Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 097

Wednesday, January 29 2003

• animal suffering
• Re: Hirsch and the other guy
• (no subject)
• Re: RYBS and mussar
• [none]
• Re: HaShavas Aveidah
• RE: HaShavas Aveidah
• Re: HaShavas Aveidah
• RE: HaShavas Aveidah
• Re: animal suffering
• Re: On the origin of drashot
• RE: Rambam on Yissachar zvulun
• Re: Hirsch and the other guy
• Re: Hirsch and the other guy
• Re: RMF vs. RSBA

From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
> Without consciousness, the ability to place oneself into a framework of
> time, commuity, history and destiny, there can be no suffering. There are
> only synaptic connections which, with a stretch, one may call pain....

> I beleive that this is an interpretation of the Gemoro in Brochos 33a(asur
> lrachem al mi sheein lo dea) - it is forbidden to have pity on he who
> has no understanding. It does not mean that one should not care for
> those less accomplished but only to bring our the idea that I expressed....

I wonder if you got that quote right. There's a chazal about not having
rachmanus on someone who doesn't have rachmanus on himself. But on "one
who has no understanding"? No pity for infants, no pity for animals?
Doesn't sound right. One of you talmidei chachamim will remind me--isn't
there a story in the Gemara about some Tanna on his deathbed who was
suffering terribly because he himself had mistreated (or chased away)
some cats, or was it weasels, and his suffering eased when he told the
maid to leave the cats [or weasels,] alone and not chase them away?

Toby Katz

From owner-avodah@aishdas.org  Sun Jan 26 17:43:18 2003
Return-Path: <owner-avodah@aishdas.org>
Received: from majordomo1.host4u.net (majordomo1.host4u.net [209.150.128.43])
	by heras.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0QNhI126562
	for <domo@aishdas.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:43:18 -0600
Received: from heras.host4u.net (heras.host4u.net [209.150.128.13])
	by majordomo1.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0QNhCW11410
	for <owner-avodah.heras@majordomo1.host4u.net>; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:43:12 -0600
Received: from majordomo1.host4u.net (majordomo1.host4u.net [209.150.128.43])
	by heras.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0QNhC126557
	for <owner-avodah@aishdas.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:43:12 -0600
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by majordomo1.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0QNh7H11406;
	Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:43:07 -0600
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:43:07 -0600
Message-Id: <200301262343.h0QNh7H11406@majordomo1.host4u.net>
To: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
From: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: BOUNCE avodah@aishdas.org: Approval required:     
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3491
Lines: 88

From domo@aishdas.org Sun Jan 26 17:43:07 2003
Received: from heras.host4u.net (heras.host4u.net [209.150.128.13])
	by majordomo1.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0QNh7W11403
	for <avodah.heras@majordomo1.host4u.net>; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:43:07 -0600
Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162])
	by heras.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0QNh6126550
	for <avodah@aishdas.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:43:06 -0600
Received: from Mlevinmd@aol.com
	by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id c.125.1d5ad51f (17079)
	 for <avodah@aishdas.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 18:43:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Message-ID: <125.1d5ad51f.2b65cc86@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 18:43:02 EST
Subject: (no subject)
To: avodah@aishdas.org

> Thank you for this info. I didn't ask my question very clearly, but
> what I really wanted to know was whether there is some other kind of hei
> that is not a hei hashe'eilah and not a hei hayediyah either, a hei that
> goes in front of a verb and means something like "who is [verb]ing."

Please see my previous post on this subject.

Regerding the types of hei in front of a word, the Sefer Hadikdu Leramchal
by Eluzer Bieger brings a third type of hei, hei hakriah. Ex. Hador atem
raou (Yirmia 2, 31)

M. Levin

On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 04:07:07AM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: I'm sorry I got to this after so much time has elapsed, but this must
: be answered as strongly as possible. It is not acceptable to talk
: about Hirsch's "deviations." In fact, it is probably assur to use that
: word in connection with such a great man. RAV HIRSCH DID NOT BREAK
: ANY WINDOWS! ...

Doesn't this presume your conclusion.

Yes, of course RSRH was on the straight and narrow. But how? How
were his changes within the pale? How were they different in kind than
Mendelsohn's? And yes, he introduced huge hashkagic changes and a number
of significant practical ones to minhag Franfurt.

Some concluded that no, there are no differences, and therefore refuse
to reject Mendelson. I don't see that position.

But asserting that MM and RSRH differ because one's changes were damaging
and the other were repairing simply restates the question.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

one hypotheies is that the chasimas rofei cholei amo yisrael was really
rofeh cholim. Source is unknown

I saw in somw recent sefer in the name of the Steipler that this brocho
mentions davke cholei isroel because it is the 8th brocho and is kneged
the mila (Megila 17b)

M. Levin

On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 08:59:28AM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
:> 1- That mussar's focus on yir'as H' is to produce someone who is
:> hunched over, quaking in fear

: There were different mussar movements, with very different shitot.

If this is true, and I'm not sure Navorodok hasn't been grossly
charicatured in this regard, then how can one state this as an objection
to Mussar rather than one stream of Mussar?

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 11:56:37PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: >    yir'ah be likened? To the tremor of fear which a father feels when his
: >    beloved young son rides his shoulders as he dances with him and
: >    rejoices before him, taking care that he not fall off. Here there is
: >    joy that is incomparable, pleasure that is incomparable. And the fear
: >    tied up with them is pleasant too. It does not impede the freedom of

: Sounds rather like the yir'ah mei'ahava of the Kedushat Levi, in his
: comments on "vayar' Yisrael et H', vaya'aminu baH' uv'Moshe avdo"

RAEK refers to "gilu bri'ada".

: There was apparently a split in Mussar, between Slabodka (gadlus ha'adam)
: and Novhorodok (katnus ha'adam). The Slabodka students and offshoots
: seem to have survived the War in greater numbers than the Novhorodok
: students, so that's what we have. But of the various Slabodka offshoots,
: how many of them really engage in the mussar derech? With va'adim, and
: mussar shmuessin on a regular basis? ...

Kim'at no one. Why do you think we see a need to take up the gauntlet?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In regards to the issue of Hashavas Aveidah:

I asked Rav Issar Wolfson a dayan and Rosh Kollel of the Choshen Mishpat
Kollel in Passaic and he said that he thinks in this case there is a
chiyuv lifnim mishuras hadin to be machriz the object. He also said that
if one felt the police or owners of the rest stop were trustworthy than
it would have been better to leave it by them since the owner would most
probably call them first to see if anyone found the ring.

Now for my own 2 cents.

1) I think this is a case of yeush shelo m'daas. Even though a ring is
usually an object that a person realizes he lost, I think this case is
different. Here the circumstances indicate that the founder found it
before the owner realized she lost it. The Pischei Choshen also points
out that the sevara of "Adam Memashmesh B'Kiso" only applies in a stam
case. For example, if you find money on the street you can assume the
person realized he lost it and was miya'eish. However, if that person
then came to you and brought proof that he was never miya'eish then you
would have to give it back. In this case I think it is quite reasonable
to assume the person found the ring before the owner realized it was gone.

2) Another sevara to say that there was no ye'ush is that the owner
might be hoping that whoever found it would turn it in sionce it is a
valuable item.

3) The Rema paskens that if dian d'malchusa requires you to return the
item you have to return it. The lawyers can correct me if I am wrong but
I believe in America if you find an item worth a certain amount you have
to turn it into the police.

4) The Pischei Choshen brings the Shulchan Aruch HArav that says lifnim
meshuras hadin applies only on the chiyuv to return the object and not
on the chiyuv to be machriz you found an object. The Pischei Choshen
did not bring anyone who disagrees. I did not get a chance to ask Rav
Wolfson about this but I plan on doing so.

The gemara in BM 24b has a machlokes regarding someone who finds a
wallet in the shuk. If a Jew comes and gives simanim on the wallet
does the finder have to give it back? According to Mar Shmuel the
finder must give it back as a "lifnim mi-shuras ha-din". According to
Rav Nachman the finder does not have to give it back, not even as a
"lifnim mi-shuras ha-din". Even, the Gemara says, if the owner/loser
is standing in front of him and screaming there is no "lifnim mi-shuras
ha-din" according to Rav Nachman to return the wallet. I thought that
we pasken like Rav Nachman but, after checking, I see that we do not.
If the owner comes and gives simanim then one is obligated to return
the lost object due to "lifnim mi-shuras ha-din".

The Chochmas Manoach on that Gemara (in the back of the Vilna Shas)
points out that the whole machlokes in the Gemara is if the owner
comes and gives simanim. But everyone agrees that there is no "lifnim
mi-shuras ha-din" to be machriz and a close reading of the poskim shows
that they only talk about if the owner gives simanim. No one says that
there is an obligation to be machriz. R' Chaim Markowitz brought from
the Shulchan Aruch HaRav who says similarly.

You might say, don't be so heartless. Hey, I understand. Believe me,
I do. But, still, is Rav Nachman being heartless? I don't have the
guts to say that, do you? What about Mar Shmuel who agrees that there
is no obligation to be machriz? Is he heartless?

But, this is all talking about an item that the owner would know if it
fell and would therefore have ye'ush on it. On any other item there is
an object to be machriz. My brief survey of a few women shows that they
disagree on the status of an engagement ring but my wife thinks that she
would not notice. Which would mean that there is a chiyuv to be machriz.

R' Chaim Markowitz also brought the issue of dina de-malchus dina (which
the Rama also brings). From what I've been told, the finder of the ring
is obligated to go to the police station in the locale in which the ring
was found and turn it in.

Gil Student

>You might say, don't be so heartless.  Hey, I understand.
>Believe me, I do.
>But, still, is Rav Nachman being heartless?  I don't have the guts to say
>that, do you?  What about Mar Shmuel who agrees that there is no obligation
>to be machriz?  Is he heartless?

I don't see it as being heartles-they are dealing with the halachic
aspects of the case. Halacha tells you that you don't have to return it.

The question I have is this.

Is the case of the Gemara similar to this case? Is the gemara talking
about a case where you know who it belongs to but even then there is no
chiyuv hachrazah or is it a case where you don't know who it belongs
to but since the owner gave simanim you are chayav to return it.

Furthermore, lets say that it is the former-that you know who it belongs
to but evcen then there is no chiyuv hachrazah even lifnim mishuras
hadin. What would Rav Nachman do? Ain hachi nami he woul dtell you
l'halacha or lifnim mishuras hadin there is no chiyuv hachrazah. But do
you think he wouldn't be machriz it anyway?

Let me ask another question. Asume know chiyuv even lifnim mishuras
hadin. Now take 2 people. One is machriz and returns the item and one
sells it and gives it to tzeddakkah. How does shamayim look at these 2
individuals? I know noone can know the answer but I'm asking it anyway.

>I don't see it as being heartles-they are dealing with the halachic
>aspects of the case. Halacha tells you that you don't have to return it.

Not just halacha.  There is not even a lifnim mi-shuras ha-din.

>The question I have is this.
>Is the case of the Gemara similar to this case? Is the gemara talking
>about a case where you know who it belongs to but even then there is no
>chiyuv hachrazah or is it a case where you don't know who it belongs to
>but since the owner gave simanim you are chayav to return it.

Isn't that what simanim are for, proof that he is the owner/loser?
Otherwise, why should you generally give it to someone who gives simanim?
The Gemara says that the owner/loser's shouting after he gives simanim
is like someone shouting after his house fell in. There's nothing he
can do about it even though it definitely happened to him.

>Furthermore, lets say that it is the former-that you know who it
>belongs to but evcen then there is no chiyuv hachrazah even lifnim
>mishuras hadin. What would Rav Nachman do? Ain hachi nami he
>woul dtell you l'halacha or lifnim mishuras hadin there is no chiyuv
>hachrazah. But do you think he wouldn't be machriz it anyway?

Wouldn't that be acting lifnim mi-shuras ha-din, which Rav Nachman said
that there is no obligation to do? What is lifnim mi-shuras ha-din if
not acting al pi mussar? But even in this case Rav Nachman says that
there is not even a mussardike chiyuv to return the aveidah.

Gil Student

> What is lifnim mi-shuras ha-din if not acting
>al pi mussar?  But even in this case Rav Nachman says that there is not even
>a mussardike chiyuv to return the aveidah

Is this so pashut? How does one define lifnim mishuras hadin vis a vis
mussar and acting with chesed toward someone else? Does anyone have any
mekoros to back up a definiton?

On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 04:11:25AM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Doesn't sound right. One of you talmidei chachamim will remind me--isn't
: ... isn't there a story in the Gemara about some Tanna on his deathbed who was
: suffering terribly because he himself had mistreated (or chased away)
: some cats, or was it weasels, and his suffering eased when he told the
: maid to leave the cats [or weasels,] alone and not chase them away?

What does that have to do with whether the weasels feel tzarah?

It would be enough that one caused an animal tza'ar. As I wrote, one
could justify the issur because their tza'ar parallels ours, which causes
a sense of tzarah in human beings. It causes a pegam in the doer simply
off the amount of hard-heartedness such treatement requires, regardless
of the effect on the animal.

We're a religion that teaches one to show kavod to two loaves of bread.
Because it's the act of showing kavod, regardless of the effect (or lack
thereof) on the nikhbad.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 08:21:02PM -0500, Arie Folger wrote:
: The mishnah Sotah ch. 5 begins with two drashot on which Rabbi 'Aqiva
: and Rebbi differ....
:           In both cases, R'A stresses the presence of an extra vav,
: while Rebbi stresses the double appearance of the term, disregarding
: the extraneous nature of the vav.

There is a general chiluq here. We seem to follow R' Yishma'el's system
of derashah. This seems to be more semantically based. Rabbi Aqiva was
doreish tagin. Syntax. For example, klal uperat are judged by the meaning
of the phrases. Ribui umi'ut are types of keywords such as akh veraq.

: There is really no difference lehalakhah in the context of sotah
: (although there may be differences elsewhere, where the drashah exists
: only according to one of these tannaim). If so, why this ma'hloqet?

Eilu va'eilu?

: 1) If the drashah is a key to understanding the Biblical text, a
: key that anyone could use, assuming he is indeed in the know, then I
: understand this to be a fundamental disagreement with farreaching
: consequences.

How? Since we know the conclusion that each of those "in the know" were
able to reach, what other consequences are open?

(I ask since my own assumptions were closest to this #1.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In response to my post onthe rmab

This is a misrepresentation of the rambam to conform with other opinions.

The Rambam rejects completely the notion that one can accept money for
studying - whether from the community or from an individual. In his
hilchot talmud tora, he goes in detail into what is acceptable and not
acceptable - and yissachar zvulun is not among the acceptable.

 rmg replied
1.See hilchos talmud torah 3:11. The Rambam refers to supporting oneself
as a ma'ala gedola and a midas hasidim harishonim. The implication is that
is not an obligation but rather a madrega. If it is true that the Rambam
"rejects completely the notion that one can accept money for studying,"
how is it that the Rambam only describes supporting oneself as a midas
hasidus?

The rambam is not talking about supporting oneself, but about the value of
physical labor to support oneself - that working being valuable doesn't
merely refer to a "clean" profession such as a merchant, but also to
dirty physical labor - this was a well known issue - and the rambam is
coming down on the side that physical labor is ennobling. This is also
a reply to those who argue that it debases a talmid chacham to work in
physical labor. There is no hint that earning a living per se is middat
hasidut. Earlier, he does say that someone who does not earn a living
at all but studies will eventually sofo melastem et habriot
Two other sources

2.See the Biur Halacha 131 who quotes the D'var Shmuel as saying that
the Rambam was not refering to anyone involved in harbatzas torah and
proves it from the rambam in hilchos shkalim 4:4, 4:7.

3.See Aruch Hashulchan Y"D 246:40 who says that the Rambam's issur was
refering specifically to someone who throws himself onto the tzibbur
and NOT someone who has made a financial arrangement or whom the tzibbur
has decided to support.

Many have tried to limit the rambam's position,which he admitted was held by
few of his contemporaries.  The Kesef Mishne also tries, but in the end
admits that the rambam meant what he said, but that the need of society for
scholars mandates what we do, but that is only bdiavad.
With regard to the specific poskim cited - I am not arguing psak halacha,
but their pshat is very difficult to reconcile with simple pshat in the
rambam - see his famous diatribe in his perush on pirke avot, where he
specifically goes against the above positions.

In a message dated 1/23/2003 10:34:53 PM EST, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes:
> With regard to the substance - the rambam does not allow to accept money
> for learning in any way - he does not have Yissachar zevulun, and would
> clearly assur what you are describing.

RRW wrote
Not exactly

Rambam rules out taking money for TEACHING Torah Se'bal Peh. He rules
that taking money for teaching Torah shbeichsav is depndent upon the
Minhag hamakom

this distinction is based on a gmara (and a  yerushalmi) - the issur remains
on torah shebealpe

RRW
I'm not sure how he rules specificaly re: tking money to LEARN - as
opposed to teaching.

Me
He is very specific about that in hilchot talmud torah - such a person is
mehallel et hashem mevaze et hatora and mechabe or hadat.

RRW
He does say that if one MUST pay to learn Torah sheb'al peh he should
do so - despite the fact that lich'ora, leshitaso, it would constitute
a mesayei lidvar Aveira. So

There is one way that one can be paid for teaching - schar batala - but
the rambam holds a very restrictive definition (see his perush on pirke
avot) - if one is trained,and has a specific job, one can be paid the
salary of that job for the time spent teaching - the classic case is the
water carrier, who was asked a shaila, who said that if the disputants
would take care of his water carrying, so then he could answer it -
he wasn't being paid for teaching, but made sure that he wasn't losing.
This issue of schar batala has been greatly expanded beyond recognition.

Meir Shinnar

>                                 .... It is not acceptable to talk
> about Hirsch's "deviations." In fact, it is probably assur to use that
> word in connection with such a great man. RAV HIRSCH DID NOT BREAK
> ANY WINDOWS! He was one of the greatest tzaddikim of his generation.
> It is simply outrageous to talk about him this way. I don't know who
> the Reb Chaim is who is quoted here, but this must be a misquote.
> "For a valued customer one tolerates the damage he does." How can you
> talk about Hirsch that way? He did not do any damage, he UNDID damage!
> "Mendelssohn and Hirsch both caused damage but G-d forgave Hirsch because
> he was a better customer?" What kind of talk is this?!

I think it would be helpful if you reread what I posted. Nowhere do I
state that Hirsch was not a tzadik. I am not aware of anyone who doesn't
consider him a tzadik. Furthermore it is not helpful - at least in a
high level discussion group - to scream rather than present information
and reasoned arguments. Your assertion that since Hirsch was a tzadik
he couldn't have been viewed as breaking anything by eastern European
gedolim strong deviates from the understanding of the yeshiva world. BTW
the Reb Chaim is Rav Chaim Soleveitchik a.k.a. Reb Chaim Brisker. It is
not a misquote.

A number of years ago I traveled to Migdal Emek to get a haskoma from
your father. We had a wide ranging discussion including the issues of the
Chasam Sofer and Emancipation and in particular what he characterized
as the dark forces that took over after the Chasam Sofer's passing. He
mentioned that he had written a lot on these issues. I asked him why
he didn't publish them and he replied, "I am afraid". Similarly when I
discussed my latest work with him he said, "You will never get away with
it. The yeshiva world does not think dialectically but insists there is
only one way to think about things. But I want to buy a copy". Likewise he
indicated he was furious by the attempt to portray Hirsch as a Chareidi
Jew. [Please read carefully the debate between Rabbi Elias and Rabbi
Danziger in Jewish action on this issue - your father clearly agreed 100%
with Rabbi Danziger's position].

I wasn't aware of any disagreement with the observation that the yeshiva
world rejects Hirsch's views except as an emergency measure to save
German Jews or others in similar circumstances. Emergency measure is
expressed in Torah terms by ais la'asos. When it is an "ais la'asos"
the Torah can be erased in order to preserve it. The only debate is
whether Hirsch himself viewed it as a legitimate approach lchatchila.

Berachos(63a) [Soncino translation] "IT WAS LAID DOWN THAT GREETING SHOULD
BE GIVEN IN [G-D'S] NAME etc. Why the further citation? -- You might
think that Boaz spoke thus on his own accord; come and hear, therefore,
[the other text] 'THE L-RD IS WITH THEE, THOU MIGHTY MAN OF VALOUR'. You
might still say that it was an angel who spoke thus to Gideon; come
and hear, therefore, the other text, 'DESPISE NOT THY MOTHER WHEN SHE
IS OLD'; and it says, 'IT IS TIME TO WORK FOR THE L-RD, THEY HAVE MADE
VOID THY LAW. Raba said: The first clause of this verse can be taken
as explaining the second, and the second can be taken as explaining the
first. 'The first clause may be taken as explaining the second', thus:
It is time to work for the L-rd. Why? Because they have made void Thy
law.'The second clause may be taken as explaining the first', thus: They
have made void Thy law. Why? Because it is time to work for the L-rd."

Thus Reb Chaim was merely expressing the view that Hirsch's approach
involved breakage - but that this was justified because of what he
accomplished. As I posted previously - the Ksav Sofer rejected the
Hirschian approach for Hungary but felt it was justified for Germany.

If the above is not sufficient evidence let me quote the Seridei
Aish(1:77) - someone who knew intimately the world of the yeshivas as well
as the world of the German Jew. He describes a conversation between R'
Yisroel Salanter and R' Hildesheimer
"It is well known the story concerning HaGaon Moreinu HaRav Yisroel
Salanter zt"l when he met HaGaon HaTzadik Rav Hildsheimer zt"l and he
saw him giving shiurim in Tanach and Shulchan Aruch before young women
and girls and this is what he said. 'If one of the Lithuanian rabbonim
would conduct himself this way in his congregation he would definitely
be fired from his position and that is the din. Nevertheless halevai
that my portion in Gan Eden should be with HaGaon HaTzadik Rav Esriel
Hildsheimer.' The reason was because of Ais La'asos one erases the
Torah as I have explained above." It is worth reading the whole tshuva
in which he justifies mixed groups singing etc because of the wisdom
of the German rabbonim who were well aware of the necessity of such an
approach in their society.

>There is a huge difference between Hirsch and--not to speak of them in
>the same breath--Mendelssohn.

What do you do with the following:

"one ought to have asked himself: Moshe ben Maimon, Moshe ben Mendel
- are they in fact Moshe ben Amram?" A statement that the Chazon Ish
paskened should be deleted from a Hebrew translation of the 19 Letters.

In sum. The initial quote is a strong rejection of a statement that
had not been made and contains assertions concerning the view of the
yeshiva world which are simply mistaken and seem to reflect an ignorance
of the facts and issues. RSRH was a tzadik he saved German Judaism, he
successfully developed an approach which led to Beis Yaakov, the Agudah
and the curriculum in most western yeshivos. However this was achieved -
according to the yeshiva world - by doing violence to the system i.e.,
ais la'asos.

Rabbi Schwab wrote anonymously the following [published in Tradition 31:3
1977 p 76] in his rejection of the yeshivishe view [Michtav M'Eliyahu vol
3 pp 355-360] of the Hirschian educational system. "It seems to me that
both [i.e., the Frankfurt" and the "Torah only"] educational approaches
are well grounded in the sources and both are essential for the continued
existence of the Jewish people in our time. So it shall remain until the
redemption takes place. Then Elijah the Prophet will resolve all problems
including this one. He will decide retroactively whether R. Samson Raphael
Hirsch's approach was a time bound one, intended only for his generation
or whether it was intended for all generations and all places..."

                                                            Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 1/26/2003 8:55:17 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Yes, of course RSRH was on the straight and narrow. But how? How
> were his changes within the pale? How were they different in kind than
> Mendelsohn's? And yes, he introduced huge hashkagic changes and a number
> of significant practical ones to minhag Franfurt.

I cannot say for sure that MM's changes were significantly different
except probably one re: the view of Israel as a people vs. as a religion.
It seems that MM rejected Jewish nationhood. This IMHO was a seriously
flawed shita by MM> I don't think RSRH would ever deny the national
purpose of Israel

Re: their ATTITUDES - personality more than Hashkafah - MM seems to
have been a lot more rebellious towards Gdolei Torah tha nwas RSRH.
At least this is the common folkwisdom ora; traditions you get from
older Yekkes who consider MM as a bit of a an iconclastic type by nature.

> Some concluded that no, there are no differences, and therefore refuse
> to reject Mendelson. I don't see that position.

> But asserting that MM and RSRH differ because one's changes were damaging
> and the other were repairing simply restates the question.

Indeed. As cited above I think MM's character flaws wer probably the
source of his rejection more than his articulated positions. While RSRH
comes across as creative, open-minded and expansive, MM came accross to
many as a bit defiant.

Remember the questions of the Chacham and the Rasha in the
Haggadah?! Perhaps what they say is not so different but HOW they seem
to say it is apparently quite different.

To put this another way:
Making Changes in Torah from a POV of enhancing it can be seen as
"lehadgil Torah ul'ha'adirah"...However,
Making changes because Chazal and/or Rabbanim were/are flawed is a direct
challenge to Torah.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 1/26/2003 8:55:14 PM EST, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> >IMHO, MM was on the right track BUT FLAWED. It took the experience
> >form his flaws to produce a far more perfected version - I.e. the TIDE
> >of Hirsch. But Hirsch - as do we - had the luxury of hindsight...
> 
> >IOW, it would be a big mistake to take MM lock stock and barrell, but
> >it is alos unfair to condemn him completely. A more selective view
> >is needed. MM blazed the trail for a ghetto-free frumkeit....
> 
> A similar analysis is found in Das Sofrim by R' Chaim Dov Rabinowitz page
> 194, 206 pp262-267

This idea flows out of a simple Midrash. V'es Yehduah Shalach lefonov
Goshnah, when Galus Bavel happned Yeshivos went 11 years PRIOR to the
main body of the people. Yeshivos need to be chalutzim and get there
FIRST. This has been the motif of Torah uM'esorah's penetration into
the boondocks of North America.

OTOH, when the Torah world hangs back people are lost.

Illustration 1. When the ghetto walls came down were Yeshivos pioneering
in the front line,leading the charge to a new frontier, or hanging back?
What was the result?l

Illustration 2. When the poor huddled Jewish masses migrated to North
America circa 1880 {and beyond} were Talmidie Chachamim heading the
charge and seting up facilties to meet the new demands or were they
remaing behind? What was the result?

Mussar haskel. You gotta get there first. I'll bet the Lubavicher Rebbe
was one of the first to exploit mass communcations on behalf of Torah,
like sattelite hook-ups, etc. He knew {or rather foresaw} that you gotta
get there ahead of the crowd. Think of how many years ago Chabad began
publishing in French, Spanish and Russian, etc.

MO's have done a farily good job in some areas of exploiting new
territory whether it be tehcnolgoical or georgraphical. Those who do
not get their early {AND OFTEN!} will be left behind. There is a danger
in being a Chalutz. It does take sacrifice. OTOH there is a greater
danger to Klal Yisrael wihtout them.

FWIW, R. Yosef Weiss, My rebbe for Yoreh De'aih, told us to get out
of NYC and to to Kansas or Oklahmoa etc. There's wher you can make a
bigger "oof-tu". Now of course many Gedolim did go to the sticks.Rav
Ruderman went to a raltively isolated Baltimore, Telshe to Cleveland,
RAK to Lakewood, etc.

So the lesson was not, and has not been lost on Yeshiva types completely.
SEED programs are going all over the world.

However, the big opportunites were around the Age of Revolution in the
late 18th Century and a Century later when America grew to become the
largest Yishuv in the world. AISI, Had there been RSRH's, Rav Kook's
and RYBS's in great numbers at those critcal junctures catastrophe might
have been averted.

Of course we believe in "Bashert" on some level so I'm not sure History
can ever be written realistically, but it is a good practice today to
find the remote outposts and get there. And BH the internet is one of the
most penetrating vehicles we have today. Let's by all means exploit it.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.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         ]