Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 30

Tue, 01 May 2012

• 1. Re: Parshas Tazria: Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch - When The Whole World Goes White (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: When The Whole World Goes White (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch - When The Whole World Goes White (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (hankman)
• 5. Re: When The Whole World Goes White (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Parshas Tazria: Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch - When The Whole World Goes White (Akiva Blum)
• 7. Re: Klal Perspectives - Spring 2012 (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Parshas Tazria: Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch - When The Whole World Goes White (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (hankman)
• 10. Re: Parshas Tazria: Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch - When The Whole World Goes White (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Parshas Tazria: Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch - When The Whole World Goes White [Again] (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (Lisa Liel)

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 03:52:32PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> If white is the color of purity,  then why do so many Orthodox men wear 
> black, and why do I see a trend amongst  observant women to favor wearing 
> black over clothing of other colors?  YL

OTOH, black is the color of tzeni'us (for simple physics reasons -- dark
doesn't catch the eye) and fighting the YhR. Judging from the Rambam's
invocation WRT teshuvah, there are two sides of the same coin. See Rambam
Hil' Eidus 12:9.

It appears to be a tool for anonymity - the "besokh ami anokhi yoshaves"
of tzeni'us.

MQ 17a:
    If someone sees that his yeitzer of overpowering him? What should he
    do? He should wear black, cover himself in black, go to a place where
    they do not recognize him, and he should do what his heart desires.

The Ritva RH 16b asks how the gemara could possibly let someone sin. He
quotes "mori", who I think in this instance is the Rashba (the other
likely candidate if the Ra'ah), who says this is not about a yeitzer to
do an actual cheit, but one who would do something permissable and if
recognized, would cause a chilul Hashem.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

R' Yitzchok Levine asked:

> If white is the color of purity,  then why do so many Orthodox
> men wear black, and why do I see a trend amongst  observant
> women to favor wearing black over clothing of other colors?

If white signifies purity, the does not necessarily mean that black
signifies impurity. My understanding is that those who wear black do so for
humility, ordinariness, anti-ostentatiousness, and similar goals.

There is a time for purity, and many Orthodox men do go out of their way to
wear white on Yom Kippur. But to do so all year long is not necessarily a
desirable thing.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f9f048f415c0bf932cst06vuc

>R. Micha wrote
>
>On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 03:52:32PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> > If white is the color of purity,  then why do so many Orthodox men
>wear
> > black, and why do I see a trend amongst  observant women to favor
>wearing
> > black over clothing of other colors?  YL
>
>OTOH, black is the color of tzeni'us (for simple physics reasons -- dark
>doesn't catch the eye) and fighting the YhR. Judging from the Rambam's
>invocation WRT teshuvah, there are two sides of the same coin. See
>Rambam
>Hil' Eidus 12:9.
>
>It appears to be a tool for anonymity - the "besokh ami anokhi yoshaves"
>of tzeni'us.
>
>MQ 17a:
>     If someone sees that his yeitzer of overpowering him? What should he
>     do? He should wear black, cover himself in black, go to a place
>where
>     they do not recognize him, and he should do what his heart desires.
>
>The Ritva RH 16b asks how the gemara could possibly let someone sin. He
>quotes "mori", who I think in this instance is the Rashba (the other
>likely candidate if the Ra'ah), who says this is not about a yeitzer to
>do an actual cheit, but one who would do something permissable and if
>recognized, would cause a chilul Hashem.
There is a disagreement regarding whether white is a color or not and 
whether black is a color or not.  See http://tinyurl.com/c9rlkfz

I do not agree with you that black doesn't catch the eye.  On a 
bright sunny day black stands out to me whereas white does not.  Of 
course, on a pitch black night, white stands out.  So, It all depends 
on the environment.

"MQ 17a:
>     If someone sees that his yeitzer of overpowering him? What should he
>     do? He should wear black, cover himself in black, go to a place
>where
>     they do not recognize him, and he should do what his heart desires.

To me this argues against wearing black, because it is a color that 
"indicates" that one is going to do something he should not or that 
is not appropriate for him to do.

It reminds me the story about Reb Chaim of Brisk who was asked why he 
does not wear a gartel.  He purportedly replied,  "When a sefer Torah 
is posul, the gartel is put on the outside!"

At least amongst the Sefardim men wore colored clothing.  The 
following is from 
"<http://personal.stevens.edu/%7Ellevine/jp/Ezra%20
Stiles%20And%20The%20Jews%20Of%20Newport.pdf>Ezra 
Stiles and the Jews of Newport" Glimpses Into American Jewish 
History  Part 59 The Jewish Press,  February 5, 2010, pages 31 & 80.

In a diary entry dated April 8, [1773] Dr. Stiles provides us with a 
fascinating
description of the appearance of Rabbi Karigal. Below is a direct quote that
preserves his spelling, grammar and syntax.

The Rabbi's Dress or Aparrel: Common English Shoes,
black leather, Silver flowered Buckles, White Stockings. His
general Habit was Turkish. A green Silk Vest or long under
Garment reaching down more than half way the Legs or within 3
Inches of the Ankles, the ends of the Sleeves of this Vest
appeared on the Wrists in a foliage Turn-up of 3 inches, & the
Opening little larger than that the hand might pass freely. A Girdle
or Sash of different Colors red and green girt the Vest around his
Body. It appeared not to be open at the bottom but to come down
like a petticoat; and no Breeches could be discovered. This Vest
Vest of Calico, besides other Jewish Talismans. Upon the vest first
mentioned was a scarlet outer Garment of Cloth, one side of it
was Blue, the outside scarlet; it reached down about an Inch
lower than the Vest, or near the Ankles. It was open before, no
range of Buttons &c. along the Edge, but like a Scholars Gown in
the Body but plain and without many gatherings at the Neck, the
sleeves strait or narrow and slit open 4 or 5 Inches at the End, and
turned up with a blue silk Quarter Cuff, higher up than at the End
of the sleeve of the Vest. When he came into the Synoguge he put
over all, the usual Alb or white Surplice, which was like that of
other Jews, except that its Edge was striped with Blue straiks,
and had more Fringe. He had a White Cravat round his Neck. He
had a long black Beard, the upper Lip partly shaven-his Head
shaved all over. On his Head a high Fur [Sable] Cap, exactly like
a Woman's Muff, and about 9 or 10 Inches high, the Aperture
atop was closed with green cloth. He behaved modestly and
reverently

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120430/bfdf4dfc/attachment-0001.htm>

CM:
> Take a hypothetical future Peng Peng II with more extensive genetic
> manipulation that is born looking like (being?) a Roundworm on four
> legs, but with split hooves and that chews its cud and has the two
> simonim for shechita. Would you both still stick to your logic so
> assuredly?
RZS:
Why not? It has simanei tahara, after all.
CM responds:
You are missing the point. The point was that at some point it may not be a chaya or beheima and thus these simanim would no longer apply.
--------------------
CM:
> Or consider the genetic manipulation of fowl. Here the Torah basically
> gives us the 22 non-kosher birds, the others being kosheer. Here
> specie is determinative. So there are no Simanei kashrus utreifus
> (although some are given in shas and poskim). Then the operative
> question would be how much genetic manipulation could halacha tolerate
> before considering the result a new species?
RZS:
To the best of my knowledge, the definition of speciation in hilchos
kil'ayim is whether they can produce fertile offspring. Thus if this
creature can breed only with members of its own clan then it's a new
kosher species; if it can breed with sheep but not with roundworms,
then it's a sheep.

CM replies:
In your 1st case ? ?this creature can breed only with members of its own
clan then it's a new kosher species.? Why assume it is a new KOSHER specie,
perhaps it is a new treif specie, because perhaps it is no longer even a
chaya or beheima?

In your 2nd case ? ?it can breed with sheep but not with roundworms, then
it's a sheep? I find more acceptable but even here there are difficulties.
For example some of these genetic hybrids are sterile and can not breed at
all. In these cases your interbreeding test would fail to give any reults
proving it a sheep, and would be subject to the safek that perhaps it is no
longer even a beheima or chaya and therefore even though possessing simanei
tahara (for a beheima or chaya) might still be treif.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
CM:
> Which brings us back to Peng Peng. when the Torah gives us the simanei
> tahara of split hooves and chewing the cud it explicitly only applies
> to the class of chaya and beheima ? not other living creatures. So we
> must revisit the question how much genetic manipulation would halacha
> tolerate before considering Peng Peng something other than a chaya or
> beheima. My intuition (sorry - nothing better than that) tells me we
> have not yet crossed that line with Peng Peng, but clearly that line
> exists and placing it will become a future subject for many shu?ts as
> this technology continues to develop.
RZS:
Then what is it? It's certainly not a fish, a bird, or a creepy-
crawly. I'd think that by definition if it has four legs that are
clearly visible when it walks then it's either a beheima or a chaya;
but if not, then it's something that the Torah never told us *not*
to eat.
CM replies:
Perhaps a beryah chadasha? Genetically that is certainly what it is. I
think your argument assumes as fundamental an iron clad rule that if it has
four legs ? no matter what else is different ? it is a chaya or beheima. I
am not sure that the rule is as absolute as you imply and without
exception. I am sure that your imagination can conjure up all sort of novel
and weird creatures on four legs with simanei tahara say for example a
bovine version of a centaur or mercow (with gillls and legs [and maybe even
fins and scales too just for fun]) etc etc. and I imagine a rov would be
hard put to apply the rule you propose in a na?ve and direct fashion or to
a mutated giant ant with only four  legs (missing one segment but with
split hooves etc).

PS: There is this article:  
Half-man, half-goat discovered in Zimbabwe?
http://www.perthnow.com.au/half-man-half-goat
-discovered-in-zimbabwe/story-e6frg4nl-1225780382385 
http://weeklyworldnews.com/mutants/12285/half-man-half-goat-creature/ 

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120430/8ddcb87c/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120430/8ddcb87c/attachment-0001.png>

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 09:30:01PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: If white signifies purity, the does not necessarily mean that black
: signifies impurity...

Actually, the metaphor in question is white vs red -- "Im yihyu
chat'aeikhem kashanim, hasheleg yalbinu" (Yeshaiah 1:18), the wool of
the se'ir hamishtaleiakh, etc...

: My understanding is that those who wear black do so for humility,
: ordinariness, anti-ostentatiousness, and similar goals.

I suggested tzeni'us, meaning more your second two suggestions than
"humility". (I just want to see if someone runs with a discussion
of the interplay of anavah and tzenius.)

: There is a time for purity, and many Orthodox men do go out of their
: way to wear white on Yom Kippur...

Is that purity or death? I thought we were wearing tachrikhim (qitl /
sargenes). As per Aqavia ben Mehallel (Avos 3:1), "ule'an atah holeikh".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

On 30-Apr-12 10:52 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>
> Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch says that white is a distinguished color,
> the color of purity, righteousness, and innocence. It is the color of
> a special breed. When every country turns to Apikursus and cloak
> themselves in righteousness, only then will Moshiach come and spread
> true purity on the world.
>
> ----------
> If white is the color of purity,  then why do so many Orthodox men 
> wear black, and why do I see a trend amongst  observant women to favor 
> wearing black over clothing of other colors?  YL 

Same reason that in all the pictures I have seen of RSRH, he himself 
wore black.

Akiva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120501/1453536d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:40:26AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/6txrwm6
>
> Spring '12: Questions
>
> THE AMERICAN ORTHODOX COMMUNITY is experiencing a crisis of spiritual
> connection, in the opinion of many leaders and observers of the
> community....

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 04:37:37PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I'm not convinced that this is a new problem, nor that it is a growing
: one.

I think it is currently growing. Although I agree it's far from
new.

: If kids text on Shabbos, how much different is that from not davening,
: either not going to shul at all, or going to shul but spending most of
: one's time in the hallway or playground? ...

We're not talking about this, though. We're talking about the person who
is fully observant, but feels no internal religiosity or spirituality.
He is continuing out of a "that's what we do" mitzvos anashim meiludma,
social pressure, or instinct. But life of the spirit is hours per year,
moments on RH and YK, times of personal crisis, etc...

One could suggest that there is a correlation. Since uninspired people
are less likely to stick with it, perhaps a loss of connection in the
observant masses is the same phenomenon that increases the end of the
bell curve that abandons observance.

(I assumed a similar correlation between the number of abusers and white
collor criminals to the state of our community as a whole as well. If we
aren't producing measurably fewer menuvalim than religious groups that
don't follow the Emes, then we have to either assume that our norm isn't
much different, or explain why we would have a wider variation (std dev)
than anyone else.)

Anyway, below is the letter I mailed KP. It's far longer than the
recommended response length. Let's see what they do with it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



Dear Editor,

"Mi yaaleh behar Hashem -- Who will ascend Hashem's mountain?" (Tehillim 24:3)

It is an important question. Perhaps the most important one in life. I
therefore thank the editors of Klal Perspectives for a thought-provoking
issue that brings the topic to public discourse, and starts the
conversation with such erudition and experienced voices.

Different people start their ascent from different points at the foot of
that mountain, and therefore will need to travel in different directions
to find the peak. All are benei aliyah, people actively pursuing ascent,
and thus have a common spirit despite difference in derech (path). This
is the meaning of Shlomo haMelech's dictum, "Chanoch lenaar al pi darko --
teach the youth according to his ways." Each of us have our own abilities
and proclivities, and therefore each will find the different ways of
viewing the Torah's ideal more or less fitting. Do I see that ideal in
terms of who I am to become? What kind of relationship I am to forge
with G-d? With the world? And if I do see it as personal refinement --
do I take the German Jewish approach of personal dignity or the Mussarist
focus on various middos? What kind of relationship with the Almighty is
ideal? What aspects of how He appears to us am I capable of relating
to? And so on. All following the same goal -- but with different ways
of viewing that goal, we will end up on different paths and different
prioritizations.

The AishDas Society was founded with an eye to the meta-issue, the
culture of growth [1] necessary for the pursuit of a path, a derekh's ideal,
regardless of which that it. We got together around a dining room table
15 years ago to find pragmatic solutions to the question: How do we
become benei aliyah?

Our first conclusion was the need to invest more time studying aggadic
texts in addition. One needs to see how various mesoretic voices
describe the ideal, have a developed notion of what that ideal is, before
developing a program of working toward it. Not only what the ideal is, but
how to frame that notion in a way that fits my personality and talents.

But while finding a model of the Torah's ideal that I am more able
to pursue might be primarily an intellectual pursuit, following that
ideal is more experiential. We all know the problem of akrasia, even if
that word is Greek to you (.......). It is the question of why people
do things they know is wrong or against their best interests. Knowing
what's right is not enough. "Veyadata hayom vehasheivosa el levavecha --
You know today, and you will answer your heart." Our minds know things
that still need to make their ways into the core of our beings to change
who we are and how we act. That level of deep impression is made by
experiential programming far more so than the study of ideas.

AishDas has had success forming ve'adim (literally: committees) that
follow those composed by R' Shlomo Wolbe and found in Alei Shur vol
II, sec. 2-3. The vaad concept is a product of the Mussar Movement,
and those ve'adim in section 2 of Alei Shur are more middos (character
trait) oriented. However, reviewing the topics in section 3 shows that
the same format can be applied to goals such as adding passion to Shema
and Shemoneh Esrei. On the meta-level, it is a format that provides
experience interacting and living up to a text, and a group of peers
working together who you can turn to for support. Regardless of which
approach up the mountain the group is taking.

So what is a vaad, as I am using the term? It's a small sized group that
studies a text regularly (like a chaburah). But, they also explore how
to apply the text to their own lives. Every session ends with some
daily exercise they take upon themselves to grow incrementally in
that area. E.g.: Not to express anger at dinner time. To spend time
lingering on each word of one sentence of Shemoneh Esrei, feeling as
many connotations and implications as they can before moving on. Etc...

And so, a vaad meeting typically begins with a discussion of how things
were going with the exercise, or with any other part of one's avodas
Hashem (service of G-d) that they want the group's input in. Then the
text study. Then thoughts about how the ideal in the text applies to
the lives of the members. And finally a discussion of the exercise,
which may be tailored based on prior progress.

Ideally this would be a synagogue or local community based
institution. But if necessary, we have convened a va'ad using conference
calls supplemented by email discussion.

A sefer like Alei Shur or Sifsei Chaim -- Middos vaAvodas Hashem has the
advantage of already presenting sequences of texts and exercises. This
creates the ability to have a group even without the commitment of
someone ready and able to prepare appropriate material. It takes just
slightly more effort to do so with a text like the Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh
series by Rav Itamar Schwartz. Obviously, a synagogue rabbi could learn
to produce material for a vaad, perhaps after some experience with Rav
Wolbe's or Rav Chaim Friedlander's ve'adim, just as they do for lectures
and shiurim, perhaps based on Mesilas Yesharim or the Slominer Rebbe's
Nesivos Shalom. And AishDas is available to provide experienced assistance
to any group wishing to get started.

For similar reasons, I think our instinct to the focus on formal
education, how do we teach differently in order to avoid the problem
in the next generation is misplaced. We aren't talking about imparting
facts to the brain, but inculcating values to the heart. I am inclined,
therefore, to agree with Rabbi Glasser's article about the value of
informal educational settings. That is where truths are experienced,
rather than studied.

I have a friend who has taught Pre-1A boys for decades. The end of
the curriculum on reading is teaching sheva nach (silent) vs sheva na
(pronounced schwa). In the early days, it didn't come naturally; how
many of us learned the grammar of Tanach and the siddur in yeshiva? But
now it's transparent to him, and how he davens as well. But his students
do not fare as well. After his class, they enter first grade, where the
focus is on siddur and chumash, not keri'ah and vowel marks. And their
subsequent rebbes, from 1st grade through beis medrash, are not likely
to pay attention to grammatical niceties. So, it all falls out the window.

Similarly, perhaps the strongest education we can give our children is
for them to see parents who are grappling with these issues in their own
lives, and thus they learn informally that Torah values, spirituality,
connection to Hashem and the Jewish people, are important.

There is also a way to bring that kind of informal education into the
school building. For example: Right now there are numerous middos programs
for schools; various different curricula that all boil down to truisms
like, "Modesty is good", "Honoring your elders is good", "Anger is bad",
etc... It becomes trite at a pretty early grade, and then Middah education
falls off. There is also little indication that such cerebral imparting
of information does much to change actual behavior. People learn how to
behave from peers and role models. (Again suggesting that adult programs
may need to come before we focus attention on education.)

However, teachers and administrators do talk to their students in the
school setting in ways other than imparting information. Rather than
teaching the value of various middos, they can use these interactions
to foster awareness of middos. Decisions are made through a conflict
of middos, desires, aspirations, etc... We can teach students that
language when educators (and parents) have occasion to discuss those
decisions. For example: "When Sarah through that ball at you, what middah
did it trigger? If you could have stopped to realize it was an accident,
how would you have responded? Which middah should you have used?" Getting
the child to realize that in this incident, her Temper (middah of ka'as)
outweighed her Awareness (zehirus) will do far more toward improving
her future behavior than stopping after a poster and worksheet about
how losing one's temper is as bad as idolatry.

I deeply feel the path up the mountain has two steps: setting the mind on
a goal through learning, and making impressions in the heart through more
experiential modalities. The vaad notion as well as informal education
beyond the curriculum are just me scratching the surface. I dream of a
day when shuls consider offering experiential programming to foster benei
aliyah as de rigueur as daf yomi has become in these past few decades.

"Ben Zoma said:... Who is rich? One who is happy with his lot." If Ben
Zoma meant happy with where they are now, his would be a recipe for
complacency and stagnation. Rather, I believe he is telling us to be
happy with our entire lot from birth to grave, the path Hashem places
us upon from where we are up His mountain.

May Hashem grant you further success in this wonderful endeavor,
Rabbi Micha Berger
Passaic, NJ


[1] An idiom coined by Neil Harris in his "Manifesto for a Culture
of Growth"
<http://uberdox.blogspot.com/2012/04/manifesto-for-culture-of-growth.htm
>
at the blog Modern Uberdox <http://uberdox.blogspot.com>.

At 02:25 AM 5/1/2012, Akiva Blum wrote:
>>----------
>>If white is the color of purity,  then why do so many Orthodox men 
>>wear black, and why do I see a trend amongst  observant women to 
>>favor wearing black over clothing of other colors?  YL
>
>Same reason that in all the pictures I have seen of RSRH, he himself 
>wore black.

See the picture at http://tinyurl.com/7hst25e  It does not look to me 
as though his jacket is black.

On the other hand,  in the picture at http://tinyurl.com/cgvmmh  his 
jacket is black!  It appears to be the same picture! YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120501/73f6f0eb/attachment-0001.htm>

RZS wrote:
> Why not? It has simanei tahara, after all.
> CM responds:
> You are missing the point. The point was that at some point it may not
> be a chaya or beheima and thus these simanim would no longer apply.
RZS reponded:
If it's not a chaya, a beheima, an of, a dag, or a sheretz, then on what
grounds could you forbid its consumption, with *or without* simanim?
Where did the Torah forbid it?

CM speculates:
You assume that all is mutar unless the Torah specifically forbids it. Is 
that really so? Is it not just the opposite?
If you look at Bereishis 1:29 and 8:3 we find that initially all would have 
been asur to eat and thus the Torah needed to write the permit of plants for 
Adam as food. Then the heter achila was expanded for Noach. The Sifsei 
Chachomim explains that initially there was no reason to assume one creation 
of G-d had any more "rights" than any other creation of G-d therefore the 
explicit permission to use plants for food was necessary. But after Noach, 
since it was through his mediation and effort that they all survived the 
Mabul, Noach received the expanded heter. One may therefore logically 
speculate that a new beriah that did not exist yet at that time was not 
included in the heter to Noach and therefore remained under the original 
isur to mankind for use as food.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:34:47AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> See the picture at http://tinyurl.com/7hst25e  It does not look to me as 
> though his jacket is black.

You're comparing a lithograph to a picture. Getting shading right on
a lithograph is always tricky. I would assume the lithograph was more
accurate.

But in any case, RSRH wore canonicals, so we know that his uniform
of office was black. (As did R' Isaac Bernays and R' SB Bamberger.
All three are mentioned by RSZLeiman in "Rabbinic Openness to to General
Culture", published in /Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures/, edited
by RJJSchachter.) But, he did so simply because that was fashion for
German clergy, and thus fit RSRH's definition of kibud. It has nothing
to do with what the masses should or shouldn't do, or even what rabbis
today should wear.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 24th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507        taking control result in balance and harmony?

At 02:25 AM 5/1/2012, Akiva Blum wrote:
>>----------
>>If white is the color of purity,  then why do so many Orthodox men 
>>wear black, and why do I see a trend amongst  observant women to 
>>favor wearing black over clothing of other colors?  YL
>
>Same reason that in all the pictures I have seen of RSRH, he himself 
>wore black.

I took a look at the pictures of RSRH in R. Klugman's bio of him 
RSRH.  In the picture on the inside cover page he appears to be 
wearing grey. In the picture on page 233 he is wearing a jacket that 
is "checked" with grey and white.  In the picture on page 287 he 
appears to be wearing black, but it is hard to tell because it looks 
as though the picture has faded.

In any event,  he is not wearing white in any of these pictures. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120501/ea3d9a8e/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/1/2012 8:47 AM, hankman wrote:
> RZS wrote:
>> Why not? It has simanei tahara, after all.
>> CM responds:
>> You are missing the point. The point was that at some point it may not
>> be a chaya or beheima and thus these simanim would no longer apply.
> RZS reponded:
> If it's not a chaya, a beheima, an of, a dag, or a sheretz, then on what
> grounds could you forbid its consumption, with *or without* simanim?
> Where did the Torah forbid it?
>
> CM speculates:
> You assume that all is mutar unless the Torah specifically forbids it. 
> Is that really so? Is it not just the opposite?
> If you look at Bereishis 1:29 and 8:3 we find that initially all would 
> have been asur to eat and thus the Torah needed to write the permit of 
> plants for Adam as food. Then the heter achila was expanded for Noach. 
> The Sifsei Chachomim explains that initially there was no reason to 
> assume one creation of G-d had any more "rights" than any other 
> creation of G-d therefore the explicit permission to use plants for 
> food was necessary. But after Noach, since it was through his 
> mediation and effort that they all survived the Mabul, Noach received 
> the expanded heter. One may therefore logically speculate that a new 
> beriah that did not exist yet at that time was not included in the 
> heter to Noach and therefore remained under the original isur to 
> mankind for use as food.

I don't see that all would have been assur to eat.  On the contrary, 
nothing is forbidden -- ever -- without a prohibition.  Derekh eretz 
kadma l'Torah 26 dorot.  Hashem created all living things with a need to 
eat, so we eat.

Lisa


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 30
**************************************

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..."