Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 353

Thursday, February 10 2000

• [none]
• Re: Beano
• Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Re: lived together but a breed apart (was "Re[2]: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and...
• Re: publishing letters - issur?
• Piyutim/yotzros
• Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of History
• Beano
• Re: Beano
• Re: Smoking and Halocho
• Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of HistoricalEvidence
• Re: Beano
• re: Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Re:Beano
• Video cameras
• Chutzpah

Can anyone provide me with a link to
Soc.culture.jewish?

Many thanks.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Fabry's disease is a rare, X-linked recessive inborn error of
glycosphingolipid metabolism which presents with angiokeratomas,
cardiomyopathy, congenital heart disease, burning pain in the extremities
and renal failure (usually resulting in death). The missing enzyme ?
alpha-galactosidase.

And now, for the $64,000 question: guess what is the major ingredient
of the OTC (over the counter) pharmaceutical for treating oligosaccharide
intolerance (PEYRUSH RASHI: eating too much chulent) called Beano ?
alpha-galactosidase. And that's why it's contraindicated in patients with
the disease galactosemia. The enzyme breaks down complex sugars into
simple sugars which can be digested.

Beano comes in liquid form and in tablets.

The enzyme is grown on a food-grade mold.

So much for the medical info.

Halachically, although the tablets would be preferable over the liquid
Beano, many Poskim have allowed the ingestion of nonkosher medications
(see: Achiezer Chelek Gimmel 31; Shach YD 239 s"k 20; Shu"t Ha'Elef lecha
Shlomo YD 202; Tzitz Eliezer Chelek Vav 16 & Chlek Zayin 32 Oht Chet;
She'arim Metzuyanim B'halacha 47 s"k 5.

Josh

I don't think the issue of the SE letters is all that complicated. 

Whatever the halacha might or might not be on revealing the contents of 
letters intended to be private when written, the facts recorded by the 
letters -- in this case, the raw truth of what the SE really thought about a 
controversial issue of Jewish law -- belongs to history, not to the rabbi. 
The legal analogue, in the America and the U.K., anyway, is the law of 
copyright. Several famous American and English writers have asserted a 
copyright over their private correspondence. No one, not even a legitimate 
biographer, can quote the letters verbatim without permission. But the facts 
revealed by the letters cannot be copyrighted. 

I cannot imagine that halacha dictates a different result. History belongs to 
HaShem (literally!), not to the people, big or small, who create it. It's our 
job to try to understand history as accurately as possible. The rules of 
analysis contained in Talmud are essential to us in reaching that 
understanding. We'll never really succeed completely, but we're obligated to 
try. Ignoring what actually did or did not happen can't be part of that 
obligation.

Having said all that, I'd appreciate it if someone could come up with some 
cites to prove me correct.

David Finch

In a message dated 2/9/00 4:39:58 PM US Central Standard Time, 
MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:

<< In Avodah 4#351, RWolpoe responded:
 > ok how about Washington/Adams/Jefferson? <smile> <
 Almost as bad as Hamilton/Burr/Jefferson :-).
  >>

In Chicago, Washington and Adams each intersect Jefferson in the Near West 
Side. I don't know about Hamilton, but there's plenty of "Burr!" all over the 
city this time of year when the wind whips off of Lake Michigan.

David Finch

He has none.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: publishing letters - issur?


> Then perhaps his legal heirs gave permission?
> 

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:50:17 -0500
From: sambo <sambo@charm.net>
Subject: Re: Piyutim/yotzros, was: Ga'al Yisrael

<<45 minutes would be nice, but is it worth the trade-off of dropping
other
parts of the mahazor?>>

	Ikar and tafel?

Gershon

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:52:19 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Histor

<<I do not know how you can put them all in the same breath!

It is tantamount to saying "the Lubavitcher/Satmer/Breslover
hashkafos"!>>

	Or "Chabakuk" ?  

Gershon

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:33:01 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[2]: Beano 

<<Pesach isn't only about Kashrus, rather it's  also about supporting
Jewish 
enterprises that rely upon Pesach for parnosso, etc.>>

	I hardly think subsidizing someone's overpriced product    (this means
not only toothpaste,  but "nisht gevasheneh eyer" and every other
narishkeit which has a hechsher because someone is willing to pay for it)
  because he made it for Pesach is in and of itself an obligation.  And
what about all the people who buy it despite the fact that they can't
afford it and nobody told them they don't have to?

	How far can this be reduced ad absurdum?

Gershon

In a message dated 2/9/00 5:02:00 PM US Central Standard Time, 
kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:

<< There is a very important point which no one has yet mentioned about Beano.
 
 IT'S NOT MEDICINE !!!
 
 I don't remember where I heard this, but Beano and Lactaid are not medicines
 in any sense of the term. In no way do they have any kind of therapeutic
 effect on the person. Their effect is directly on the food, to make the food
 more digestible. It therefore has none of the halachos of medicines, and all
 the halachos of food additives, like colorings, flavorings, vitamins, etc.
  >>

Unlike food colorings, flavorings, etc., Beano has a very immediate and 
favorable physical effect. Indeed, Beano makes it possible for people with 
delicate stomachs to eat the food of their ancestors. If it isn't medicine, 
it works like medicine, and serves a medical purpose. 

Knishes, potato latkes cooked in goose fat, gribenes, Ukrainian-style gefilte 
fish with Triple-X horseradish, sweet-and-sour pike (heads included), cholent 
with fava beans (and a nice kosher Chianti): Are these not worth preserving 
as symbols of our people? How can we eat them without Beano? In view of their 
vital historical importance to all of us, how can one say that Beano lacks 
the requisite halachos?

I don't understand this argument at all.

David Finch

----- Original Message -----
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Smoking and Halocho

> Is bad and stupid accurately translated as al pi mussar and curtailing
> ta'avo?  Is smoking indeed on the same level as gluttony and a few
> notches less of a concern than conspicuous consumption?  Remember we are
> talking about something that is killing thousands if not tens of
> thousands of yidden a year (that's a conservative estimate).  Is that
> how high Yahadus rates the self induced destruction of a human life?
>

Yes, in my opinion that is pretty high. Higher than mere halachic
observance. You do not agree. That is the crux of our disagreement. Not what
you propose in your next paragraph. As the GRO says in Even Sheleima,
Sheviras ha'Middos is the quintessential pursuit of life.

> If that is indeed your position, then, I agree, it is not have I have
> said - rather what it indicates is that your understanding of some of
> the fundamental values underlying Yahadus are radically different to, I
> suspect, most of the others on the list.  Most others I would suspect,
> intuitively feel that Yahadus places a very high premium on the
> preservation of human life.  Not to the exclusion of all else, there
> are, as you know, situations in which life must be given up for higher
> values.  But very close to the top of the list.  Most of our
> understanding of what Yahadus values comes from halacha, everything from
> fencing roofs to being mechallel shabbas for the preservation of human
> life.  But out of all this comes a sense of underlying principle which
> is violated when jeopardising a human life (albeit it slowly and over
> long periods of time) is placed on the same level as walking around with
> a smile on one's face.  It just does not have the feel of emes to most
> people.  People expect something stronger, something closer to the core
> values of Torah, which are preserved by halachic fiat.  It is not that
> there is only halacha.  Rather halacha (psak/takana) is the ultimate
> expression of the underlying Torah values and the closer the expression
> is to psak (and a cry of the heart from a Gadol is very close) the
> stronger it is within Yahadus.
>

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Clark, Eli <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
To: avodah list <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 4:36 PM
Subject: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence


> RYGB writes:
>
> >Hmm. I was moved to do some cursory research. Look at the Sdei Chemed
> >Ma'areches ha'Mem 77:13. The deficit of mitzva ha'aba'ah b'aveira is
> >permanent. Thus, while the donation does not constitute a further aveira,
> >the cheftza (as in lulav shel asheira) remains tainted. So, the illicitly
> >published letters remain tainted, and, as such, should be considered
> >"muktzeh machmas me'us" by any ethically inclined individual (i.e., the
> >Avodah membership).
>
> I am not convinced.  In the case of a lulav shel asherah, the hefetz is
> intrinsically assur and remains so until the hefetz undergoes bittul by
> an oved avodah zarah.  Indeed, in the case of a lulav shel asherah,
> there is the additional problem of mihtat shiureih.
>

The SC there is aware of the kitutei mechtat sevara and discussing the other
angle, ayain sham heitev. How can you be convinced without at leasta peek?

> The question here is whether words of a dead person that were published
> in violation of some supposed issur regarding privacy retain their
> taint.  The issur is difficult for me to analyze because I am not clear
> on its source.  But assuming that it relates to privacy, I think the
> taint disappears as soon as the information ceases being private.  (An
> analogy to lashon ha-ra leaps to mind.)  After all, the problem is
> publicizing a private letter.  If  the letter is no longer private, then
> one is now publicizing a public letter and therefore not violating the
> issur.
>

See the Encyclopedia Talmudit entry on CDRG. It is based more on theft than
on LH. And, thus, it is at least rudimentarily analogous to theft of
intellectual property. So, continued use is tantamount to continued theft.

> Regarding RYGB's broader claims that (a) the TuM journal is trying to
> score ideological points and (b) that the letters may be interpreted as
> not true expressions of R. Weinberg's thoughts:
>
> First, it saddens me that RYGB apparently views so much of life in terms
> of the ideological conflict between MO and RW.  I have found this
> worldview typical of the Jewish Observer, but not ecountered it
> elsewhere.
>

It pains me to have caused you sadness, particularly in Adar, but I hope you
will find some solace in agreeably disagreeing with me.

Did I mention MO? I think not. Did I even disparage TuM? I think not as
well. I merely pointed out the agenda of the latter's house journal. But I
guess writing for the JO has given me a certain worldview... Funny how it
springs on you without you even realizing it!

> Second, the thrust of the article was that R. Weinberg maintained a
> friendship with Prof. Atlas, not that R. Weinberg subscribed to a
> particular worldview.  RYGB is free to reject this friendship thesis as
> well, although much evidence exists outside the article, including R.
> Weinberg's haskamah  -- and hearot -- to Atlas's Hiddushei ha-Raavad to
> Bava Kama (at least it appears in the copy on my shelf, a photo offset
> published by your basic frum seforim press).
>

If that was the entire thrust of the essay - we knew that.

> Third, R. Weinberg's moral qualms regarding certain halakhot were
> expressed in other forums as well, as I recall, including published
> articles.  I believe this was documented in the following issue of the
> TuM Journal.
>

It was? I found the documentation distinctly lacking. I felt it was a
concerted effort to dredge up more "dirt" that was *not* known or meant to
meant to be known.

> Fourth, it is common knowledge that R. Weinberg had a Ph.D.  That alone
> seems to classify his weltanschauung somewhat, at least with respect to
> university education, and strikes me as far more significant than the
> letters discussed in the article in the TuM Journal.  Also, as charter
> members of Bnei Akiva know, he gave a qualified heter to mixed youth
> groups.  And he wrote a famous teshuvah on kol ishah.  So I think most
> people might already suspect that R. Weiberg's hashkafah was not
> identical to that of, say, the Hazon Ish or R. Dessler.
>

You see, the TuM essay was successful! People who know very little more
about the SE now assume he was much more of a TuMnik than an associate of
the CI or R' Dessler. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth
(well, I guess that's an exaggeration, but we do like hyperbole).

Many fine people had Ph.D.'s and were adamantly opposed to TuM. Rabbi Dr.
Joseph Breuer comes to mind.

As a former member of Bnei Akiva (Shevet Re'ut) who gave a pe'ulah on this
teshuva of the SE long ago, let me note that his heter was given to a far
more right wing youth group, and that ardent BAniks find it wholly
inadequate and far too RW for those prurposes.

Again, as documented by the new RD Joseph Breuer bio, the Agudath Israel
youth group in Washington Heights (not, again, exactly, a bastion of TuM,
despite its neighbor across the neighborhood) was mixed, by special
dispensation to the Yekkes, well into the Sixties.

As to his hashkofo, who knows to whom it was closer? He was an ardent
Mussarist - not exactly standard for a TuMnik, and, when you open a SE and
see teshuvos that begin with "yedid nafshi" and other honorifics addressed
to people named Gifter, Breish, Lopian and Hurwitz (the last now one of the
Dayanim of the Eida Charedis) - one has some idea with whom he felt most
associated.

> Fifth, words cannot describe how dubious I find RYGB's proposed attempts
> to "re-interpret" the letters.  As both of us know, there are many
> things a public figure will say in private that he cannot say in public.
>  This is certainly true in the Torah community.  Therefore, private
> correspondence is more likely to be an accurate reflection and
> expression of a person's thoughts.  Indeed, in one of his letters to
> Atlas, R. Weinberg states that he cannot reveal his innermost thoughts
> to anyone but Atlas.  (Of course, this could also be hyperbole or an
> attempt at kiruv; also I could be a secret opponent of TuM who is being
> paid to provoke charter members of the yeshiva world to reveal their
> otherwise secret devotion to TuM.) Moreover, I think that if the letters
> could be easily reinterpeted, R. Weingort would not have expressed his
> strong opposition to their publication.
>

Words cannot describe how dubious I find REC's proposed attempts to cobine
us that one set of selected letters to one specific inividual capture the
hashkafic profile of that person, particulary a complex Gadol b'Yisroel.
There is no need to re-ntepret the letters. R' Weingort, as noted by RJJS,
if I recall correctly, had thought these letters would  be published in some
otherjournal. Vos is der chilluk? Hu asher dibbarti leimor - context is
everything. Sorry- I feel an urgent need to make a sweeping statement -
Yahadus, via CDRG, has very specific notions about that context.

But if you are a secret agent, could you please let me know privately? I
won't tell anyone (although someone might publish our private correspondence
someday in the TuM journal :-) ).

> Perhaps RYGB himself was getting carried away, but I do not believe that
> anyone -- let alone a trained historian like the author of the TuM
> article  -- would claim that a private letter contains the "definitive,
> accurate and final reflections" of the letter writer.  But I think most
> people would assume that they contain an accurate picture of what he
> felt at the time that he wrote it.  That is certainly my assumption.
>
> On the other hand, what a person writes to an e-mail list with 100's of
> subcribers may not be what he or she really thinks.  And I am definitely
> not going to tell anyone here what I really think!
>

Too bad. I try to.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

I can't prove you correct if you're wrong :-). The letters contained no
facts. Only data.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <DFinchPC@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of
HistoricalEvidence


> I don't think the issue of the SE letters is all that complicated.
>
> Whatever the halacha might or might not be on revealing the contents of
> letters intended to be private when written, the facts recorded by the
> letters -- in this case, the raw truth of what the SE really thought about
a
> controversial issue of Jewish law -- belongs to history, not to the rabbi.
> The legal analogue, in the America and the U.K., anyway, is the law of
> copyright. Several famous American and English writers have asserted a
> copyright over their private correspondence. No one, not even a legitimate
> biographer, can quote the letters verbatim without permission. But the
facts
> revealed by the letters cannot be copyrighted.
>
> I cannot imagine that halacha dictates a different result. History belongs
to
> HaShem (literally!), not to the people, big or small, who create it. It's
our
> job to try to understand history as accurately as possible. The rules of
> analysis contained in Talmud are essential to us in reaching that
> understanding. We'll never really succeed completely, but we're obligated
to
> try. Ignoring what actually did or did not happen can't be part of that
> obligation.
>
> Having said all that, I'd appreciate it if someone could come up with some
> cites to prove me correct.
>
> David Finch
>

[[[ Listmember Avram Sacks <Avram_Sacks@cch.com> asked me to post this
for him: ]]]

Hi.  I am not a doctor, but rather, a lawyer who has access to a 1996 PDR
for non-prescription drugs.  Beano is listed.  As you correctly note, it
does not act on the body, but on the food.  According to the information
in the listing, its active ingredient is alpha-D-galactosidase, derived
from Aspergillus niger mold.  The enzyme hydrolyzes raffinose, verbascose
and stachyose into sucrose, fructose, glucose, and galactose. Beano drops
contain the enzyme in a liquid carrier of water and sorbitol. The tablets
contain the enzyme in a carrier of corn starch, sorbitol, mannitol, and
hydrogenated cottonseed oil.    Although Beano is an enzyme that involves
a chemical reaction with food, by so interacting, it has an indirect
effect on the physiological processes in the body to the extent that it
reduces flatulence by converting complex sugars into their monosaccharide
components.   Must a chemical have a direct effect in order to be
considered a medication?

As for Lactaid, the PDR says that the drops are the enzyme lactase,
derived from Kluyveromyces lactic, that hydrolyzes lactose into glucose
and galactose.  It is in a carrier of water and glycerin.  The 1996
edition states that it is certified kosher by the OU.   The product
description for the caplets list a half dozen inert ingredients and there
is no reference to its kashruth.

[[[ Listmember Avram Sacks <Avram_Sacks@cch.com> asked me to post the
above for him. ]]]

.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the case of the writings of the
Seridei Eish, so I hope everyone will accept this post as speaking of the
more general case, where a person died and there is reason to presume
that he would not have wanted his writings to be made public.

R' Eli Clark writes <<< The question here is whether words of a dead
person that were published in violation of some supposed issur regarding
privacy retain their taint.  The issur is difficult for me to analyze
because I am not clear on its source.  But assuming that it relates to
privacy, I think the taint disappears as soon as the information ceases
being private.  (An analogy to lashon ha-ra leaps to mind.)  After all,
the problem is publicizing a private letter.  If  the letter is no longer
private, then one is now publicizing a public letter and therefore not
violating the issur. >>>

The analogy to lashon hara is quite apt, especially since seforim about
lashon hara also tend to remind people that words spoken in confidence
are expected to remain that way. I could argue against R' Eli's
conclusion by pointing out that the issur of lashon hara remains even
after it becomes public knowledge, but I'm fuzzy on the details of that,
so I'll take a different angle instead.

Namely, let's look for a moment not at what is assur and mutar, but at
what is right and wrong. Let's be less analytical about "taint" and who
has property rights to written correspondence. Let's look at the people
involved. If a person wrote things in confidence to a close friend or
relative, isn't it plainly and simply *wrong* for others to read it?

Why has there been a presumption that rights to privacy end when a person
dies? The Torah is concerned with the feelings of dead people too!
Whatever the technical parameters of the halacha might be, we all
understand how very wrong it is to gawk at a person's body after he has
died. Can't we make a kal vachomer to gawking at his most private
*thoughts*?

R' Clark also wrote <<< As both of us know, there are many things a
public figure will say in private that he cannot say in public.  This is
certainly true in the Torah community.  Therefore, private correspondence
is more likely to be an accurate reflection and expression of a person's
thoughts.  Indeed, in one of his letters to Atlas, R. Weinberg states
that he cannot reveal his innermost thoughts to anyone but Atlas. >>>

I am amazed that this logic is being used to explain why these letters
*should* be made public. Isn't it obvious that it should be the other
way? They should remain private, and the fact that one publication has
already published them only makes it worse. If the dead have any
perception at all of what is going on in this world, I shudder to think
of their reaction to being made a spectacle of in this manner.

Even if it is muttar, that doesn't make it right.

Akiva Miller

.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

REC wrote (Avodah V4 #349):

 <<Moreover, the "ill-gotten gain" that RYGB refers to is unclear to me.
  Who gained from the publication of R. Weinberg's letters?  (The TuM
  Journal is generally distributed free of charge; neither the editor
nor
  the contributors receive monetary compensation.)  And even if you say
  that the author of the article or the editor of the journal gained in
  some illicit way, why should a third party, like R. Dratch, not be
  allowed to make use of the information?>>

Although I agree that the phrase mitzva ha'baah b'aveira in this context
is purely homonymous (to use the phrase that R' Micha intoduced in a
different context recently), and worthy of drash at best, with debatable
ethical  ramifications, the argument that the author gains nothing from
publication is somewhat disingenuous, IMHO.

Aside from the-  perhaps less evaluable but nonetheless valuable- 
benefits of name recognition and prestige for the professional
historian, there is the very real and tangible financial benefit of
academic promotion for the young assistant professor whose upward
mobility depends on peer-reviewed publications.  Even for the tenured
person, the invited lectures that come on the heels of new, interesting
publications are a real benefit.  One may not be in it for the money,
but the $$ that come with promotion are a psik reisha d'nicha lei
(homonymous usage).

Sincerely,
David Eisenman

On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 at 18:01:46 (EST) in Avodah V4 #352, R. Kenneth
Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

<< There is a very important point which no one has yet mentioned about
Beano.

 IT'S NOT MEDICINE !!!

 I don't remember where I heard this, but Beano and Lactaid are not
medicines
 in any sense of the term. In no way do they have any kind of
therapeutic
 effect on the person. Their effect is directly on the food, to make the
food
 more digestible. It therefore has none of the halachos of medicines,
and all
 the halachos of food additives, like colorings, flavorings, vitamins,
etc....
... I searched the archives of both Avodah and Mail-Jewish, hoping to
find
 something more authoritative, but I came back empty-handed. I know we
have a
 few MD's on the list -- what do you think?>>

I think in to a doctor  lactaid pills would be considered medicine since
they are taken to replace the function of a deficient enzyme, but I
don't think that for the chakira you are making it is a medical issue,
rather an halachic question of how to define a trufah vs. a food
additive.  I have no ideas about that one.

Sincerely, 
David Eisenman

The follwoing appeared on MJ. I am loathe to take up the topic there, but
would like to take it up here:

Rabbi Adler raised the question of using a video camera on
Shabbos. Walking by a video camera which is on causes changes in
electronic impulse, much as speaking into a microphone does, and is
therefore prohibited. So while placing the camera on a tripod before
Shabbos avoids handling muktzeh, is still assur.

I do not understand what issur might be involved in changing an existing
electronic impulse on Shabbos.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

<First of all, it takes a certain amount of Chutzpah for anyone on this list
to presume to summarize the stand of Judaism, on this or any point. Not that
you are not capable, but the forum is so restrictive as to make it nearly
impossible.>
I am glad that the Rav does not read his own email and relies upon me to do
so. As we get closer to Purim the spirit of "v'nahafoch hu" is present.
Perhaps the chutzpah lies in the above statement. Indeed, the Rav is
presently in Eretz Yisrael where he is meeting with several of Moranon
v'Rabbanon including Moreinu HaRav Elyashiv. I have pressed the Rav to
discuss the impact of this list (and others like it) with them. He has
refused (explaining that several fine Talmidei Chachomim write on it).
However, I am personally convinced that he should. I, however, don't have
the chutzpah to do more than suggest. I, for one, certainly respect the
Rav's decision.
Ari
Beis Din Secretary

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]