Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 034

Tuesday, October 27 1998

• tv, yu, mo
• Re: Re[2]: YU and TV "sthiko ke'hodoyo"
• Re: tv, yu, mo
• Re: tv, yu, mo
• Re[2]: tv, yu, mo
• Re: tv, yu, mo
• Re: Re[2]: YU and TV "sthiko ke'hodoyo"
• Re: tv, yu, mo
• Re: Re[2]: YU and TV "sthiko ke'hodoyo"
• Re: Re[2]: tv, yu, mo
• Re: TV's in Yeshiva
• Re[4]: tv, yu, mo
• Nice Vort!
• Re[2]: TV's in Yeshiva
• Re: Re[4]: tv, yu, mo
• Re: Re[2]: TV's in Yeshiva
• Re[6]: tv, yu, mo
• Re[4]: tv, yu, mo
• Re[4]: TV's in Yeshiva
• Re: Re[6]: tv, yu, mo
• Re: Re[4]: tv, yu, mo
• Re: Re[4]: TV's in Yeshiva
• Re: Re[4]: TV's in Yeshiva

1-- If  YU is defined as a Modern Orthodox institution, is it not relevant
to ask whether any of the leadeship of that group is on record as assuring
up tv.  while in principle their rabbis might agree with the idea of a tv
free environment, they either don't have one in their own homes, or aren't
at liberty to make this a fighting point in their community.  Thus, I don't
think one could expect YU to be a tv-free environment and be opulated with
MO youth.

2-- TV isn't eeverything.  I can think of a relative who  was intimidated by
a mossad that brags of  not allowing in TV-owning  families [it isn't even
true];  thus this very eidel child was in some way nimna from exposure to a
'purer' derech in torah because of this issue.  I suppose the critics would
ratheer these YU boys be in the coed dorms in Columbia or Yale

In a message dated 98-10-27 13:46:32 EST, you write:

<<  I would like to pick up the shtiko ke'hodoyo thread. >>

Do members of  organizations/mosdot (if this case actually exists)who honor
people for their net worth(material, not spiritual) have a responsibility to
be moche?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

I put a challenge to Reb Newman to find 5 (maybe I'd even go to 1)
students at YU who would not attend YU because there was no public TV. 
I did not propose that YU dictate what people do at home or discriminate
based on personal home practices vis-a-vis TV.  I did propose that IN YU
- an institution that purports to be a Torah institution - there is no
reason to go out of their way to provide a TV for the students.  Rebbeim
are students 'fathers', the Yeshiva is their 'home', if the rebbeim
don't have TV's in their own, private, homes, why should they(as an
institution) provide TV's in their 'public' house?  This is not one of
those - better to have it and draw people here than a goyish school,
issues.

Whether they can preach this in public to MO Jews is irrelevant - this
is the Yeshiva - the 'cave' or Ir Miklat if you'd like (to quote R'
Chaim Goldwicht ZT"L).  Every measure should be taken to uphold the
Yeshiva's atmosphere and identity.  I've heard lots of terrible stories
(not to say that's the norm - I am not here to bash YU) from the YU
dorms - this is out of the administartion's hands, but providing a TV
and with cable no less, is not.  In my eyes it is against evrything that
YU stands for (It would be extremely hard to have a mada argument defend
TV - I know goyim who won't have TV's in their houses nowadays!)  BTW,
another 'centrist' yeshiva, my own Skokie Yeshiva in Chicago has a
student lounge without a TV (I assume that still stands)  On certain
occasions - NBA playoffs, NFL playoffs, etc the TV is brought in and the
bochurim wrestle with it to get decent reception as there is no cable. 
This seems to be a decent pshara to me fo "MO".  Could MO parents or
kids defend watching Melrose or South Park within the bounds of MO
halachik thought?


Take care,

Joel


Newman,Saul Z wrote:
> 
> 1-- If  YU is defined as a Modern Orthodox institution, is it not relevant
> to ask whether any of the leadeship of that group is on record as assuring
> up tv.  while in principle their rabbis might agree with the idea of a tv
> free environment, they either don't have one in their own homes, or aren't
> at liberty to make this a fighting point in their community.  Thus, I don't
> think one could expect YU to be a tv-free environment and be opulated with
> MO youth.
> 
> 2-- TV isn't eeverything.  I can think of a relative who  was intimidated by
> a mossad that brags of  not allowing in TV-owning  families [it isn't even
> true];  thus this very eidel child was in some way nimna from exposure to a
> 'purer' derech in torah because of this issue.  I suppose the critics would
> ratheer these YU boys be in the coed dorms in Columbia or Yale

-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386

Joel Margolies wrote:
> 
> I put a challenge

Havn't your chaps had enough?
Is this what R.YGB calls a "High Level Torah Discussion?"
It is amazing how many "zadikim" enjoy bashing a Torah institution. 
Enough is enough. For the last two days noone has been able to write 
anything but to denigrade YU.
SHAME! SHAME!
steve katz

     Points well taken Joel.  TV is highly questionable.  I did spend time 
     wathcing hockey/basketball/etc. and some unnamed dignitraies 
     occasionally popped in to see th World Seires.
     
     Just to put this in perspective.
     
     I attended  Yeshiva X with a flat roof without a Maakeh.  I questioned 
     it and was given the "party" line that the roof was off limits etc.  
     Or in plain Enlish, they rationalized away a mitzvo mid'oraiso
     
     Later, when I went to YU I noticed that virtually EVERY accesible roof 
     had a Maakeh.
     
     Does this now give me the right to PROVE that Yeshiva X is lon a lower 
     madreigo than YU?
     
Let's face it, there is a lot of shmutz on TV, but that is hardly the reason 
people choose that medium to bash YU.  People who want to bash YU will bash it 
even if Dr. Norman Lamm were to personally remove every TV within 2000 amos of 
YU.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________



  Could MO parents or kids defend watching Melrose or South Park within 
the bounds of MO halachik thought?
     
     
Take care,
     
Joel
     

In a message dated 10/27/98 2:27:36 PM EST, Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org writes:

> 1-- If  YU is defined as a Modern Orthodox institution, is it not relevant
>  to ask whether any of the leadeship of that group is on record as assuring
>  up tv.  while in principle their rabbis might agree with the idea of a tv
>  free environment, they either don't have one in their own homes, or aren't
>  at liberty to make this a fighting point in their community.  Thus, I don't
>  think one could expect YU to be a tv-free environment and be opulated with
>  MO youth.

If (and only "if") there are Poskim who rule according to Halacha that TV is
permissible, and YU accepts them as their Poseik (otherwise as the Gemoroh
says in Eiruvin that one who adopts the Kuloh of both is a Rosho), then they
have the right to do so, OTOH they would have to consider whether this would
reduce their registration as for those who follow the Poskim who Ossur they
would not be able to attend any mandatory TV viewing.

 >  2-- TV isn't everything.  I can think of a relative who  was intimidated
by
>  a mossad that brags of  not allowing in TV-owning  families [it isn't even
>  true];  thus this very eidel child was in some way nimna from exposure to a
>  'purer' derech in torah because of this issue.  I suppose the critics would
>  ratheer these YU boys be in the coed dorms in Columbia or Yale

Again this should be an issue viewed Al Pi Halacha.

BTW in the Yale case the administration explained that the coed dorms was part
of the Yale experience, well guess what Clinton is a perfect example of that
experience.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

In a message dated 10/27/98 1:46:32 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

>       I would like to pick up the shtiko ke'hodoyo thread.
>       
>       There is a concept, that someone wh ohas the power to be "moche" is 
>       obligated to do so.  In an open/free society, just who has this power?
>        
>       And if there is ANY deviation or abuse in any Yeshiva, are the 
>       talimidim who fail to take up the cudgels responsible?

A Talmid who sees his teacher doing wrong is obligated to be "Moche" see Yoreh
Deioh 242:22

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

In a message dated 10/27/98 3:43:28 PM EST, margol@ms.com writes:

> I put a challenge to Reb Newman to find 5 (maybe I'd even go to 1)
>  students at YU who would not attend YU because there was no public TV. 

And/or how many would he lose if he did have it there.

>  I did not propose that YU dictate what people do at home or discriminate
>  based on personal home practices vis-a-vis TV. 

Lav Davkoh as an educational institution it would at least be their obligation
to teach their Talmidim right from wrong.  As the Gemoroh says Daatayhu Alayhu
that a good teacher is concerned about the student even out of school,
(however as far as discriminating we get involved in the Sugia of Taalmid
Sheino Hogun , etc.).

> I did propose that IN YU
>  - an institution that purports to be a Torah institution - there is no
>  reason to go out of their way to provide a TV for the students.  Rebbeim
>  are students 'fathers', the Yeshiva is their 'home', if the rebbeim
>  don't have TV's in their own, private, homes, why should they(as an
>  institution) provide TV's in their 'public' house?  This is not one of
>  those - better to have it and draw people here than a goyish school,
>  issues.

Great and IMHO very true.

>  (it would be extremely hard to have a mada argument defend
>  TV - I know goyim who won't have TV's in their houses nowadays!)  

Well how about the discovery channel? and other excuses that can be come up
with
 
>  within the bounds of MO  halachik thought?

What is that? are there different sets of Halacha (Toras Kol Echod B'yodoy)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

In a message dated 10/27/98 2:32:53 PM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:

> Do members of  organizations/mosdot (if this case actually exists)who honor
>  people for their net worth(material, not spiritual) have a responsibility
to
>  be moche?

While not suggesting a rent strike if an organization violates Halacha (if
that is the case) then one who supports them is a "Misayoh Ldvar Aveiroh".

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

In a message dated 10/27/98 5:16:17 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> I attended  Yeshiva X with a flat roof without a Maakeh.  I questioned 
>       it and was given the "party" line that the roof was off limits etc.  
>       Or in plain Enlish, they rationalized away a mitzvo mid'oraiso
>       
>       Later, when I went to YU I noticed that virtually EVERY accesible roof
>       had a Maakeh.
>       

The Halacha is that the roof of a Beis Haknesses or Beis Hamidrash is Pottur
from Maakeh, since it is not at all common to use them, and that is why roofs
in our days are Pottur (Yoreh Deioh 427:1,3) OTOH if it is used is a different
issue.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

Just to (hopefully) wrap this thread up - 

Below is the original quote that started this thread (I believe).  This
one and at least one other made it clear that we were not trying to bash
YU.  All yeshivas could use improvement in one way or another and I
think that the original intent of the post was to point out(hopefully in
order to spur positive change, as we do have YU administration on our
list) that there is something seriously wrong with some of the policies
at YU.  I personally feel that YU provides an excellent atmosphere for
someone dedicated to limud Torah and am generally in the position
defending YU from it's bashers (If YU would take care of issues like TV
in the dorms - it would be a lot easier to defend!!)  Additionally - to
respond to Steve Katz's post...  Last night I made a comment that
hopefully the thread was done.  The only reason I posted at all was to
stem the tide before posts became inflammatory as was apparent to me in
the tone in one of the responses in the very beginning.

Hopefully, I was able to be marbitz a little torah if people will
continue the shetika k'hoda'a dami thread...

Take care,

Joel

PS Rich - 1) The ma'akeh issue doesn't seem to me to be detrimental to
the bochurim (unless they fall off the roof, of course), whereas TV
lends itself to a bad atmosphere.  2)  If you feel strongly about the
ma'akeh issue - call the Yeshiva and speak to them about it. 

Noone was comparing YU to any other yeshiva - just picking out a
particularly disturbing policy that should easily be corrected.  (And
2000 amos isn't enough, maybe 5000...)     

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
> 
> I have, c"v, nothing against the institution that granted Semicha (Yoreh
> Yoreh :-) ) to my esteemed brother in law, R' Chaim Brown. But, in a
> recent issue of "The Commentator" supplied to me by our Chaver
> (honorific!) Steve Katz, there was a long essay about the "South Park"
> minyan - an under five minute Ma'ariv Minyan to enable its participants to
> be in time for the beginning of a TV Show that, by the essay's
> description, has X-rated humor, that is watched b'rabbim in student
> lounges.
> 
> With all due respect to Rabbi Teitz, there is something wrong with this
> picture...
> 
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386

     What if the roof from the BM adoins the dorm and anyone can exit from 
     the window onto that roof?
     
     Regards,
     Rich


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________



     
The Halacha is that the roof of a Beis Haknesses or Beis Hamidrash is Pottur 
from Maakeh, since it is not at all common to use them, and that is why roofs 
in our days are Pottur (Yoreh Deioh 427:1,3) OTOH if it is used is a different 
issue.
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     

In a message dated 10/27/98 5:58:14 PM EST, margol@ms.com writes:

> shetika  


As the saying goes "Azoy ve men Ret Shoin Vegen..."  I heard a beautiful
Teitch on the Mamar Chazal "Miloh Bselah Shtikusoh Btrein" (if the word is
worth one Selah keeping quite is worth two).

If Miloh Bselah if Moshe Rabbeinu O"H would have spoken to the Selah then
Shtikusoh Btrein 2 people would have been quiet referring to Eldod and Meidod
who prophesied that Moshe Meis and Yehoshua Machnis.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok 

     By the way, I am on record is this thread of questioning TV at YU.  I 
     also confess to being mevatle many hours there myself..
     
     My point was that the hanholo of Yeshiva X was NOT mekaelb my pitiful 
     macho'o, and that despite a halochic loophole they also taught me that 
     it is OK to evade a basic mitzo d'oraiso if you are savyy enough to 
     know how.  In other words they did not play it straight IMHO.
     
     I don't think that Yeshiva X was all around Possul, I do think people 
     selectively bash certain institutions
        

        The buliding in quesiton was demolished about 12 years ago.  I never 
felt strongly about it until my passions were aroused by this thread.

        It's awefully nice to be makpid on YU's or anyone else's shortcoming; I 
wonder how many of us would be willing to live up to kshot atzmecho v'achar kach
k'shot acheirim?

Regards,
Richard Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: TV's in Yeshiva 

     
PS Rich - 1) The ma'akeh issue doesn't seem to me to be detrimental to 
the bochurim (unless they fall off the roof, of course), whereas TV 
lends itself to a bad atmosphere.  2)  If you feel strongly about the 
ma'akeh issue - call the Yeshiva and speak to them about it. 
     
Noone was comparing YU to any other yeshiva - just picking out a 
particularly disturbing policy that should easily be corrected.  (And 
2000 amos isn't enough, maybe 5000...)     
     

In a message dated 10/27/98 6:04:37 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> What if the roof from the BM adoins the dorm and anyone can exit from 
>       the window onto that roof?

I anticipated this question and therefore mentioned that it depends on the use
of the roof whether it is used or not perhaps if the students used it for
playing hooky it would be obligated.  Which reminds me of when I was in a
Yeshiva Dormitory and in order to avoid being caught in bed the students broke
thru a closet wall between 2 bedrooms for a passage way, then they called in a
RAV whether it is Chayov B'mzuzoh.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

In a message dated 10/27/98 6:15:14 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> My point was that the hanholo of Yeshiva X was NOT mekaelb my pitiful 
>       macho'o, and that despite a halochic loophole they also taught me that
>       it is OK to evade a basic mitzo d'oraiso if you are savyy enough to 
>       know how.  In other words they did not play it straight IMHO.

I was not responding vis-a-vis Yeshivahs, (as I am not criticizing nor
condoning the actions of YU).  There are clear Halachos regarding Maakeh if it
is Pottur it is not a loophole, and OTOH if it is Pottur why be M'vazveiz
Momon Tzibur.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

     I'm not paskeing the shei'lo either way.  The roof in question was 
     easily accessifbel via the windows of about 12 dorm rooms.  When 
     footballs would get caught up there, we could easily retrieve it.
     
I don't question the halocho here.  I question the hashkofo being taught the 
students.  this was after all a public roof accessible to virtually every 
student.  In an American court of law, would the yeshiva bin quesiton been 
liable had someone fallen off that roof?

Think about the implications of the lack of Maakeh

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
     
I anticipated this question and therefore mentioned that it depends on the use 
of the roof whether it is used or not perhaps if the students used it for 
playing hooky it would be obligated.  Which reminds me of when I was in a 
Yeshiva Dormitory and in order to avoid being caught in bed the students broke 
thru a closet wall between 2 bedrooms for a passage way, then they called in a 
RAV whether it is Chayov B'mzuzoh.
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     

     Ok if Yeshiva X is kosher how about this one:
     
     I used to daven Mincho in yeshiva Y.  When I was an ovel for my father 
     OH, they picked a rebbe to daven for teh amud over me because he was 
     saying kaddish over his father-in-law.
     
     How say you?
     
     Regards,
     Rich


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

>       
     
The Halacha is that the roof of a Beis Haknesses or Beis Hamidrash is Pottur 
from Maakeh, since it is not at all common to use them, and that is why roofs 
in our days are Pottur (Yoreh Deioh 427:1,3) OTOH if it is used is a different 
issue.
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     

By the way all of the roofs in question are flat.  I don't hink this is typical 
of most roofs, 

Also you may have a point, but it was one that was NOT made by the Yeshiva in 
question.

I mean talk about mari's ayin??  cheshad?  Shouldn't this Yeshiva at least 
published its psak?  If I care enough about it 30 years later, how many others 
might be toeh?


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: TV's in Yeshiva 

     
I was not responding vis-a-vis Yeshivahs, (as I am not criticizing nor 
condoning the actions of YU).  There are clear Halachos regarding Maakeh if it 
is Pottur it is not a loophole, and OTOH if it is Pottur why be M'vazveiz 
Momon Tzibur.
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     

In a message dated 10/27/98 6:29:23 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

>  I don't question the halocho here.  I question the hashkofo being taught
the 
>  students.  this was after all a public roof accessible to virtually every 
>  student.  In an American court of law, would the yeshiva bin quesiton been 
>  liable had someone fallen off that roof?
>  


If it was actually used (not accessible) then it may be Chayov.  The
possibility of liability in an American court of law is not the criteria of
obligation Midoreisoh, that would be at most an Issue of Dinoh D'malchusoh
Dinoh (if it applied in this case).

>  Think about the implications of the lack of Maakeh

Yes, that would be a concern since from a financial side (even of the law of
the land was not an issue here) the lack of one could cost many times more
then putting one up.


Kol Tuv

Yitzchok  

In a message dated 10/27/98 6:34:09 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Ok if Yeshiva X is kosher how about this one:

It is not my job to give Hechsheirim :-)  (and that was not the point in my
response).

>       
>       I used to daven Mincho in yeshiva Y.  When I was an ovel for my father
>       OH, they picked a rebbe to daven for teh amud over me because he was 
>       saying kaddish over his father-in-law.
>       
>       How say you?

You go to the Rav of that city and ask him, what ever he rules is binding on
all those that are Tachas Morusoy.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

In a message dated 10/27/98 6:39:08 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> I mean talk about mari's ayin??  cheshad?  Shouldn't this Yeshiva at least 
>  published its psak?  If I care enough about it 30 years later, how many 
> others 
>  might be toeh?

While there are a few laws that specify not to do in front of ignorant people,
WRT Maakeh it does not say so, and roofs are not B'chadrei Chadorim.  (BTW the
Halacha is even where they are flat).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

In a message dated 10/27/98 6:53:01 PM EST, Yzkd@aol.com writes:

> While there are a few laws that specify not to do in front of ignorant
people,
> 
>  WRT Maakeh it does not say so,

It is not to suggest that you are C"V ignorant, I apologize if anyone
understood it as such

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]