.

While there is an oft-cited derashah of sheim Havayah as a contraction
of hayah-hoveh-veyihyeh (although it would work better if one thinks of
contracting the words in the opposite order), simple peshat of the word
is the hif'il of /hvh/ -- ie the Causer of Existence.

I believe that it's Hashem's trancendence that makes understanding His
immanence possible.

The very infinitude connoted by the sheim Havayah implies Midas
haRachamim. This is not intuitive. However, the need to create law comes
from a person's limited ability to deal with many individual cases. A
teacher with few students is effective, one with more students, less
so. To manage a country, we need laws and policies, since we do not have
infinite time and attention to cover every decision on a case-by-case
basis. Therefore, it is only because Hashem is Infinite that personal
attention and Divine Mercy is possible.

Think of the person who wonders how a Deity who runs the entire universe
could possibly care if I wait after eating meat before eating milk,
or not. Effectively he is asking the point of accepting the concept
behind sheim Adnus. But G-d is infinitely greater than the universe,
He can pay attention to *everything*.

Sheim E-lokim is different in connotation about Justice vs Mercy and
by parallel therefore actually says less about Hashem's ability to deal
with detail.

When I say birkhas Avos, I lately have been associating the opening
E-lokeinu with natural law, with the "haGibbor" of the next line. Gevurah
in the sense of restraint, of letting our actions follow their natural
consequences. Which in that berakhah is in contrast to both Havayah on
one side, and E-lokei Avoseinu on the other. Notice that this places
Havayah in parallel to "haGadol" (Infinitude) and E"A in parallel to
haNorah. Thinking of Rav Dessler's take on multiple olamos, E-lokei
Avoseinu would refer to the olam they taught us how to reach -- olam
hayetzirah, where moral law is absolute and physical law becomes relative,
nissim geluyim are possible.

And inyona deyoma, Yirmiyahu couldn't find the power to say "vehaNora",
when our people fell pray to natural law and the natural cycle of nations.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

R' MB:
> But ideally the shetar siruv should spell out the steps they want to see
> taken.

IIRC, we had a situation where someone who had a Seruv against him wasn't
counted towards the Minyan.

KT,
MYG

<<My father was never an army chaplain (and didn't approve of Orthodox
Jews taking that job, which involves almost inevitable halachic
compromises) but was very involved with Jews in the military, especially
when we lived in Newport News -- where there are several nearby military
bases.  I mention this only to point out that not serving in the
chaplaincy does not mean abandoning Jewish servicemen.>>

Newport News is near Langley Airforce Base and also Norfolk Naval Base.
In fact these days LAFB no longer has a local chaplain but uses one of
the town rabbis.

However, not every large and certainly not the smaller bases are near
an orthodox community. Should we only help Jewish servicemen
who happen to end up at bases near a orthodox shul?

Being a rabbi out of town also involves compromises.
One of the major differences between RZ and charedi attitudes
in Israel concerns taking jobs that involve halachic questions.
Should a good orthodox ma/woman avoid being a
policeman, fireman or even doctor because these professions
require occasional work on shabbat (though mutar) and because
the professions lead to many questions.
Should we build a society based on chilonim or goyim to fill
all professions that involve many halachic questions?


-- 
Eli Turkel

Shalom" <carmy@yu.edu>
Bcc: 
Subject: Can you build a community around Halakhic Man?
Reply-To: 

I recently wrote a blog entry laying out my thoughts on whether an MO
community can actually be built around RYBS's thought. As a teaser,
here are the subheadings:
    Typology
    Dialectic Tension and Creativity
    Ramatayom Tzofim
    The Erev Shabbos Jew
    Torah uMadda (which begins by admitting we would be borrowing the
        term, as RYBS didn't publicly use it)
    Unworking or Unworkable?

Since the last subject header tips my hand anyway, I rethought what I
would post and am adding my final paragraphs:
> The fundamental flaw most people would encounter in trying to apply Rav
> Yosef Ber Soloveitchik's philosophy to their own lives is that there is
> no middle point. It's an ideal which most people are incapable of
> reaching; there is no path from here to there.

> If they stood alone, the other issues could have been solved
> incrementally. A person can study aggadita at their level and increase
> their feel for Torah values and seeing the world from the perspective
> implied by halakhah. Similarly, they can work on their interests and
> develop interests toward those parts of the general culture that help us
> better understand and work with the world around us and the people in it.

> RYBS unifies modernity and Orthodoxy by making them a tension that
> drives a level of creativity that few are capable of. RYBS's path may
> work for someone who shares the abilities of himself or the role models
> he uses in the examples that pepper Halakhic Man. But a community simply
> can't be built upon it. The compartmentalization and compromise found
> in contemporary Modern Orthodoxy are beyond the usual limitations of
> people who aspire for a common ideal. It is an inevitable product of the
> nature of the ideal itself.

Now, please read
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/07/halakhic-community.shtml> and see
how I justify that controversial conclusion. (For people who need the
entry emailed to them, just ask.)

Putting my moderator hat on, I wish to forewarn you... I realize this
post will generate replies that might require my donning asbestos before
reading. I therefore will be rejecting posts that I feel do not reflect
having read the actual contents of the blog entry.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

If a Jew works as a cashier for a supermarket and another Jew asks them to ring up some bacon, saying it's for breakfast, what's the halocho?

 Since the last subject header tips my hand anyway, I rethought what I
would post and am adding my final paragraphs:
> The fundamental flaw most people would encounter in trying to apply 
> Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik's philosophy to their own lives is that 
> there is no middle point. It's an ideal which most people are 
> incapable of reaching; there is no path from here to there.

> If they stood alone, the other issues could have been solved 
> incrementally. A person can study aggadita at their level and increase

> their feel for Torah values and seeing the world from the perspective 
> implied by halakhah. Similarly, they can work on their interests and 
> develop interests toward those parts of the general culture that help 
> us better understand and work with the world around us and the people
in it.

> RYBS unifies modernity and Orthodoxy by making them a tension that 
> drives a level of creativity that few are capable of. RYBS's path may 
> work for someone who shares the abilities of himself or the role 
> models he uses in the examples that pepper Halakhic Man. But a 
> community simply can't be built upon it. The compartmentalization and 
> compromise found in contemporary Modern Orthodoxy are beyond the usual

> limitations of people who aspire for a common ideal. It is an 
> inevitable product of the nature of the ideal itself.
==============================================

I enjoyed the post and was with you until the conclusion :-).  As
actuaries (or at least one ) like to say - life is inherently risky.
The tension you describe imho is "inherent in the briah" (hmm-where did
I hear that before). IMHO one can certainly simplify life by minimizing
or negating competing priorities but I'm not sure that is what HKB"H
wants from us (and kach mkublani mbeit avi abba - it's not what he wants
from me).  Each of us who accepts this approach must seek to navigate
(to use your description) at our own level of creativity - I have no
doubt that R'YBS dwarfs me but so what - R' Zushya, echad hamarbeh etc.
stand with me.  To say that it is beyond the usual limitations is to say
that HKB"H didn't give us the ability to succeed - I disagree (BTW
people say the same thing about orthodoxy in general). As R'YBS said (I
forget where) the purpose of religion is not to make life easy...

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

RET wrote:
: While I don't like to disagree with my rebbe I find this hard to
: accept....
: One nice example is the explanation of Prof. Aumann (recent nobel
: prize winner) on the gemara in Ketuvot originally based on game theory
: (though simplified). The explanations of most rishonim is very forced
: while his seems very natural.

I don't think RYBS meant it as you took it. After all, ein beis medrash
belo chiddush. In order to understand what he is saying, I think you have
to look at RYBS's distinction between chiddush (good) and shinui (bad).

Prof Aumann was engaging in chiddush.

Actually, the blog RHM later pointed us to better captured the notion
as RARR tends to explain it on yutorah.org MP3s.

I repeat RHM's advice to see
<http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2008/07/introduction-to-ha
redi-philosophy-part_23.html> (a/k/a <http://tinyurl.com/56heb5>).

Rn Chana-the-curious-Jewish-blogger quotes RYBS as saying:
> What does kabalas ol malchus shamayim require of the lomeid
> hatorah, person who studies Torah? First, we must pursue the truth,
> nothing else but the truth; however, the truth in talmud torah can
> only be achieved through singular halachic Torah thinking, and Torah
> understanding. The truth is attained from within, in accord with the
> methodology given to Moses and passed on from generation to
> generation. The truth can be discovered only by joining the ranks of
> the chachmei hamesorah [11]. It is ridiculous to say "I have
> discovered something of which the Rashba didn't know, the Ktzos
> didn't know, the Vilna Gaon had no knowledge, I have discovered an
> approach to the interpretation of Torah which iscompletely new." One
> must join the ranks of the chachmei hamesorah --chazal, rishonim,
> gedolei achronim -- and must not try to rationalize from without the
> chukei hatorah...

Prof Aumann followed a long line of baalei mesorah in using all
availalbe secular knowledge to explain the din. Aristotle, for
example.

What RYBS is objecting to is new methodologies. The question isn't
what he would say about using game theory to explain an odd case of
yerushah. It's more about things like revadim, or whether to give more
weight to a Frankel Rambam than the versionS (belashon rabbim, some
exploration of girsaos was "always" within the norm, albeit not that
much among Briskers) of the text halakhah actually developed against.

On Fri, July 25, 2008 11:16 am, R Harry Maryles wrote:
: What exactly does it mean to be Charedi? That may be as difficult to
: define as is what it means to be Modern Orthodox. Just as there are
: many divisions in Modern Orthodoxy so to are there in Charedism. But
: there are certain features that are distinctive to each.

I do not think their appproaches to emunas chakhamim is a defining
issue. I've seen YU guys argue over RYBS's position, resorting to diyuqei
lashon to resolve a debate. And even on this list where the population
is more heterogeneous, people from YU spheres have confused proving
something wasn't RYBS's position with proving it's wrong. Daas Torah.

...
: Modern Orthodoxy has often been accused of believing that Chazal were
: fallible - that they made mistakes. They were human beings subject to
: the spirit of their time and that influenced how they created rabbinic
: law which we must follow.
...
: Faulting Chazal in this way is tantamount to heresy! Where we differ
: is in matters of science. Charedim believe that Chazal were infallible
: there too. Or more precisely scientific statements recorded in the
: Gemarah were passed on to them via Mesorah -- just as were Halachic
: statements.

There are also differences WRT halakhah and aggadita. Not between
communities, but there isn't a monolithic opinion.

Halakhah: all agree that you can't simply pasqen against Chazal. (Except
when saving a preemie on Shabbos who was born in the 8th month,
ukhedomeh.)

Some believe that siyata diShmaya guaranteed correct results.

Others believe that their authority to define the law means that their
interpretations are not held up to a standard called "correct" but they
*define* correct. Like RRW's analogy to umpires.

Yet others believe that nothing guarantees they're correct, but even
where they're wrong, we're less likely to correctly identify which
places they are and less likely to reach a more correct conclusion.

Aggadita: Most take chazalic statements as miSinai, but historically
RSRH and many others attribute aggadic positions to personal theories.

And WRT general advice: R' Dovid Cohen, certainly not MO, does not believe
that "the gedolim" have any guarantee of getting answers right. Rather,
he shows that without a melekh, some of the authority of melukhah fell
to the rabbanim. So RDC still says that we need to turn to gedolei Torah
to run a community but because of authority, not accuracy.

: Contradictions between scientific statements in the Gemarah and the
: scientific knowledge we have today is simply thought of as either a
: misunderstanding of what Chazal said. Or those statements were meant
: as allegory. Or were statements about Kabala - not science as they
: seem to be at first blush.

I think this is a misdiagnosis. It's not so much about science in
particular as about authority vs autonomy.

MO stresses autonomy, and therefore doubt it often resolved by
finding sources to defend an indeprendently reached conclusion.

Chareidim stress authority, and therefore tend to take maximalist
positions that require the greater reliance on authority (Rivka was 3,
not 15; qeri'as Yam Suf involved a tunnel for each sheivet, etc...)
and similarly shun claims of allegory. (Dspite this ironically being the
more mesoretically supportable position.

: This view - although promoted by accepted Rishonim - has recently been
: rejected by Charedi Poskim who say it is heretical to believe that in
: our day. Modern Orthodoxy does not consider that to be heretical at
: all. It is only the Halacha that is Masoretic and there fore
: infallible. Not the science.

Neither do a large segement of chareidim. I think this is another issue
that isn't quite on MO-Chareidi lines.

As RHM notes:
: It should be noted that Rav Ahron Soloveichik is of the view that
: Chazal were infallible in matters of science too. He takes the same
: view as do the Charedi Poskim. Rav Ahron often explained difficult
: passages in the Gemarah in the modern scientific terms of our day...



On Fri, July 25, 2008 3:13 pm, R Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: It is one thing to say that Hazal can error, which is undeniable, but
: quite another to say that "They were human beings subject to the spirit
: of their time and that influenced how they created rabbinic law". [I
: take no position here as to whether the latter belief is true, false,
: pernicious or heretical.]

The problem becomes justifying the use of precedent. How does someone
teach this notion and then not dismiss halakhos based on the absence of
the social forces that created it?


This notion of autnonomy vs submission to authority brings me to a point
raised in another thread.

On Mon, July 28, 2008 8:22 am, RAM <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
: We often hear varied stories about this tzadik, or that gadol, and
: frankly, they are sometimes difficult to believe. I have often heard
: this as a common reaction to such incredulity: "If you think all these
: stores are true, then you're a fool. But if you think they're all
: false, you're an apikores. The message of these stories is that they
: *could* be true."

From RARR's "The Rav" vol I #1.04, given by RYBS Sep 14 1968, before the
first selichos (I happened to read it the same commute as I read RAM's
post):
    I once heard the following story from my father.  It was most
    probably a true story, since the stories that were transmitted in 
    our family from generation to generation are mostly true. They are
    not like Chassidic stories, where miracles happen. [Laughter] These
    stories which have been told and passed down from generation to
    generation are usually true. These stories do not deal with
    miracles, but with natural phenomena....
The story RYBS tells is that of Avraham ben Avraham Hy"d, the geir tzedeq
of Vilna, the Graf Potocki. RARR makes a point of letting you know where
people laugh so that you know the audience who heard tone of voice knew
RYBS was joking.

To get to the point, there is a chiluq between maaselakh, midrashim,
and Tanakh. You can't lump all three kinds of miraculous claims together.

There is a strong history of saying that midrashic stories are deep
truths that are recorded in parable. (I argued here more than once,
based on the language in Peirush haMishnayos intro to Cheileq, that the
Rambam explicitly tells you that talmud Torah isn't about figuring out
which midrashim are historical -- worrying about it is already taking a
different approach than Chazal's.) For pesuqim, some pesuqim have such
traditions, some don't. Of those that don't, different rishonim imply
different amounts of autonomy -- how much is something we've debated in
the past in probably every volume since #1.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 01:13:39PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: I enjoyed the post and was with you until the conclusion :-).  As
: actuaries (or at least one) like to say - life is inherently risky.
: The tension you describe imho is "inherent in the briah" (hmm-where did
: I hear that before)...

They may well be. I didn't address the accuracy of RYBS's model. And I'm
using the word "model" advisedly; I think various derakhim are based on
different descriptions of something too big to really understand. Models.

:            Each of us who accepts this approach must seek to navigate
: (to use your description) at our own level of creativity - I have no
: doubt that R'YBS dwarfs me but so what - R' Zushya, echad hamarbeh etc.

My problem is that if harmonious coexistence between these two worlds
depends on my ability to enter with G-d in a creative partnership in
the development of halakhah, the derekh doesn't speak to most people's
experience. The notion of halakhah as creativity is something few
people experience more than a handful of times in their life -- if that.
Instead, halakhah as experienced is more about submission.

For most people, our own level of creativity is worse than nothing.
Few can get good enough at such creativity to have positive results --
this is halakhic man, creativity in the evolution of pesaq. You don't want
half-baked lomdus and people pasqening for themselves from ignorance. And
until you get there? So, the outlook specifies an ideal, but doesn't
specify a path to it for people sufficiently distant from that ideal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 276
***************************************

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..."