Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 405

Thursday, March 2 2000

• Re: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• Still more on diyukim
• Re: Just what is Torah uMada
• Re: Skepticism and Deism
• Teffilah Limelucha
• re:kaddish and diyukkim
• Chilonim/Haredim, Problems and Solutions
• Re: Study of History
• Re: Women as Guests
• Re: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• Re: Chilonim/Haredim, Problems and Solutions
• Re: Just what is Torah uMada
• Re: Mishna Berura reference
• Re: Study of History
• Re: Chinuch along multiple tracks
• Subject: Torah u Madda???
• Re: Avodah V4 #404
• TIDE v. TuM - I Think I Got it

Gil Student <gil.student@citicorp.com> answered a question of mine in v4n401:
: R. Moshe Shternbuch discusses this in his Teshuvos Vehanhagos 3:317,365.  He 
: says ...                        that believing in a god with a human form is 
: NOT shituf but classic avodah zarah.  I also saw the following in the Frankel 
: Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 11:4) [Yeshua HaNotzri...] "garam ...
: rov ha'olam *la'avod elo'ah mibal'adei Hashem*."  That does not sound like 
: shituf to me.

To me neither. Pretty decisive proof. However, I asked the question for a
reason, and this isn't the answer that fits my understanding of the Rambam.

The Rambam's proof that HKBH doesn't have parts involves his proof that there
is only one deity. There is no philosophical difference whether you speak of
a pantheon of many gods or a god of many parts. His objection to HKBH having
a tzurah is based on the fact that tzuros have parts.

I would therefore have concluded that lishitaso, belief in a corporeal god is 
a violation of monotheism.

But what if one part of the god is primary -- say the "heart" or "brain" --
and the others play a supporting role. Why doesn't the Rambam consider this
shutfus, as he would if these "parts" were called individual "gods"?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Feb-00: Shelishi, Vayakhel
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 2a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

RRW ecrit:
 
>The Roedelheim and Koren have Rivavos {1st veis with a chataf patach} and other 
>chumashim have riv'vos {the 1st veis with a sheva na}.  There is afaik a 
>machlokes on double consonants, and that some make what would be the first shevo
>into a chataf, 
 
>Does anyhone out there know the original baalei plugta?  And if the shevo na is
>indeed in error, who then is the first to point this out?

Hmm.  Both the Mesorah note and the Minchat Shai note that "it is a shva
only", which implies that there were those who held it had something else,
I expect the chataf-patach. (This is in Dt 33:17)

I've been told that if a letter has a chataf-patach and the korei pronounces
it with a shva, it's OK, you don't stop him - they're functionally 
equivalent.

Anyone have a BHS, which is based on the Leningrad Codex, rather than the
Aleppo Codex/Keter Aram Tzovah?  Or the reprint of the Leningrad Codex?

On 1 Mar 00, at 9:07, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> I cannot define it so much as illustrate it.
> 
> Here is what Torah UMada means to me:
> 
> 1) When R. Moshe consults biologist of other scientists in order to
> better understand the mechanics of an issue, that is one case.  Torah
> and psak peering into mada to understand what is going on.

Why do you regard that as TuM? How could Torah only pasken 
that shaila without understanding the mechanics? (BTW - I suspect 
that most poskim do this. I know that R. Elyashiv does when he 
has to). I understood that TuM was a derech halimud (or a 
hashkafa - perhaps more accurate) and not a derech of giving psak.

> 2) (this is also TIDE).  when my frum dentist gives me an antibiotic
> and I ask can I take this on tisha b'av; he immediately consults his
> rav and asks him a sh'eiloh.

Again, I thought TIDE also was a hashkafa and not a derech of 
giving psak. The fact that I HAVE a fruhm dentist may be TIDE, but 
the fact that he asks his Rav a shaila about taking anti-biotics 
seems to me to be fulfilling the basic requirement to ask a shaila 
about halachic issues, with which Torah only (and TuM for that 
matter) would also agree.

> 3) while being a professional or a scientist and being shomer mitzvos
> - as in the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists

This could fit both TIDE and TuM.

> 4) Seeing the Yad Hashem in the various aspects of the brio.  EG
> looking into a forest and saying ma noeh ilan zeh (but not while
> learning Torah!)

I think Torah only and TIDE would both agree with this as well, but 
they might get to the forest less often to look :-) 

> 5) Believing that IF Torah is indeed emes, then it should be
> independently verifiable by any objective investigator.  therefore
> there is a presumption of harmony between Torah and science and that
> the 19th century kulturkampf between religion and science was an
> aberration.  Perhaps because 19th century religion was too narrow and
> perhaps because 19th century science was too iconoclastic.

An assumption of harmony as opposed to? I think that Torah only 
and TIDE would both assume that Torah is correct and try to 
reconcile science to Torah. Are you saying that is true for TuM as 
well? Probably the best example of this is the Mabul (much as I 
hate to bring it up again). Torah only and TIDE both take the Mabul 
literally. Does TuM? Would you hold that the people on this list and 
mail jewish who have argued that the Mabul is allegorical would be 
outside mainstream TuM?

> 6) Believing that Torah is strong enough to hold its own and that
> learning secular culture will not necessarily cause one to run away
> from Torah and to become Reform.

I think that you've stated this as an extreme. I don't think Torah 
only (let alone TIDE) would hold that learning secular culture would 
NECESSARILY cause one to run away from Torah and become 
Reform. But I think they would view it as a risk. Would TuM view it 
as a risk? If so, then all we are talking about here is degrees on a 
scale, no?

> 7) That our mission as Jews to be or lagoyim included a certain level
> of universalism; that we are not ONLY particularists.  The first
> paragraph of Aleinu shows our particularism, the 2nd shows our
> universalism.  There is a balance.  We neither assimilate into the
> culture nor do we hide behind a wall and avoid it.  We come from an
> I'M OK YOU'RE OK position of seeing Torah as not only valid but
> helpful to society at large.  They need us and our wisdom and middos. 
> We as a mamleches kohanim, have to be able to communicated and to
> influence the world for the sake of Tikkun Olam.

If what you're implying by this is that Torah only (and to a lesser 
extent TIDE) are more insular, I can see this one....

> 8) Dr. MS Feldblum said that the shiv'im leshonos needed to serve on
> the sanhedrin could be seen as 70 disciplines, eg biology,
> engineering, philosophy, music, literature, chemistry, astronomy. 
> That Gedolim NEED to be conversant in the entire spectrum of the
> universe to arrive at valid conclusions.  Not experts perhaps, but
> conversant.  Certainly the Gra saw value in Euclidean geometry.

I think Torah only (and TIDE) would agree with that, but the 
Gedolim would find a different way to get there. Either through 
Torah (hafoch ba v'hafoch ba d'kula ba) or by consulting with 
"experts." 

> What it does not mean:
> 
> A) Equating Torah with Science

Equating in terms of importance? 

> B) making a science out of torah

I think that's what Frankel tried to do (if I understand correctly), and 
I think what you're saying is that he's not TuM (which at first 
glance, I would agree with).

> C) Mishmashing Torah studies with science

Not sure how this differs from A.

> D) Saying that a scientist is just as big a gadol as a Torah Gadol

Not sure what you mean by this. 

> E) requiring everyone to know science to be a good Jew

I'm trying to understand the difference between TIDE and TuM and 
the only one I see here (other than some finely nuanced things in 
some of your other points) is number 7. Am I just not 
understanding?

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

re: mesorah

Reliable is not necessarily infallible.

As I see it, the TSBP was flexible and in "some" flux during Bayis sheini and a 
Sanhedrin  At the Churban the TSBP at that time was more-or-less frozen into 
place.  That is the foundation upon which Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism rests.  But
it does not imho imply a complete picture of mesorah nor a perfectly transmitted
one.

I am guessing that there is a serious confusion re: Hlahca lemoshe mi aht 




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


It boils down to whether we are to presuppose the correctness of our masorah 
(to the exclusion of other people's traditions) or presuppose a skeptical 
stance. For frum Jews, the effectiveness of the masorah in producing a
useful and productive halachah should be sufficient to suggest its reliability 
in other venues.

But I'll quit paraphrasing the Ramchal already.

-mi

In a message dated 3/1/00 8:50:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, Micha 
Bergerwrites:
<< There is a pretty clear chiyuv, from Chazal through the 19th century, to
 daven for the wellfare of the country you live in. So, on what grounds do
 so many of us skip it? This is particularly odd, as it's a change in nusach
 haTefillah -- the exact flip-side of the argument many of the same shuls
 use to decline adding the TlShM! >>

Good question. I have a sefer on Teffilah called Shomaya Teffilah and he 
lists numerous achronim who write that we must say it. Some say every time 
you read the Torah and some say just on Shabbos. The sefer brings down a 
Teshuvot Tseror Chaim who asks why the Shulchan Aruch did not bring down this 
halacha that you must be mispalel for the melucha, but all seem to agree that 
you must say it.

Richard Wolpoe writes: 
> q: if you are at a cemetery and there is no minyan near the grave 
> itself, may 
> one include other men outside of the area in order to recite kaddish 
> or Keil 
> Molei Rachamim?

Why is there any question about the Keil Molei Rachamim? Why should it be
a davar shebikdusha?
Sadya N. Targum

________________________________________________________________
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'm curious about the absence of any protests to the citation of a
speech by a leading rosh yeshiva in which he is alleged to have called
the head of a leading Orthodox school, "a soneh Hashem".  Is such
publication not considered a denigration of a talmid chacham?  If so,
why not - it certainly lowers the status of that rosh yeshiva in my
eyes.  Even if you agree with the weltanshaung of that rosh yeshiva, why
is it permissible to repeat the abuse directed at an Orthodox leader
who, amongst other merits, supports various kollelim?  Why, in contrast,
are protests immediately raised against the publication of letters from
a leading European posek, in which he expresses angst at some of the
attitudes of talmidei chachamim of the past and the direction of
contemporary Orthodoxy?  After all, the intent of the publishers of
those letters was not to attack or belittle that posek.  If it is argued
that they should have realized the controversial nature of the letters,
and therefore been more reticent about publicizing them, why is the
speech at the Agudah convention by the rosh yeshiva any different?

Yitzchok Zlochower

In a message dated 3/1/00 8:01:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:

[WRT to Miriams Tzoras] 

> Who other than her brothers knew?

See Rashi begining of Shlach.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 3/1/00 8:36:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:

> What we see is that three represents what man brings to his relationship 
with
>  Hashem, and four is what we recieve from him. The connection to the avos
>  vs. the imahos is very Zohar-like, although I didn't see it there. (Not 
that
>  I looked.)
>  
As explained in Mforshim the 4's of Pessach are connected with the Shem 
HaVayeh. (BTW the name of man is 3 letters Odom). Also WRT Nisson and Tishrei 
based on the famous Tos in R"H Nisson represents Machshva Tishrei represents 
Ma'seh.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 3/1/00 9:17:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:

> I would therefore have concluded that lishitaso, belief in a corporeal god 
is 
> 
>  a violation of monotheism.
>  
>  But what if one part of the god is primary -- say the "heart" or "brain" --
>  and the others play a supporting role. Why doesn't the Rambam consider this
>  shutfus, as he would if these "parts" were called individual "gods"?
>  
I Poshut don't understand your question can you please elaborate.


Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

The dispute between R's Lamm & Svei was a matter of public record. The
lettewrs of the SE were not. Yesh l'chaleik tuva.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 9:23 PM
Subject: Chilonim/Haredim, Problems and Solutions


> I'm curious about the absence of any protests to the citation of a
> speech by a leading rosh yeshiva in which he is alleged to have called
> the head of a leading Orthodox school, "a soneh Hashem".  Is such
> publication not considered a denigration of a talmid chacham?  If so,
> why not - it certainly lowers the status of that rosh yeshiva in my
> eyes.  Even if you agree with the weltanshaung of that rosh yeshiva, why
> is it permissible to repeat the abuse directed at an Orthodox leader
> who, amongst other merits, supports various kollelim?  Why, in contrast,
> are protests immediately raised against the publication of letters from
> a leading European posek, in which he expresses angst at some of the
> attitudes of talmidei chachamim of the past and the direction of
> contemporary Orthodoxy?  After all, the intent of the publishers of
> those letters was not to attack or belittle that posek.  If it is argued
> that they should have realized the controversial nature of the letters,
> and therefore been more reticent about publicizing them, why is the
> speech at the Agudah convention by the rosh yeshiva any different?
>
> Yitzchok Zlochower
>
>

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:07:35 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<Here is what Torah UMada means to me:
 
1) When R. Moshe consults biologist of other scientists in order to 
better understand the mechanics of an issue, that is one case.  Torah and

psak peering into mada to understand what is going on.

2) (this is also TIDE).  when my frum dentist gives me an antibiotic and
I ask can I take this on tisha b'av; he immediately consults his rav and
asks him a sh'eiloh.>>

	Neither of these,  IMHO,  have a thing to do with TuM.

<<3) while being a professional or a scientist and being shomer mitzvos -
as in the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists>>
	
	Do you mean that as a shomer mitzvos you are also a professional,  or a
professional and also a shomer mitzvos,  or do you mean membership in
said organization?  Again,  this is not about the interface between T and
M,  only their co-existence.  My impression of TuM was that it was
specifically about the interface.

 
<<4) Seeing the Yad Hashem in the various aspects of the brio.  EG 
looking into a  forest and saying ma noeh ilan zeh (but not while
learning Torah!)>>

	See after (2) 

<<5) Believing that IF Torah is indeed emes, then it should be
independently verifiable by any objective investigator.  therefore there
is a presumption of harmony between Torah and science>>

	What happens in the situation of an apparent disharmony?

<< 6) Believing that Torah is strong enough to hold its own and that
learning secular culture will not necessarily cause one to run away from 
Torah and to become Reform.>>

	For all people in all situations?  Or are there people/groups of people
who are perhaps more susceptible to running away and becoming 
Reform and should therefore not be exposed to secular culture (on which, 
BTW,  you owe us a definition.)
 
<<7) We as a mamleches kohanim, have to be able to communicated and to
influence the world for the sake of Tikkun Olam.>>

	This sounds like TuM,  but I question the priorities:  are we so secure
in our own Torah and mitzvos, our bein adam lachaveiro,  etc. etc. that
we are ready to take on the world?

<< 8)That Gedolim NEED to be conversant in the entire spectrum of the
universe to arrive at valid conclusions.>>

	How does this affect the curriculum for all of us?  Do we give all of
our children massive exposure to "secular culture"  (see note above in
(6)) in order to prepare them for Gadlus?  Might massive exposure to
Torah only be better preparation for Gadlus?

	One final note:  please understand that this is not "lekanter";  as has
been discussed on the matter privately,  I really cannot "put my finger"
on a  satisfactory definition.

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Nu, vos zogt er?

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <gil.student@citicorp.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <Tobrr111@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: Mishna Berura reference


> I can tell you that the Yerushalmi is at the very end of kiddushin.  RYF
Perlow
> has an interesting application of this Yerushalmi in his Sefer Hamitzvos
leRS"G
> on the mitzvah of shechitah.
>
>

On 1 Mar 00, at 18:51, Micha Berger wrote:

> In v4n398, Carl Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> writes:
> :               The Chafetz Chaim makes quite clear that Miriam 
> : spoke only to herself.... Had Hashem not punished her so openly, :
> Bnei Yisrael would never have known about it.
> 
> Hashem punished her openly? How? He made a point of not moving the
> amud ha'anan / ha'eish while Miriam has tzora'as. As the intervals
> over which it moved was pretty random, no one is going to wonder about
> it. OTOH, had HKBH made the camp move during that week, and the Be'eir
> Miriam would have stayed behind with her -- THAT would have been
> befarhesia.

I think it was befarhesia and everyone knew why the camp was not 
moving. Rashi there brings a Medrash that b'schar that Miriam 
waited for Moshe by the Yeor, Hashem made all of Bnei Yisrael 
wait for Miriam. IMHO that only works if Bnei Yisrael knew why 
they were waiting, as Miriam knew why she was waiting by the 
Yeor.

-- 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 1 Mar 00, at 18:56, Micha Berger wrote:

> In v4n403 (volume 5 will be only 3 months not 6, b"n)  R' Rich Wolpoe
> writes: > Didn't RSR Hirsch suggest a 2-track model oen for the
> Yaakovs and one > for the Eisavs?
> 
> In the same volume R' Carl Sherer agrees:
> : That's how I would understand his comments on Eisav. But as I 
> : think we went through on this list not too long ago, Rav Dessler :
> had a very different hashkafa.
> 
> I didn't take it that way. RSRH was suggesting "chanoch lina'ar al pi
> darko". The only reason why it looks like he's describing two tracks,
> instead of a more general and more broad approach is because Yitzchak
> and Rivka, the case in discussion, only had two children.

I agree with you. Perhaps it should have said "multiple tracks" 
instead of "two tracks." What I was trying to do is to contrast 
RSRH's approach, which stresses Chanoch laNaar al Pi Darcho," 
with the Desslerian approach which says that you have 
EVERYONE learn full time no matter how incapable they may be 
of doing so and no matter what the consequences to those who are 
incapable of doing so, so that one talmid chacham will emerge. (I 
may have overstated the Desslerian approach, but I have translated 
it onto the list in the past so people who want to look it up can find 
it in the archives).

-- 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

From Shlomo B Abeles <sba@blaze.net.au>

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

Subject: Torah u Madda???

Is there a connection between AIDS and circumcision?
Researchers claim decade-old evidence has been ignored.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>> |Male circumcision could help diminish the HIV/AIDS
<Snip>

>>>The Lancet editorial .......

>>>for entire article, see:
>>>>http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/world/2000/02/28/nakedaids/index.html<<<<

Thanks for showing us all why the Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshivos
ban the Internet (and the need for moderating this list).

> 
> R' Svei's opposition to YU, as subsequent posters have pointed out, goes
> beyond the concern about the loss of a gadol, it is concern about daos and
> the hybrid of TuM.  The opposition to Touro as expressed by the Roshei
> Yeshiva who opposed it (including Rav Moshe) and who continue to do so would
> be a better example.  In that case it was articulated that the concern was
> that certain talmidim who were capable of becoming gedolim and who would
> otherwise not go to college, would do so if it was available in a more
> convenient, more congenial flavor without mixed classes, etc. At the same
> time some of the Yeshivas reperesented (TV, Chaim Berlin) permit their
> students to attend since they see it as less problematic and disruptive to
> the seder hayeshiva.
> 
I agree that this is probably the opinion of many gedolim. I personally
agree with the opposite view that it is imperative for gedolim to have
some secular knowledge either through university or self-taught.
One problem with many poskim is that they have no concept of scientific
thought beyond lack of knowledge of specific facts. Thus, almost no
poskim can decide about modern devices like computers, electronics etc.
More serious is that remarks like science cannot be trusted because they
change their mind shows a lack of understanding how science works.

Eli Turkel

For the last week or so there has been a back and forth off list 
correspondence among RRW, RGD, RMB, RYGB (at least some 
of the time) and myself regarding the difference between TIDE and 
TuM. Yesterday, we all agreed that correspondence belonged on 
the list, and we brought it back on, principally with a post by RRW 
explaining what he thinks TuM is and is not. RGD and I both 
looked at RRW's post and decided that (for the most part) he could 
have been describing TIDE. This morning, while writing a private 
email to RGD on an unrelated matter, I realized that I understood 
the difference, and why it is been so hard for us all to explain it. So 
I decided to post this. One of the advantages of being 7-8 hours 
ahead of most of you is that I have plenty of time to duck behind a 
firewall before you wake up :-) 

What I am going to do is describe what I consider the philosophical 
underpinnings of a TIDE (high) school vs. the philosophical 
underpinnings of a TuM (high) school, and then we can see where 
it goes from there, although there are many schools out there that 
are a mix. It's really quite simple (but please keep in mind that I 
may be oversimplifying the model):

1. In a TIDE school, limudei kodesh take place in the morning and 
in the early part of the afternoon, with limudei chol taking place in 
the late afternoon. In a TuM school limudei kodesh and limudei 
chol are mixed throughout the day. By comparison, in a Torah only 
school there are no limudei chol.

2. In a TIDE school, students are taught limudei chol but are 
encouraged to try careers in Torah (chinuch or learning full time) 
upon graduation before exploring other areas of employment. In a 
TuM school, graduates are taught to move to other areas of 
employment more quickly, with any post-graduation pre-career 
learning being done mainly to give a stronger basis for functioning 
as a baalebus. By comparison, in a Torah only school, students 
are encouraged to continue learning full time until (and unless) that 
becomes absolutely impossible.

3. In a TIDE school, the only academic part of the entrance exam 
that really counts is Gemara. Everything else can "be dealt with 
later." In a TuM school, the entire academic part of the entrance 
exam is given equal weight. In a Torah only school, by comparison, 
the farher is the only academic part of the admissions decision.

There may be more differences, and obviously there are schools 
out there that don't fit into one camp or the other entirely. But I 
think you are now getting the picture (or at least how I see the 
picture).

Now, the reason why RRW is describing what he is calling TuM, 
and RGD and I keep saying it's TIDE, is because RRW is not 
describing YU (as he apparently thinks he is). He is describing 
RIETS, which is only one part of YU. RIETS is TIDE. But YU is not 
TIDE. Some of YU is TIDE, some of it is TuM, some of it is in 
between, and some of it (the law school, for example) is essentially 
secular. RRW is trying to fit the rest of YU into RIETS, but it 
doesn't fit, and that's what RGD and I keep pointing out.

Another source of confusion and argument is whether RYBS zt"l 
was an adherent of TIDE or TuM. IMVHO RYBS did what his 
mentor, the Rambam, was known to do - he left enough evidence 
to keep both sides busy for many years to come. For if RIETS is 
TIDE (and I would argue that it clearly is), Maimonides is TuM. So 
R. Herschel Schechter's biography of RYBS speaks the New 
York/TIDE viewpoint, and the Boston branch of the family in 
criticizing R. Schechter's book, speaks the Boston/TuM viewpoint. 

Moreover, just to make sure we really could not figure him out, 
RYBS totally broke the mold by going to university and then 
returning to the Beis Medrash as a talmid chacham and 
mechanech. How many people do that today, and do both at a 
level anywhere approaching the level at which RYBS did it? R. 
Aaron Lichtenstein comes to mind - but not too many others. And 
what they did (and in RAL's case is doing) cannot easily be defined 
as either TIDE or TuM, because it is neither and yet it is both. For 
typically, in both TIDE and TuM, once you leave the Beis Medrash, 
you don't come back on a full time basis until you join a retirement 
Kollel.

Slapping bricks onto that firewall.....

-- Carl

Glossary of abbreviations: 
RRW - R. Richard Wolpoe
RGD - R. Gershon Dubin
RMB - R. Micha Berger
RYGB - R. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
TIDE - Torah Im Derech Eretz
TuM - Torah u'Mada
RIETS - Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan Theological Seminary
YU - Yeshiva University
IMVHO - In my very humble opinion
RYBS - Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik zt"l
RAL - Rav Aaron Lichtenstein shlita


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

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


[ 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         ]