Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 394

Thursday, February 24 2000

• Re: Chilonim/Charedim, Problems and Solutions
• TuM/TIDE/RSRH/W-t; was: Halacha and...
• Halacha and...
• Re: Halacha and...
• Re: Denigrating frum sociopaths
• skepticism, deism, science
• Re[4]: Halacha and...
• Re: Halacha and...
• Re: Halacha and...
• Re: Study of History
• Re: Halacha and...
• Re: Chilonim/Charedim, Problems and Solutions
• Torah and ...
• Study of History
• Re:haredim and Chilonim
• Re[2]: Chilonim/Charedim, Problems and Solutions
• frum sociopaths
• Hallel in Shul on Pesach Night
• Re: Avodah V4 #391
• Re: Haredi Bashing

Divinity schools are not Torah Lishma.

Learning Torah lishma is NOT a deferment

Learning to become a clergymen IS.

The US could have yanked the deferment very easily nad draft boards could have 
harassed many individuals despite the constitutional garantees.

And I do NOT man to imply that other yeshivos produced ZERO cahpalins, just that
they did not take the achrayus to fill the quotas.

Richard_Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


I wonder if anyone in the yeshiva velt who availed themselves of  this 
deferement ever took the time to give YU a "yasher koach"?>>

	They should all line up right behind the galachim.  This being America, 
B"H the government could not deny ministry/divinity students deferments 
based upon their religion.  So while the men in uniform certainly owe a 
yasher koach to YU for providing chaplains,  I am dubious that the other 
yeshivas do.

Gershon

> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:36:00 -0600
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: Halacha and...

<<Acronyms: SE - Seridei Eish;   TIDE - Torah im Derech Eretz;    RSRH  -
Rav
> Samson Refael Hirsch;   TuM - Torah uMadda.>>

	Yum.  But can we restrict this,  as in the (other <g>?) scholarly
journals,  to  *nonstandard*  abbreviations?

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:43:41 -0500
> From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
> Subject: Re: Halacha and...
 
> In Avodah 4#392, CSherer replied:
> > I understood the difference between TuM and TIDE to be that TIDE
> regards (most or all) secular learning as a necessary evil, while
> TuM regards it as an integral component of Avodas Hashem. <
> I can't speak to TuM, but I disagree with your statement
> re TIDE.  If an area of secular learning can be used as
> a means towards Avodas HaShaim, it's necessary (or,
> if you will, a necessary good), not a necessary evil.
> 
> (I then saw that) GDubin replied:
> > I am not sure that your characterization of TIDE's viewpoint on 
> secular learning is entirely correct.  My impression is that it was a 
> "lechatchila" ,  not,  as you describe,  a hora'as sha'ah or a
bediavad. <
> [[Netiquette violation censored]] Carl, have you
> flown a white flag yet? :-)

	Did I do something wrong?

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>> [[Netiquette violation censored]] Carl, have you
flown a white flag yet? :-) <<
GDubin replied:
> Did I do something wrong? <
Not at all (and my apologies for not being clear):
I "violated" Netiquette by agreeing with you (and
was "censoring" the "I agree" part of my reply)!

While I'm being agreeable, many thanks to EClark
for his erudite words on the subject.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

>>If someone arrives late in shul and finds the minyan already saying zemirot 
(pesukei dezimra?), and realizes that he will not be able to say the Amidah with
them if he starts from the beginning, what can be done to catch up without 
loosing the spiritual benefits of the tefillot? Must he "make up" what he skips?
What if a person is in a hurry for an appointment, and does not have time to say
the entire seder of the tefillot?>>

>>I know that much of this is different in the Ashkenazi siddur, but there must 
be some comparable list somewhere for you, no?>>

Yes.  There is a machlokes about the least to be said, whether to start with 
birchos kerias shema or to say Baruch She'amar, Ashrei, and Yishtabach before.  
There was a Beis Yitzchak article about 2-3 years ago quoting R. Hershel 
Schachter as paskening like the second opinion.

It is best to say all of the hallelukahs when possible or at least Ashrei and 
the last.  The Aruch HaShulchan has a detailed list of which parts of pesukei 
dezimra have priority over others.

There is also a machlokes over whether one has to "make up" after davenning the 
parts one skipped.  The Gra holds that pesukei dezimra is an introduction to 
tefillah so there is no point in "making it up" afterwards.

Sorry for the lack of mareh mekomos but it is all in one siman in Orach Chaim.

BTW, I heard R. Mordechai Willig saying that these halachahs notwithstanding, it
is a chillul Hashem for a ben Torah to walk in late to davenning.

Our esteemed moderator remarks:

>Science presupposes that events follow strict rules, all of which are
>grounded in the observable and testable. IOW, the miraculous is ruled out
>a priori. Miracles aren't repeatable, and niskatnu hadoros guarantees that
>even the general concept of miracle in the abstract isn't going to be
>testable. Our generation doesn't merit miracles, therefore scientists assume
>there never were any.

>And so, the results produced, unsurprisingly, make sense of things without
>miracles.

This describes a mind-set which is not common amongst scientists. I think 
that most scientists would rather put the matter as follows:

The main goal of science is to understand nature and, specifically, to be 
able to predict the future. Such predictions must be fairly 
specific (I drop a ball off the Empire State bldg and can predict in 
advance when it will hit the ground). The mathematical theories that are 
constructed each have limited scope. One theory works for matter at the 
quantum level, another theory describes chemical reactions, another DNA. 
Nor does the scientist believe that 
the theory "really" describes the real world - it is simply an 
abstraction which is useful. [For instance, the kinetic theory of gases 
has as its base assumption that each molecule is shaped like a tiny 
sphere. We know this to be wildly false, but nevertheless the theory does 
describe what happens to gases.]

Using miracles to help describe nature has a long history of course. The 
trouble with using them in science is NOT that the scientist doesn't 
believe in miracles. The trouble is that you can't predict them (by their 
very definition, they are outside of nature). Hence any theory which 
includes miracles in its basic structure is unuseable. (Would you like to 
depend on a theory of design for airplanes that had miracles built in? 
Bet you'd think twice about flying in such a plane.) The most a scientist 
can say about a miracle in the past is that he doesn't understand it. 
(For instance, the changes in physical laws involved in making "the sun 
stand still" are incredible). But, after all, why should a scientist 
understand a miracle better than anyone else, and why does a frum Jew 
care one way or the other about how a miracle fits into scientific theory?

Two more points:

1- there is so much that we don't understand. Science is not frozen in 
time, but rather keeps plugging away hoping to understand more and more. 

2- Most frum scientists that I know would happily sign on to the view of 
David Hamelech "Ma gadlu maasecha, hashem; meod amku machshevotecha" and 
would add on, thinking of their students, "ish bar lo yeda v'ksil lo 
yavin et zot."   

__________________________________________________________________
Claude Schochet				claude@math.wayne.edu	
					www.math.wayne.edu/~claude
Mathematics Department			313-577-3177	office phone		
Wayne State University		    	313-577-7596	department fax
Detroit, MI 48202
 

Question, what prevented RYBS from speaking out against W-T, esepcially when he 
was requested to do so?

My short answer is that while he was not an advocate of W-T, he was willing to 
tolerate it.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

By contrast, RYBS was *not* a "tinok she'nishba" in the TuM camp! And he 
did not employ Wissenschaft. He felt that TuM was not an admixture of the 
two, which is what Wissenschaft (can we abbreviate tha word to W-t, 
please?) essentially does, but a confrontation of sorts, which through its 
clash builds a person.

Regardless, the adherents of TIDE definitely held it to be l'chatchila and 
la'netzach.

YGB

On 24 Feb 00, at 12:43, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:

> In Avodah 4#392, CSherer replied:
> > I understood the difference between TuM and TIDE to be that TIDE
> regards (most or all) secular learning as a necessary evil, while
> TuM regards it as an integral component of Avodas Hashem. <
> I can't speak to TuM, but I disagree with your statement
> re TIDE.  If an area of secular learning can be used as
> a means towards Avodas HaShaim, it's necessary (or,
> if you will, a necessary good), not a necessary evil.
> 
> (I then saw that) GDubin replied:
> > I am not sure that your characterization of TIDE's viewpoint on secular
> learning is entirely correct.  My impression is that it was a "lechatchila"
> ,  not,  as you describe,  a hora'as sha'ah or a bediavad. <
> [[Netiquette violation censored]] Carl, have you
> flown a white flag yet? :-)

Yup :-) 

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 24 Feb 00, at 13:15, Clark, Eli wrote:

> There is no one definition of any of these terms.  Since R. Hirsch
> coined TIDE (Torah im Derekh Eretz) his definition shjould govern.
> Unfortunately, there is a debate as to whether he saw Torah and culture
> interacting (sometimes called "synthesis") or merely saw that culture
> could complement Torah.  (Based on my reading, Ithinkit was the latter.)
> In either case, Hirsch himself did not believe TIDE was be-diavad or a
> hora'at shaah.   But many people today, including some who claim his
> mantle, have taken that position.  (For an interesting variiation on
> this approach, see R. Klugman's discussion of this issue in his
> otherwise excellent biography of Hirsch.)

I think I got caught up in R. Klugman's discussion, and that's why I 
had an impression of TIDE that the rest of you have - 
overwhelmingly - shot down. One of the things I frankly find difficult 
in understanding Hirsch is that his writings are not available in 
Hebrew or English (AFAIK) except in translation. Which introduces 
a translator's bias.... (I still recall a scathing review a few years ago 
of an English translation of one of Hirsch's writings that appeared in 
a popular Jewish magazine). So I find it kind of hard to separate 
truth from people's agendas here.

Anyone have reading suggestions?

> TuM (Torah u-Mada) does not have the pedigree of TIDE.  The term was
> coined by the president of YU, Dr. Revel, who was a talmid hakham but no
> gadol.  RYBS (that's R. Yosef Ber Soloveitchik) never employed the term,
> nor did he ever write a discussion of the ideology of TuM.  But as a
> practical matter he encouraged people to study in university and
> affirmed that there was value in being engaged in the larger culture.

From what I understand, RSRH would not have disagreed with that 
either.

> R. Lichtenstein (who has discussed the ideology) has stated his
> preference for the phrase Torah u-Hokhmah, the latter term drawn from
> Hazal and Rishonim.  R. Lichtenstein rejects the notion of synthesis.

Again, this sounds more like what others have described as TIDE 
than it does like what they have described as TuM. Or am I reading 
into it?

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In a message dated 2/24/00 9:43:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> "It is no coincidence that the word Chessed always precedes the word Emes 
>  wherever the two terms are used together in the Torah. (For example: 
>  Bereshis 24:49; Shmos 34:6; Yehoshua 2:14) If Emes would precede Chessed, 
we 
> 
>  would never reach Chessed. If our perspective on life would always be 
>  'Truth', then no one would ever be worthy of receiving any Kindness."
>  

The Midrash says Emes Omar Al Yivra.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:07:32 -0500 MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:

<<While I'm being agreeable, many thanks to EClark for his erudite words
on the subject.>>
	Agreed  (you should excuse the expression)

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:55:12 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<Divinity schools are not Torah Lishma.
Learning Torah lishma is NOT a deferment
Learning to become a clergymen IS.>>

	Agreed. Would you say that the yeshivos/roshei yeshivos at large
were/are guilty of genevas da'as in representing themselves as such to
the draft boards?

	 Your assumption is that if YU had not provided chaplains to the army, 
the draft boards would have yanked all exemptions from yeshivos.  Zo
minayin lach?  Mimo nafshoch:  If,  as in the first question above,  they
believed that the yeshivos were training clergymen,  they'd have
maintained the exemption, regardless of the numbers of students or the
availability of chaplains.  If they believed otherwise,  they'd have
yanked them.
		
	Related question:  do you think the Selective Service Administration
really believed that the incidence of divinity students rose as
precipitiously when there was a war on as it dropped when the war ended? 
 To paraphrase,  how much did they know and when did they know it?

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:29:09 -0600
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: Torah and ...

<< Don't stop there :-) -- let's hear your compare&contrast of those
three methodologies with the "har," "sadeh," and "bayis" concepts (or let
me know if you want me to start/keep the ball rolling).>>

	I didn't actually request the web page;  I looked at it when you
referred to it.  I was hoping, as was RMP,  for further clarification of
how it applies to the three philosophies mentioned.

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:58:24 -0500
> From: gil.student@citicorp.com
> Subject: Re: Study of History
 
<< How much of news is NOT  lashon hara?  Does it help if the newspaper
is weekly so the news is probablu already public?>>

	What are the guidelines here?  The newspaper is old news if you listen
to the evening news.  The evening news is outdated by the time it is
aired if you do "all news all the time".  Weekly?  You must be kidding!  

	OTOH,  it has been mentioned many times on this list that history is, 
essentially,  L"H,  with debate currently swirling about whether it is
leto'eles or not.

	So,  what are the guidelines?

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

PS I thought you were too busy!

I think that HM's post sums up the situation quite well. There was no 
besmirching of Gdolim . A careful reading of the post reveals that despite 
the miraculous recovery of Totah in Eretz yisroel, there is a mutual lack of 
hakaras hatov. IOW, the haredi  and the chiloni deny that there is any 
religious significance whatsoever to the restablishment of Jewish Sovereignty 
after a 2,000 year hiatus. The tragic common denominator is that despite 
their common heritage, we're talking about either a Shomer Torah Umitzvos or 
a Tinok Shnishba. The owner of the LA Times was once asked why he printed so 
many Anti Semitic stories. His response was that it sells newspapers. 
Unfortunately, when we have own abundance of internal machlokes and strife 
with other Jews , this gets us on 60 Minutes and and in the NYTimes on an ad 
nauseum basis.                                                Zeliglaw@aol.com
                                                                            
Steven Brizel

The basic premise was thatthere was a status quo. So long as YU filled the void,
nothing needed to be done to scrutinize further.

The real fear would have been had YU balked and not "played ball".

There is no certainty that the other Yeshiva bochurim would have lost their 
exemption, just a realistic chance that there would have been a pischon peh...

IMHO YU's wilingness to service the servicmen <pun> shielded other yeshivos from
dealing with the issue.

What I would have like to see was a certain mutual "admiration" or apprecaition.

YU: we'll take care of providing Rabbonim for pulpits and chaplains
Other Yeshivos: and we'll take care of learning lishma

IF there was such a relationship in Israel I think there would be greater mutual
respect, somethign R. Kook might have advocated:

Chilonim: We take care of the IDF etc.
Chareidim: We'll take care of torah lishma etc.

IOW, if EACH side saw the other as providing a benefit, there might be some 
mutual appreciation.

Such divisions of labor date back to Yissachar, Zevulun.

I'm NOT saying that Chareidim need to approve of the lack of shmiras mitzvos, 
rather they should focus upon or at least akcnoweldge what benefits they do 
derive form the chilonim.  Don't you think this strategy will give them FAR more
influence in chiloni circles and reduce the level of hostility?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com





______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Chilonim/Charedim, Problems and Solutions 


	 Your assumption is that if YU had not provided chaplains to the army, 
the draft boards would have yanked all exemptions from yeshivos.  Zo 
minayin lach?  Mimo nafshoch:  If,  as in the first question above,  they 
believed that the yeshivos were training clergymen,  they'd have 
maintained the exemption, regardless of the numbers of students or the 
availability of chaplains.  If they believed otherwise,  they'd have 
yanked them.
		
	Related question:  do you think the Selective Service Administration 
really believed that the incidence of divinity students rose as 
precipitiously when there was a war on as it dropped when the war ended? 
 To paraphrase,  how much did they know and when did they know it?

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Except part of the story is it was the 9:30 minyan at a relatively well
known shul in Flatbush -- the inyan probably should be that if one can't
daven with kavana for a 9:30 minyan they should wake up earlier, nu? 

The source of the following is the book "Shroshei
Minhag Ashkenaz" by Binyamin Shlomo Hamburger.

One of the things I have always wondered about is why
some Shuls say Hallel with a Bracha after Maariv on
the first night (and in Chutz La"Aretz, on the second
night of Pesach). 

Apparently the Minhag is one of Sfardi origin.  The
custom of Ashkenazim (i.e. non Sefardim) outside Eretz
Israel is not to say it except for Chasidim, who do.
The Talmidei Ha Baal Shem Tov who were the first wave
of Aliyah, brought this Minhag with them and
established it in most shuls, including the ones
founded by the Talmidei HaGra, who were the immediate
next wave of Olim.

The source for saying Hallel at all on Pesach Night is
in the Gemmorah (Pesachim 95B) where  Rashi explains
that Hallel must be said exclusively Al HaAchila, or
"On the meal". The Al Achila the Gemorah reffers to is
the eating of the Korban Pesach.  But saying it in
Shul is not mentioned at all by the Rambam or the Rif.

It seems that the Minhag stems from  a Tosefta that
discusses a custom in those places where people don't
know how to read well enough and dont have anyone to
read for them. They went to Shul, read the first perek
of Hallel, eat and drink, and then complete Hallel. 
This Tosefta seems to indicate clearly, that only
those who can't and therefore wouldn't read Hallel at
home, should read Hallel in shul on Pesach Night, but
not Bnei Torah or those who know how read.  So again
why do so many (especilly those who Daven  Nusach
Sfard and Ari) say it? And why with a Bracha? The
Hagaddah does not include the Bracha for Hallel and
indeed we do not say a Bracha.  Hallel with a bracha
was established only for the daytime because Am Israel
said Hallel during the Hakrovas Korbonoseihem  which
was done only during the Day, not at night.

Additionally, the purpose of saying Hallel at the
seder is not because of the specific mitzvah of Hallel
that Chazal were Mesaken, but for the purpose of
giving praise and thanks toG-d. Therefore since it was
not requisite, there is no bracha.  So if when said in
the proper time it's is said without a Bracha, i.e.
the Seder, why then say it with a Bracha in Shul,
pesach night after Maariv? Remember, this Minhag is
not mentioned at all by the Rambam or Avudraham, on
whom we rely in all of our Tefilla Minhagim.  Nor does
R. Amram Goan mention it in his sidur. 

The Ari ZL interpreted this Minhag Al Pi HaNistar. 
Therefore, all those who changed their Mesorah and
switched their Nusach HaTeffila to that of The Ari ZL,
 i.e. virtually all Chasidim who Daven Nusach Sefard,
and Chabad, who Daven Nusach Sefard according to the
interpretation of R. Shneur Zalmen of Liadi (labeled
as Nusach Ari)... all of these people have the minhag
to say Hallel after Maariv on Pesach Night.

But, the Nodeh B'Yehuda, The Chasam Sofer and his
progeny, and the Gra, did not say Hallel.  (even
though R. Moshe Finestien  says that those who follow
the Shitah of the Gra, say Hallel in Shul after
Maariv, for some reason, the Gra himself didn't... 
Tzarich Iyun) 

The Netziv did not, because Hallel should not preceed
the eating of Matzah which is the main time of the
eating of the Korban Pesach.

The Baal Ha Aruch HaShulchan, R. Yechiel Michel
Epstien did not, because it is nowhere mentioned in
Shas.

As stated earlier, the Israeli custom is to say Hallel
in Shul Pesach night after Maariv. Those who claim
that this was established through the Minhag of trhe
Gra are mistaken. The Minhag, as mentioned earlier,
was established by the Sefardim and the Chasidim.  R.
Tukochinsky "Paskined" that it should be said like the
custom of  the Beis Yosef  (SA 487, 4) ,  without a
Bracha. This was the Chazon Ish's Minhag.  The Griz
did not say Hallelat all in Shul  because he did not
want to be mevatel the Ikkar Mitzvah of saying Hallel
on wine. When davening in a shul that said Hallel, he
would walk out. The Griz followed the custom of his
father the Grach whose Minhag was that of Lithuania
and specifically of Volozhin not to say Hallel. There
is an opinion that the Grach did say Hallel but that
the Griz did not agree and did not follow his father's
Mesorah on this issue.

Bottom Line: In the days of Chazal, Hallel in Shul on
Pesach night was said only by the ignorant masses who
couldn't do it at home.  During the days of the
Rishonim it was not said in Sephardi communities or in
Ashkenazi communties. The Rashba established it for
some of the communities of SeFard, but was not
universally accepted by other Chachmei SeFard. The
great communities of Lithuania did not say it. 

The question is why do the Chasidim still say it?

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

In a message dated 2/24/2000 9:28:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< I'm am looking for materials that relate to the halachot (in a broad
 sense) of tzedaka as compared to present day social welfare laws and
 policy in Israel. >>

This may be unnecessary information, given the questioner's domain, but "And 
With All Your Possessions" by Meir Tamari, as well as its bibliography, 
should be a good starting point.

On an unrelated note - we announce with joy the birth and hachnasa l'vris of 
Netanel Micha.

Meyer Shields

--- "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> wrote:
> Regarding R. Harry Maryles' post on Avodah last
> night and
> that of his anonymous correspondent:
> 
>  1. We vehemently protest the disrespectful,
> pejorative
> references to Gedolei Yisrael.

For thte life of me I can't figure out what I said to
receive such a response.  I do NOT denigrate Gedolim
and I did not do so in my post on this subject.

What I did , was try to present in a dispassionate
manner, ways to correct a situation headed for what I
believe to be a potential disaster.  

I can't speak for the anonymous poster. 

As for myself, the closest thing that I said to
denigration was that I did not think Yehoreg V'Al
Yavor about army service was not helpful.  This, you
consider denigration?  Am I not allowed to disagree
with a Gadol's characterization to Military service in
that light... especially when there are other Gedolim
who also, disagree?

I stand by everything that I said and strongly protest
your characterization of my post as being denigrading
to Gedolim!

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

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


[ 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         ]