Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 148

Tuesday, February 2 1999

• Re: Irv Greenberg
• Naming names
• R. Soloveitchik & 1) Bkiut; 2) tefilla
• Darchei Sholom
• Re: Litvak view of learning
• Revoking hora'a
• Re: defending kullos
• Aspersions, R' Mordechai Kaplan, and The Jewish Center
• Sociology vs. Halakhah: Kisuy rosh, mixed swimming, etc.
• Re: Sociology vs. Halakhah: Kisuy rosh, mixed swimming, etc.
• Re: kol haomer david chatah
• The Jewish Center
• Re: Rabbinic courtesies
• Eruv Tavshilin
• Re: Eruv Tavshilin
• Litvisher Tefillo - Anecdotal
• Re: Eruv Tavshilin
• YU SOY Seforim sale
• Swimming and Health
• [none]

Dear Dov Weiss,

      I am sorry if I assumed that Irv lived here in Manhattan, I have seen
him exit the Jewish Center in Manhattan many times on Shabbos, as recently as
last week. I assumed he lived here. I am sorry for the mistake, but the truth
is that it doesnt make one bit of difference where  he lives, I think my point
was clear.

Daniel Lefton

Mr Glasner,

     I left out the name because I have noticed a strong tendency on this
list, of some, to kill the messenger when they don't like the message.  So
that I'm a saint but I'd rather people "yell" at me then at the RY in
question.  As to your proof from giving a divar Torah it is simply not true
- case in point I spoke in a right of center Yeshivah on Rosh Hashanah a
few years ago and quoted a MO gadol as an "adam gadol"  maybe I'm wrong -
but I'm consistent.  If Mica thinks there's a real toleles in naming names
I will, but I think bclal the list would be better off talking ideas and
not naming people.  I'm sorry if you disagree, and for the future I will
try b'n  to stay away from such problems by not getting overly involved in
sensitive issues at least to the extent of bringing anonymous posokim -
which I agree have no great weight in an intellectual discussion.

Moshe

1. The Rav approvingly quoted the view of Shulhan Arukh haRav that there
is a kiyyum of reading Tanakh even if one doesn't understand it, because
it's Written Torah and the words themselves are important, but that
there's no kiyyum in reading Gemara without understanding. I can't imagine
him saying that understanding the Gemara on a superficial level, would not
be Torah, though it was his nature to do everything intensively.

2. R. Lichtenstein has said (and it's written in last issue of Shana
b'Shana) that as he got older the Rav was more inclined to seek out a
minyan. Even in his old age, however, he often davened minha in the
apartment when I was with him, in order not to interrupt our work.

>>Rav Aaron Kotler worked closely with the RCA in saving people from the
Shoah. <<
I heard that R. A. Kotler seprated Chinuch Atzmoi from the Agudo in order to 
enable the Rav to participate.  See Dr. Joseph Kaminetzky's authobiography for 
other examples of co-operation between Yeshivishe Gedolim and "MO" leaders.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:
> 
> My rebbe R. Lichtenstein once related that the Rav, in his vigorous
> years, was sometimes so involved in a sugya on Shabbat afternoon, that
> he would not go back to shul for minhah, but would daven be-yehidut,
> because the walking time would take away from his time for learning.
> 
> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 
Does anyone know the mekor which allows one to miss tefilla betzibur as
well as krias hatorah (it was shabbos afternoon) in order to continue
learning. Couldn't the Rav continue learning while he walked--to mull over
a svara or something. This also implies that one should continue learning
during chazaras hashatz if he was involved in a sugya--doesn't it. This I
know comes under sharp criticism even from the biggest litvaks. It would
also seem from the story that the Rav interrupted his indepth learning to
daven and go right back to learning--This also presents a halachic problem
of davening while something is on ones mind. I'm curious to clarify these
points.
Elie Ginsparg

Rav Bechhoffer brings down the case from 1972 about ? revoking smicha.  If I am
right about the case, (the Langer case??), one should be very careful about the
lessons to be learned from it.

 i)It was a highly politicized case, and 

ii) Tremendous pressure was brought on people (and some people believe
misinformation) to condemn the ruling, and

 iii) it was thought to have major implications for kedushat Yisrael. From the
beginning, it was painted in both the secular and religious press as whether the
rabbanut would allow mamzerim to marry. A regional court had ruled that some
people were mamzerut, and the rav established a bet din leirurim, and pointed
outh what they thought were major errors in the original psak, and ruled they
were not mamzerim.  The charedi press then proclaimied that from now on, the
rabbanut will always find a heter for mamzerim to marry.

The Jewish Observer is hardly a reliable, objective source on this  matter. 
However, even the quotations cited, which were given in this atmosphere, do not
support the position of removal of the title of rav.  Rather, they seem to say
that his decision is unjustified and can not be relied upon.  Some seem to
suggest that given his error and the political pressures the rav is assumed t be
under, he can not be relied upon for the future, but they do not address the
issue of his title.   I don't think that anyone questions that rabbanim may
question the decision of another rav, or even raise questions about relying on
future decsions, given past history, but this does not quite address the issue
raised.

The rav wrote a whole book outlining in detail and justifying each step that he 
took, and those who would condemn him should read his sefer beforehand.    shut
Bnei Banim brings down that his grandfather, Rav Henkin, was strongly pressured
to join in the condemnation, but refused, saying that the rav was a gadol
batorah (he refused to decide as to the validity of the decision, lacking the
information, but affirmed that the Rav had the stature and credibility to make
such a decision.


For many of us, the uproar about the Langer case was a proof of the
politicization of halacha.  The comparison of Rav Rackman to the Langer case is
probably the only support (albeit unintended) that rav Rackman has received on
this group.  He would welcome this comparison, as it provides implicit support
and precedent for his contention that the massive condemnation of his actions is
political, rather than purely halachic. (Not that I endorse that position, but
we need to be careful with our precedents).


Meir Shinnar

>>>However, this doesn't take away the right of one to ask that others
justify that point of view.(i can think you're not a sinner while still
asking you why you act in a particular way) The posts that I have read of
yours  in the past would cause me to believe that you would search out the
source
for the heter and not blindly follow, when a safek issur is at stake.
Therefore, if in fact you believe that mixed swimmin is allowed you'll be
the one who will tell me what the heter is based on .
Elie Ginsparg<<<

Your hunch is 100% on target - I wouldn;t follow the kulah blindly (much as I
wouldn;'t follow a chumrah blindly either).  I avoided the mixed swimming
issue entirely because I cannot attempt to justify it - and I don't believe an
anecdotal ma'aseh Rav is sufficient justification to be matir possible issurei
d'oraysa.  I don't think "MO" relies on "pook chazaei" as someone else wrote;
there klalei hora'ah are the same for everyone.  My point was simply: if I
were to see someone who I was machzik as a T"Ch on the beach I would assume he
knew the same tshuvos as you and I, and I would ask him to explain before
publicly decrying him to be a sinner.  The issue again is not what is the
heter, but how to relate to those who are matir.  The Shach takes the Taz to
task on every page of Y"D but I still think he he was machzik the Taz to be a
lamdan.  In general, on this point I think we are in agreement (should I say a
shehechiyanu? : - )

-Chaim

R' Eli Clark writes:
> Incidentally, for those who are interested in the history of Orthodoxy
> in America, the establishment of the Jewish Center is a fascinating
> episode.  Briefly, it was begun by Mordechai Kaplan (anyone think I
> should be putting an R. in front of his name? I think was a certified
> apikores).

Yes, insofar as his smicha is probably as strong as yours, given that
most people seem to feel these days that individual smicha is stronger
than institutional smicha.
 
>           as an Orthodox shul.  Kaplan had been educated at YU, but had

No, JTS.  Before they imported R' Solomon Schechter in 1902, they had
been *the* American Orthodox rabbinical school, with both high school
and college-level programs.  They were criticized by the more "right-wing"
rabbis for not teaching enough gemora in a year (17 blatt per term),
but nobody questioned their Orthodoxy.  They did not, however, grant
smicha - you still had to go to Europe to be ordained.  YU did not yet
exist; it was an elementary-and-high school called Yeshiva Etz Chaim.

R' Kaplan went in about 1906 to his father's friend R' Jacob Reines
for smicha.  Kaplan graduated JTS in 1902, and became the *senior*
rabbi at Kehillath Jeshurun.  He used the title "minister" until he got
smicha.  The Ramaz, R' Moshe Zvulun Margolies, for all of his major
reputation as the foremost Orthodox rabbi of his day in America, was
the *junior* rabbi at KJ until Kaplan left - KJ wanted a man who could
give sermons in English to be the senior rabbi.

> begun embracing a host of un-Orthodox ideas.  Nevertheless, he was one

About 1908 he started publishing some of his odder ideas, but he kept
them out of the shul, he was very active in outreach to the children 
of immigrants, and he was by all accounts a dynamic speaker.

> of the few educated and articulate English-speaking Orthodox rabbis in
> America, and the wealthy Orthodox ba'al ha-batim apparently did not take
> his radical reputation seriously.  Kaplan insisted that the institution
> be called the Jewish Center, because he wanted to move away from the
> old-fashioned idea of a synagogue to an all-embracing center for Jewish
> living.

One of the other people in the Jewish Center group, who put up much of the
money, was my great-grandfather's brother, Joseph H. Cohen.  He was 
willing to tolerate Kaplan's odd ideas for a while, but when Kaplan 
became unable to keep them out of the shul, he all but forced Kaplan out.
Cohen was also on the Yeshiva board when they unanimously opposed merger
with JTS.  He was particularly opposed to the merger because Kaplan 
taught at JTS.  I think he may have felt personally betrayed.

> living.  In any case, fairly shortly into his tenure, he managed to
> shock a majority of the congregation with his radical ideas, and they
> booted him out.

The shul started in 1916. Cohen tried to get the board to vote him out,
but didn't get the majority. Kaplan left a few months later in 1921.

>                          Kaplan moved to a new location, bringing with
> him some wealthy lay supporters and founded a new shul, called (I think)
> the Society for the Advancement of Judasim.

I think SAJ was some time later, no?  He was primarily running the Teachers
Institute at JTS for a long time.

You can read all about this in Jeffrey Gurock & R' JJ Schacter's recent 
book "Modern Heretic and a Traditional Community : Mordecai M. Kaplan,
Orthodoxy and American Judaism".  It's a fascinating book.

David Lefton writes:
>Mechy Frankel writes:
>> mechtonim live on 86th and daven there when not hiking down to the SP - that
>> they don't have a bimah in the center but am otherwise puzzled by the swipe. 
>> are there some secret orgies going on there or something?"
 
> My opinion of the Jewish Center is based on my own experiences of the few
> times I  davened there. Besides the fact that the Mechitza is sub par at best,

It's at least 5.5 feet from the floor.  There are similar mechitzot
in shuls in Flatbush, e.g., Talmud Torah of Flatbush on Coney Island near
I.  That it's not shoulder-high to the women when the women stand up I
don't see as a disqualifier: you can see women stand up in a true balcony
as well.

As for bima in the front/middle, aren't the big rabbi/president chairs
at the front of the shul enough to make the bima "in the middle"?  We have
a similar dodge in our shul - a row of chairs in front of the bima that
almost nobody ever sits in.

> there are countless things wrong with this shul. I can recall 2 situations in
> the few times I davened there, where the Gabbai publically embarassed someone
> for walking in during the Rabbis speech. While Im sure Rabbi Shachter is not

That's an Americanism.  There used to be a lot of shuls like this.  It's 
something that American audiences wanted in the 20's; it still survives 
to some extent in some of the shuls.

> 100% in favor of dealing with people this way, he has done nothing to stop it,
> as far as I know. If you ever step foot in the Jewish Center for just a few
> minutes, it becomes quite clear that it is all ceremony and no circumstance.

Of course.  What do you expect when you don't give a place half a chance?
"A few minutes" indeed!

> As far as the secret orgies go, I have no first hand knowledge of anything
> like that going on (but seeing what some of the people who exit the building
> are wearing on Shabbos, I wouldn't be suprised), but it is well known, in fact

You'll see the same wardrobe at lots of shuls in NY and even more so outside
of NYC.

> documented in a recent New York Times article that the building that is
> adjacent to the (so called) Jewish Center is a brothel. NYPD closed it down a

"So called"?  Where did you go, the Lakewood "so-called" yeshiva?

> couple of months ago and it was all over the news. You know what they say "Ohy
> L'Rasha Ohy L'Shchaina"

This garbage needs no rebuttal.

> would go as far as to say that is almost as a big of a chutzpah to defend
> Greenberg from being called an Apikores as it is for him to say the stupidity
> that he does.

Note, as R' Dov Weiss pointed out, you would not likely have seen the
Greenbergs at the Jewish Center, as they live in Riverdale.  

Yes, I'm rather upset, as "Mr." Lefton is insulting my family, my aunts
and cousins whom he would associate with the brothel next door.

While I admit that I prefer the recent list discussions of modern
Orthodoxy to some of the other threads that have appeared on Avodah, I
find it both fascinating and frightening that the thread has elicited
passionate discussion, not of the value of non-Jewish culture or
involvement in non-Jewish society, but of mixed swimming and giluy rosh.

David Glasner's spirited comments noted that the sheitel is a kulah in
the laws of kisui rosh, no less than the kulah which views the
requirement of kisui rosh as dependent on social conventions.  (As a
personal matter, I read this post with dispassion, as my wife relies on
neither kulah.)  By referring, however obliquely, to the posekim who
subscribe to the latter kulah, David's post differs from the defense of
mixed swimming, which noted that many rabbis and committed Jews engaged
in the practice, but cited no rulings permitting the practice.

But I think that any discusson of mixed swimming or giluy rosh should
draw a clear distinction between halakhah and sociology.  As David
Glasner is aware, a small number of Aharonim viewed kisuy rosh as
somehow dependent on social norms.  However, my experience indicates
that many, many women who do not cover their hair are not aware of this
pesak.  In fact, they do not justify their decision by reference to
halakhic sources.  Nor do they justify their practice by reference to
wives of rabbanim of earlier generations.  Rather, they  believe that
Halakhah requires them to cover their hair, but admit that they simply
do not follow the halakhah, whether for social reasons, professional
reasons, or because they simply find this requirement "too difficult."

Now, it is possible that these women I describe are simply members of
the so-called sociological modern Orthodox (i.e., the lazy ones).  But I
think we have to recognize that the motivations underlying people's
conduct is often quite complex.  A person who lives in a cohesive
community will often follow the norms of that community, even if he (or
she) would otherwise doubt the propriety of the conduct.  (In this vein
Hazal have a saying about makom she-darsu bah rabbim.)

Hence, I believe that, like many women today, many of the women in
earlier generations who did not cover their hair did not see their
conduct as halakhically justified.  Nevertheless, they did not deviate
from the accepted -- unhalakhic -- practice of their family and
community.  (In fact, the communal dislocation to the United States
enabled some women to start covering their hair (e.g., German Jews), as
much as it allowed others to stop keeping mitzvot altogether.)

What is the basis for my belief?  If, as has been said, some mitzvot
have mazel, it seems clear that the laws of kisuy rosh have not had
mazel.  In the last 200 years, in Western (and later in Eastern) Europe,
cultural norms have militated against the strict observance of these
laws.  Today this tension remains quite strong for most Orthodox Jews,
except those who live in self-enclosed enclaves, though it has been
ameliorated somewhat by the sartorial individualism introduced by the
social revolution of the 1960's. 

I think the sheitel question supports my view.  As is well known, when
the sheitel was first introduced, the posekim were generally opposed to
it.  (Note as well that most early wigs were, by today's standards, both
ugly and unrealistic, creating little danger of confusion with real
hair.)  While the sheitel gradually achieved widespread acceptance and
is now de rigueur in yeshivish circles, I would say that the posekim
never developed an enthusiasm for the sheitel.    This is not to say
that the heter to wear a wig has a questionable basis, only that many of
the women who started wearing a wig probably did so without weighing the
halakhic pros and cons.

I believe that the Arukh ha-Shulhan's famous statement also supports my
interpretation.

Of course, this analysis is not limited to hair covering (or mixed
swimming).  Contrary to popular belief, Jews have consistently
disregarded various halakhot since the time of the Mishanh (at least).
This is clear to anyone who reads the Talmud (e.g., the institution of
demai), Rishonim (e.g. Tosafot throughout Shas) and Aharonim (e.g.,
Rema's discussions of minhagenu).  More importantly, the failure to
follow a halakhah was often systematic and community-wide.  As anyone
who has studied Halakhah knows, communities often had established
minhagim that violated Halakhah (e.g., the recitation of Akdamut Milin).

I mention all of this as a sociological analysis.  It goes without
saying that Halakhah, though sometimes taking into account people's
failings, does not systematically endorse them.  While a heter for giluy
rosh did emerge, it does not carry much weight halakhically.  While it
mat be permissible for a person with very poor eyesight to go mixed
swimming (except perhaps for mar'it ayin), for most people the halakhic
dangers are considerable.  Popular acceptance does not translate into
halakhic legitimacy.  To be valid, a tradition need not be written; but
even an oral tradition must have a halakhic basis.

I agree with the posters who claim that we should not be motzi laz on
our ancestors.  This is not because they embodied perfect halakhic
observance, but because they were still superior to us in many ways.  We
have much to learn from them in terms of kavod ha-beriyot, ahavat
Yisrael and more.  I think this list exemplifies the situation.  With
all the collective learning and bekiyut we have, it is sometimes a
struggle for this list to maintain a civil discussion.  I don't think
our grandfathers and great-grandfathers would have had that difficulty.
 Let us follow their example, without glorifying a non-existent past or
idealizing historical expediency.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 2/1/99 7:30:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< 
 I mention all of this as a sociological analysis.  It goes without
 saying that Halakhah, though sometimes taking into account people's
 failings, does not systematically endorse them.  While a heter for giluy
 rosh did emerge, it does not carry much weight halakhically.  While it
 mat be permissible for a person with very poor eyesight to go mixed
 swimming (except perhaps for mar'it ayin), for most people the halakhic
 dangers are considerable.  Popular acceptance does not translate into
 halakhic legitimacy.  To be valid, a tradition need not be written; but
 even an oral tradition must have a halakhic basis.
  >>
Dear Eli,
According to your understanding of the heter for a shaitel, would it be
permissible for a woman to wear a skin colored dress that through
technological wizardry looked just like her skin.  If not, please
differentiate from the shaitel case on a logical, not historical or
sociological, basis.

On a related track, we're all familiar with takanot that were not nitpashet
throughout klal yisrael and thus never 'took hold' halachically.  Any insights
on how long a period was given to see if the takanot were accepted or what the
halachic status of non-acceptors were during the 'trial' period?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Dear list,
Daf yomi learners recently encountered a gemora(yuma 22b) which discusses the
sins of david hamelech without quoting the opinion of R' shmuel ben nachmani
from shabbat 54a of eno ela toeh.  When I looked back at shabbat it occured to
me that one could certainly argue that R' shmuel's opinion was not the
maskana.  Has anyone seen anything on this since from an earlier thread the
theme of perfection of the avot seems to have taken very firm root.

Kol Tuv
Joel RIch

Having just reviewed a book on exactly this issue (see www.h-net.msu.edu)
although Mordechai Kaplan did attend YU he received the bulk of his
training at JTS (albeit JTS was considered to be an Orthodox institution
up until around 1920 or so).  As for the Jewish Center, few of the baalei-
battim were more observant in practice than Kaplan -- the fact that he
began questioning things like Sinai, the plagues, etc. publically is what
did him in -- the "average" baalei battim back then seldom wore a yarmulke
in public, would eat fish prepared in non-Kosher restaurants, etc.  Actually,
the Jewish Center was split well into the 1930's about whether to keep
Kaplan or bring him back.

Looking at this era certainly does make us note what we take for granted today.

LIPPYESQ@aol.com wrote:
> 
> documented in a recent New York Times article that the building that is
> adjacent to the (so called) Jewish Center is a brothel. NYPD closed it down a
> couple of months ago and it was all over the news. You know what they say "Ohy
> L'Rasha Ohy L'Shchaina"
> 

> 
> Thank You, Id be interested in any comments.
> 
> Daniel Lefton

Or do we just say, "guilt by association."
sk

We were bothered in yesterday's DY as to why Chazal chose "Eruv Tavshilin"
out of thin air to express that A"A kept even d'rabbanan's. This morning,
via the Or HaYashar, then via the CS YD 73, I discovered that the Ba'alei
Tos. hold that "Eruvei Tavshilin" here means not mixing dishes - not
serving the milk and meat together to the visitors!

Any other pshatim?

YGB

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

In a message dated 2/2/99 6:15:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< We were bothered in yesterday's DY as to why Chazal chose "Eruv Tavshilin"
 out of thin air to express that A"A kept even d'rabbanan's. This morning,
 via the Or HaYashar, then via the CS YD 73, I discovered that the Ba'alei
 Tos. hold that "Eruvei Tavshilin" here means not mixing dishes - not
 serving the milk and meat together to the visitors!
 
 Any other pshatim?
 
 YGB
  >>
Dear YGB,
I was curious about the choice as well and heard the mixing explanation. Do
you know of anywhere else this phrase is used for this purpose?(I'll check the
BI CD at home if no one knows off the top of their heads)

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

I remember many times that R. Yeruchim Gorelick felt better about davening 
b'yechidus over attneding a Minyan.  My impression is that he actually felt 
distracted by the minyan and had more kavono b'yechidus.

He used to daven a VERY long Shmoneh Esrai, and despite being the mora d'asro, 
he insisted that the Shatz not wait for him to finish.  I think he was more 
davening AT the minyan than WITH the minyan.

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe

On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Dear YGB, I was curious about the choice as well and heard the mixing
> explanation. Do you know of anywhere else this phrase is used for this
> purpose?(I'll check the BI CD at home if no one knows off the top of
> their heads) 
>

No other sources that I ever heard. But the BI CD is a good place to look,
please keep us posted! 

YGB

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

For info about the YU Seforim sale check out this site:

http://seforim.yucs.org/

>> Doesn't it strike you odd that what some people think is such a
pashut problem (like mixed sqwimming) is allowed by others. So even if
you're right and you can follow those gedolim blindly because of your
svara that a
whole communities action makes it ok (or at least is megala that it's ok)
shouldn't you want to know the source of the heter---for limud torah's
sake at least, I know I do. ...
Elie Ginsparg<<

I suspect that - as mentioned before - that a lot of people swam for health 
reasons - and (with or without consulting a Rov) used that as a "heter".

I knew of an "shomer shabbos" cousin who swam on Shabbos for health reasons.  
Was it mutar?  Probably not. But I will concede that he swam laps and wasn't 
sunning himself.  To be dan lekuf zchus, I consider it due to am-horatzus.

Bottom line, we can concede that (otherwise?) frumme people engaged in mixed 
swimming and we can be melamed zechus on their behalf.  It also probably does 
not set a mimetic precedent.

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe    

Subject: Controversial People

     In the discussion about Rabbi Rackman I wish to apologize to any
and all people who felt that I slighted them in any way. I also wish to
stress that I am not defending in any manner the actions that Rabbi
Rackman and his colleagues have taken.
Nevertheless, I still have a problem with any personal attacks against him.
A preferable tactic is for the rabbinical organizations to announce that
none of their rabbis will perform marriages based on such gittin.
Furthermore, all recognized batei dinim will consider children from second
marriages as mamzerim.
The Rivash points out that modern semichah has no real meaning. Its
only affect is to allow the students of a rabbi to also pasken questions
while the rebbe is alive. As such the idea of outsiders removing
semicha is meaningless.

      Sorry to say but Judaism has a history of personal attacks most of
which have done more harm than good. Rambam already writes to a student
of his to ignore attacks by the Resh Galuta against Rambam. The truth
wins and not name calling. Excommunicating Spinoza probably gave him
more promotion than he could have gotten on his own. It is well known 
that as soon as a book is banned its readership jumps.
As we have already discussed, the fights between Rav Yaakov Emden and 
Rav Eibshutz severely damaged the Jewish community as did the 
mitnagid-chassidic fight. In neither case did bans and name calling 
accomplish anything.

     In more recent history controversial rabbis from Rav Goren to Rav 
Eliezer Berkovitz to Rav Soloveitchik has been been banned, had their 
semicha removed etc. In most cases this merely turns the person into a 
martyr. I doubt that the attacks on Rav Goren had the slightest affect 
on anyone who followed the rabbanut. This does not mean that everyone 
agreed with him but that is a far cry from personal attacks. It is 
easy for someone who does not listen to the chief rabbi of Israel  
to deny the vailidity of Rav Goren's halachic capabilities.

    It is clear that Rabbi Rackman is not on the level of Rabbi Goren 
or Rabbi Berkovitz. Hence, his decisions are hard to defend on halachic 
grounds. However, personal attacks on him or Rabbi Greenberg  do not deter 
those that believe in them. The correct path is to demonstrate the 
fallacies of their ways and not call them names.
In the discussions about Chabad I agree with those who have grave 
problems with much of their messianism and possible idolatry. However,  
I again doubt that the many frontal attacks on Chabad have convinced 
chabniks to abandon their chassidut.

     Thus, my disagreements with others on this list are how to address 
the problem rather then substantive. Hence, I again request mechila from 
anyone I have unjustifiably maligned.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]