Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 92

Wed, 24 Jun 2015

• 1. Re: Ishbaal's Jar (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Re: Soul Terminology, and Expressions of Love: Proper Frum Expression In The Lens of the Ashkenaz Tradition ? Gleanings From Rav Shimon Schwab (Micha Berger)
• 3. Kuntros chasidei umos haolam (M Cohen)
• 4. Two Levels of Bitachon (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Two Levels of Bitachon (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: Two Levels of Bitachon (Micha Berger)
• 7. Jewish Action 2000 review of RYBS book (Toby Katz)
• 8. Re: Jewish Action 2000 review of RYBS book (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Jewish Action 2000 review of RYBS book (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Jewish Action 2000 review of RYBS book (Zev Sero)
• 11. Kol Isha Twist (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 12. Re: Kol Isha Twist (Zev Sero)
• 13. Kaddish with mixed seating (Kaganoff)

On 6/18/2015 8:50 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> According to TOI <http://www.timesofisrael.com/inscription
> -bearing-name-from-davidic-era-found-at-ancient-site>
> or <http://j.mp/1dMdZVd>, discusses finding a jar that dates to around
> 1020-980 BCE (Iron Age), breating the name the name of Ishbaal ben Beda.
>
> Ishbaal is Divrei HaYamim's name for the son of Shaul whom seifer
> Shemuel calls Ishboshet. (Probably because bearing the name of Baal
> is a bushah.)

The standard form for names in most of the ancient near east was 
DN-stem, or stem-DN, where DN is a divine name.  We have this pattern 
ourselves with names like Chizki-Yahu and N'tan-El, or El-Chanan and 
Yeho-natan.

 From what I've seen, it wasn't unheard of for people to refer to the 
same person, but exchange the DN.  So Ish-Boshet for Ish-Baal is in line 
with Hado-Ram (I Chron 18:10) for Yo-Ram (II Sam 8:10), or Hado-Ram (II 
Sam 20:24, I Kings 12:18, II Chron 10:18) for Adoni-Ram (I Kings 4:6, 5:28).

I don't see any indication that this pattern of name was different 
towards the beginning or towards the end of the monarchy.  That said, 
Baal in particular sort of declined after the time of Eliyahu.  They had 
newer avodah zarahs to play with.

I don't really see a lot of chronological significance here.  Yes, they 
did some radiometric dating, but as always, I would take that with grain 
of salt until I saw the raw results.  When you send something for carbon 
dating, you tell them first what your target date is, so that they can 
discard results that are off from that too significantly.  Not very 
scientific, but I guess it's "science-y".

Lisa

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 07:00:53AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: Please see http://tinyurl.com/q64ehha

On the second example, I'm reminded of the Soloveitchik tradition that
emotions are the Qodesh haQadashim of avodas Hashem. And therefore
while RSSschwab's position was depited as:

> Nowadays one at times witnesses public statements, in the form of songs,
> declarations, and even bumper stickers, proclaiming [HQBH anachnu ohavim
> Osakh!] (Hashem, we love you), an expression that was not commonly heard
> shouted aloud in the past in our circles. Is that in consonance with our
> [Mesorah]? Rav Schwab (in his address entitled Internalizing Eternity)
> states the following (after 33:20) Since Ahavas Hashem is such a strictly
> personal matter, he who truly loves Hashem does not show his [Ahavah]. He
> rather hides it. It is far too intimate to parade it in public. He is
> mekayeim [vehatzneia lekhes im E-lokekha]. It is exclusively his private
> affair, between him and his Creator.

Briskers would not expose any emotion. And so, when RYBS left for
Berlin, R' Moshe took him to the train station, but there was no
emotional goodbye. Even though RMF didn't know if he would ever see
his son (and chavrusah) again. RYBS said he knew his father's feelings
at the moment, he just knew that he would never display it publicly.
Just a simple "Leikh leshalom HQBH zul dir matzliach zein!"

Story told far better, in RYBS's own words here
<https://books.google.com/books?id=Fg5eCThNlb4C&;pg=PA68&lpg=PA68>

In any case, the Brisker approach doesn't speak to too many people in this
generation. I would bet many of us would consider it less-than-positive.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

The was once a link posted here to a Kuntros chasidei umos haolam (In
hebrew) 

from a Rav in south Africa (I think he was an Ohr Samach graduate)

 

Does anyone have it or a link to it?

 

Thanks, mc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150622/c633abb5/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash Parshas Shelach.

We suggest the following explanation: Hashem demands bitachon of 
every Jew - trust
in Hashem that everything will turn out for the best, without worrying about
what the future might bring. Throughout the generations, devout Jews 
have walked
this path. A person with bitachon ultimately will merit to see 
clearly that, indeed,
"All that Hashem does is for the best."

There are two types of bitachon. The first is trusting in Hashem with "closed
eyes," with no speculation about what may develop. However, there is 
a second kind
of bitachon that is even greater than the first. This is the bitachon 
of "open eyes."
One who follows this path looks ahead and sees clearly that the 
future might entail
great danger, that his life may be full of trials and tribulations. 
Nevertheless, he
does not hesitate, relying on Hashem to help him deal with whatever 
the future will
hold. This kind of bitachon is greater than the first, because 
someone who trusts in
:Hashem with "open eyes" must elevate his bitachon to a much higher 
level in order
to overcome his worries and quiet his concerns.

However, as great as this second path is, it is fraught with danger. There is a
strong possibility that instead of overcoming one's fears and worries, one will
be vanquished by them. A "realistic" evaluation of the challenges could be so
frightening as to cause one to lose his bitachon in Hashem 
altogether. Therefore,
:although the bitachon of "open eyes" might be appropriate for 
certain great people,
Hashem does not demand it of us. Hashem only requires us to have the bitachon
of "closed eyes"; we need only trust that everything will turn out 
for the best, in
accordance with His will, without considering what the future might 
hold. This is
implied in the pasuk (Yeshayahu 12:2), 11) Behold the G-d of
salvation; I shall trust in Him, and I will not fear.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150622/81886adc/attachment-0001.htm>

I'm not sure what this is in reference to, the sin of the spies?

What does it mean, to live ones life without worrying about the future?  
You trust in God so therefore you're calm (meaning you live your life 
the same way anyone else does, but you have inner peace)?

Ben

On 6/22/2015 11:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> We suggest the following explanation: Hashem demands bitachon of every 
> Jew - trust
> in Hashem that everything will turn out for the best, without worrying 
> about
> what the future might bring. Throughout the generations, devout Jews 
> have walked
> this path. A person with bitachon ultimately will merit to see clearly 
> that, indeed,
> "All that Hashem does is for the best."

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 05:32:42PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash Parshas Shelach.
...
: There are two types of bitachon. The first is trusting in Hashem with "closed
: eyes," with no speculation about what may develop. However, there is
: a second kind
: of bitachon that is even greater than the first. This is the
: bitachon of "open eyes."
: One who follows this path looks ahead and sees clearly that the
: future might entail
: great danger, that his life may be full of trials and tribulations.
: Nevertheless, he
: does not hesitate, relying on Hashem to help him deal with whatever
: the future will
: hold...

I just want to point out that RSS here is assuming the descriptive
bitachon of the CI, not the prescrictive bitachon of Novhardok (and many
kiruv programs and religious fiction).

The Alter of Novhardok taught that bitachon causes positive results. If
you trust G-d enough, He will make things turn out the way you desire.

And when you point out to said public speaker that indeed life doesn't work
that way this idea gets modified into: Hashem will make things turn out
the way you'll be happy with once you get to the end of the road.

And while I'm being cynical about it, this is unassailable. If things don't
yet have a happy ending, it just means the story isn't over yet. You can
just push the long run out further and further until you find the happy
outcome you promised.

In Emunah uBitchon, the CI rejects this notion. He says that bitachon is
belief that things are working out according to Divine Plan. A believe in
how things run, not a belief that causes things to run right. Rather than
the comfort of knowing that you'll like the results, one aims for the
comfort that all of life's suffering has meaning and a purpose.

RSS presumes the latter and appears to be saying that one can then take this
trust in two different ways:
- Since Hashem is driving, I don't need to bother looking out the
  windsheild, it will just stress me out for nothing.

- Hashem and I are in partnership, so I cannot refrain from helping Him
  bring us to our destination, even when it involves heading for trials
  and tribulations.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life is a stage and we are the actors,
mi...@aishdas.org        but only some of us have the script.
http://www.aishdas.org               - Rav Menachem Nissel
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I recently came across the issue of Jewish Action (the OU's quarterly
magazine) of Fall 2000 and in that issue there was a remarkable article.
It was a review of a two-volume book called *The Rav: The World of
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik* by Rabbi Dr. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff.
The review article was written by R' Philip Weinberger.

It was a very laudatory review, written by someone who admired and
respected RYBS and who thought the book was excellent. It's important
to note that he respected RYBS and admired the book, because when you
see what I am going to quote from the review, you might think otherwise.
But if you read the whole review you will clearly see that what looks
like a negative to me is clearly seen as a positive by R' Weinberger.

http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ja/5761fall/BOOKS.PDF

OK here goes -- the most interesting parts of the review (I have mostly  
dispensed with ellipses, which are distracting):

--quote--

[The book] focused my attention on a paradox that confronts me every time
a new book or article appears about the saintly Rabbi Soloveitchik, zt"l.
In the latter part of the twentieth century, the Rav was one of the most
outstanding rabbinic titans, teaching and leading the Jewish people. A
master of communication, orally and in print, he left behind multitudes
of devoted students and admirers who still hang on his every word. Yet
the Rav seems to have left a legacy that is unclear and misunderstood,
despite his gifted powers of communication.

Among the numerous questions, debated passionately by those who
represent themselves as knowing the Rav's authentic thinking, are:
What was the Rav's view toward secular education; Torah u'Madda; new
religious practices by women; reciting Hallel on Yom HaAtzma'ut; and
Religious Zionism?

There is a raging battle among his followers as to who may legitimately
and authentically present the Rav's opinions, thoughts, ideas and
teachings.

How could so careful a teacher, who could literally spend hours at a time
in shiurim defining with precision the meaning of a particular word or
phrase, be misunderstood on so many basic and critical issues?

The Rav himself, despite his best efforts, was misunderstood and misquoted
in his lifetime by able people who presumably had the best of intentions.

The Rav illustrates that he was misunderstood by journalists because
of their lack of familiarity with the Rav's precise use of language
and terminology, and because the Rav's thoughts, ideas and speech were
extraordinarily nuanced, delicate, subtle and sophisticated.

However, the book falls short, even on its own terms, in its failure to
more deeply explore the complexity and nuances of the Rav's thoughts
and insights that were influenced by the religious, existential, and
personal tensions that the Rav experienced and talked about. Similarly,
the book does not treat much of the controversy that sometimes surrounded
the Rav in a meaningful way.

There is no acknowledgment of how the Rav was inappropriately treated
and often marginalized in the yeshivah universe because of his embracing
secular studies and Religious Zionism (albeit in a disciplined and highly
nuanced manner)...

in a letter to Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Shragai, the Rav writes : "If I were
to judge this matter (which party to associate with) based on pragmatic
or political considerations, I would join the zealots who ask nothing
of their members (not diligence in Torah study, not pure fear of Heaven,
nor spending money on tzedakah, nor excessive care with regard to mitzvot)
except to besmirch our movement. I could clothe myself with the mantle
of a tzaddik and 'fighter of the Lord's battles.' "

This and other letters to Rabbi Shragai show clearly what a man of
principle the Rav was.

...Scholars and laymen alike are indebted to Rabbi Rakeffet for his
vital work.

--end quote--

Well, you can see why this review would interest me.

Let's take a few points:

[1] "The Rav seems to have left a legacy that is unclear and
misunderstood, despite his gifted powers of communication." I would
suggest that the end of the sentence is contradicted by the beginning
of the sentence.

The main thing that the Rav generally managed to communicate was that
one could be a great Torah scholar and also be a brilliant intellectual
in secular terms. This was not the text but the ur-text of much of what
he wrote. I will add that he did this not for his own honor but for the
honor of the Torah, which was often treated with contempt by mid-twentieth
century Jews who were rapidly abandoning the Torah.

But his opaque Germanic philosophical style of speaking and writing was
by its very nature open to multiple interpretations, and could neither
be summarized nor re-written in plain American English.

[2] "Among the numerous questions, debated passionately by those who
represent themselves as knowing the Rav's authentic thinking, are:
What was the Rav's view toward secular education; Torah u'Madda; new
religious practices by women; reciting Hallel on Yom HaAtzma'ut; and
Religious Zionism?"

I would have to say that this is a highly unusual thing to say of any
gadol. Of which other gadol could it be said that after he taught and
wrote for decades, no one could be sure what his position was on the
most important issues of his day?

[2A] "What was the Rav's view toward Religious Zionism?" and "his
embracing Religious Zionism (albeit in a disciplined and highly nuanced
manner)..."

Those of us who have claimed (based admittedly, at times, on anecdotal
evidence and oral reports) that RYBS was not really a Zionist have often
been vilified. Yet here a great admirer of RYBS admits that his views
were far from obvious, and subject to much disagreement even among his
followers. That RYBS was a great lover of Eretz Yisrael -- of that there
can be no doubt. That he really believed in the whole aschalta de'geulah
ideology of RZ -- highly doubtful. The rest can be left for another time,
or another book.

[3] "How could so careful a teacher, who could literally spend hours at
a time in shiurim defining with precision the meaning of a particular
word or phrase, be misunderstood on so many basic and critical issues?"

It may be that in a Gemara shiur, trying to define a word with great
precision may lead to greater understanding, but out here in the larger
world, such precise definitions tend to leave most people scratching their
heads. Common everyday words lose their accepted, common meanings, and
the many sentences used to define those words lead to greater obscurity
rather than clarity. "When I use a word, it means precisely what I want
it to mean." But his listeners or readers are often left in the dark.

[4] "The Rav was misunderstood...because his thoughts, ideas and speech
were extraordinarily nuanced, delicate, subtle and sophisticated." The
impression left by all that subtlety and nuance is that he was trying to
avoid saying anything controversial that could be quoted in a sound bite.

[5] "There is no acknowledgment of how the Rav was inappropriately
treated and often marginalized in the yeshivah universe"

[6] "...the zealots who ask nothing of their members (not diligence in
Torah study, not pure fear of Heaven, nor spending money on tzedakah, nor
excessive care with regard to mitzvot) except to besmirch our movement. I
could clothe myself with the mantle of a tzaddik and 'fighter of the
Lord's battles...' "

Maybe [6] at least partially explains [5].  Maybe the  way he felt about 
them was reflected in the way they felt about him.

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com

Let's take a few points:

[1] "The Rav seems to have left a legacy that is unclear and
misunderstood, despite his gifted powers of communication." I would
suggest that the end of the sentence is contradicted by the beginning
of the sentence.

[2] "Among the numerous questions, debated passionately by those who
represent themselves as knowing the Rav's authentic thinking, are:
What was the Rav's view toward secular education; Torah u'Madda; new
religious practices by women; reciting Hallel on Yom HaAtzma'ut; and
Religious Zionism?"

[2A] "What was the Rav's view toward Religious Zionism?" and "his
embracing Religious Zionism (albeit in a disciplined and highly nuanced
manner)..."


[3] "How could so careful a teacher, who could literally spend hours at
a time in shiurim defining with precision the meaning of a particular
word or phrase, be misunderstood on so many basic and critical issues?"

[4] "The Rav was misunderstood...because his thoughts, ideas and speech
were extraordinarily nuanced, delicate, subtle and sophisticated." The
impression left by all that subtlety and nuance is that he was trying to
avoid saying anything controversial that could be quoted in a sound bite.

[5] "There is no acknowledgment of how the Rav was inappropriately
treated and often marginalized in the yeshivah universe"

[6] "...the zealots who ask nothing of their members (not diligence in
Torah study, not pure fear of Heaven, nor spending money on tzedakah, nor
excessive care with regard to mitzvot) except to besmirch our movement. I
could clothe myself with the mantle of a tzaddik and 'fighter of the
Lord's battles...' "

Maybe [6] at least partially explains [5].  Maybe the  way he felt about 
them was reflected in the way they felt about him.
_______________________________________________
I remember reading the original review and being very surprised.
[1]&[2]&[3] My general impression is that most of the lack of
clarity and misunderstandings are on issues that have  little to do with
the style issue. I don't think many  get  concerned about whether Adam I
and II ever resolve their dialectic .  The main cause of misunderstandings
imho  can be generously stated as being caused by The Rav's being so sui
generis that students could not assimilate the whole of his teachings. The
less generous approach would be that some want to be toleh on an ilan gadol
and project their own priorities and approaches on him.  Could anyone who
looked at his life as a whole have any doubt that he valued secular
studies?  That he was a non-messianic RZ lover of eretz Yisrael seems
pretty clear.
[4]Or how about the world is complex and our desire (btw very reflective of
our host society) is to boil everything down to a sound bite goes against
the educational need to understand how to look at complex issues 
[6]explaining [5] seems to me like the classic blaming the victim for
"asking for it".  I can only assume the fact that other roshei yeshiva
didn't publically call for tolerance was that they did think he, and MO,
was krum or they had higher priorities or didn't think their talmidim would
listen to them.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

Both Ishbitz and Chabad, Rushin and Satmar each beleive theirs is the
most accurate understanding of Derekh haBhesh"t.

Kelm, Novhardok and Slabodka have very different understandings of R
Yisrael Salanter's teachings.

RAYK's disagree over what their rebbe meant.

Even Moshe Rabbeinu -- he had 70 front-row talmidim and ever since we
have had 70 panim laTorah.

Any gadol brilliant and subtle enough to be worth following will
so outstrip his talmidim that each only grasps onto one facet and
interpretation of a more complex original.

This is far from unique to RYBS.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 06/23/2015 09:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Both Ishbitz and Chabad, Rushin and Satmar each beleive theirs is the
> most accurate understanding of Derekh haBhesh"t.

Satmar doesn't believe this; rather, it believes that the BSh"T's torah has been lost.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

See http://www.kikar.co.il/174128.html or 
http://www.totpi.com/2/ultra-orthodox-woman-performs-incognito-
on-the-x-factor/

It's an interesting loophole: Since kol b'isha erva only applies when 
you know what a woman looks like, the heavy sunglasses and very modest 
dress may do the trick. Not middas chassidus, but perhaps on a 
technicality permitted.

KT,
YGB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150623/270629ea/attachment-0001.htm>

On 06/23/2015 10:21 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote:
>
> It's an interesting loophole: Since kol b'isha erva only applies when
> you know what a woman looks like, the heavy sunglasses and very
> modest dress may do the trick. Not middas chassidus, but perhaps on a
> technicality permitted.

I don't see anything in the two linked articles about such a loophole.
And I don't think it would work.   Surely you can see enough of her to
form some idea, perhaps mistaken, but enough for the yetzer hara to work with.
I think the true heter for what she's doing is a lot simpler: she is not
machshil anyone, because whoever is watching the show is already seeing and
hearing enough women sing that one more makes no difference at all.  If
she didn't sing, then in all likelihood another woman would do so, wearing
much less and acting more provocatively; or else a man would be giving some
provocative performance that would be almost as bad.  So really what has she
done wrong?  Those who don't normally watch should continue not to watch,
and they won't be affected.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

I am curious if anyone has written about a common practice.



We assume that *Kaddish* is a *Devar she-Bikdusha* and requires a *minyan*
to be recited.



We require separate seating for a *Devar she-Bikdusha.*



In many circles it is not uncommon to have a *siyyum* with a  *kaddish *at
a Bar Mitzvah or a Dinner  even when there is mixed seating.



Does anyone explicitly discuss this practice and permit it?



Yonatan Kaganoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150624/e82f351f/attachment.htm>

------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


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

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)