Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 118

Monday, November 8 1999

• Re: Organ donation
• R Yehudah HeChasid
• Historiography, repost
• Re: Re: Was Rambam and Asceticism, Now Chassidim, and Now RAYHK
• Ishbitzer - Noam Elimelech
• R. Kook & R. Lamm
• Re: R. Kook & R. Lamm
• Re: Request not to Crack Jokes about G-d
• Re: Yoatzos, once again
• Re: equal time
• deleting copies of digest in postings
• The Fish Sinned
• Rav Moshe
• Yoatzos, once again
• Re: R Yehudah HeChasid

>Brain death: until September 1998, doctors were all so complacent about
>accepting a flat EEG trace as indicating brain death and *death* in general.
>Then cama a startling paper in one of the neurology journals that stunned
>the medical community: people being in a coma on a respirator for more
>than a year suddenly waking up. This tremendously complicates the
>situation for heart transplants.

Could you expand on this a bit?  Are you saying that people had a flat EEG
for over a year and then woke up?  Or were they in a coma with measurable
brain function?  In the latter case, what does this imply about brain death?

Kol tuv,
Arnie

Arnie Kuzmack
kuzmack@cpcug.org

RYH *was* one of the baalei ha'Tosafot, and whose talmidim included
the Or Zarua and the Baal Ha'Rokeach. The Or Zarua was also a talmid
of R. Yehuda Sir Leone whose rav muvhak was the RI Hazaken. So how could
"many ofthe ba'alei hatosafot make fun of him" in the words of a recent
post ??

Josh

Oh, crumbs, I did it again.  Here's the actual post:

From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
> 
> > Well, I was mistaken about physicality being from Tzavaas haRivash. 
> > However, as has been noted before, ThR does differ from Chabad
> > (and, incidentally, the Nefesh haChayim) on various points, e.g.,
> > the relative priorities of learning and prayer.

> > The Shivhei haBesht is paragraph 61. (tr. D. Ben Amos & J. Mintz, p.
> > 80-81).

> Now, let us ask that someone who has a Shivcheii ha"best convey t osu what
> it says there, with three caveats:
> 
> 1. The Shivchei Ha'Besht, even by Chassidim, is not seen as accurate. To
> it was first applied, I believe, the famous clarification: If you do not
> believe everything it says there could have happened, you are an apikores;
> if you beliieve they did happen, you are a fool.

So you dismiss this story specifically?  We weren't talking about the 
book as a whole.  I've heard the same  "clarification" made about Midrash.
At least, about literal readings of Midrash, in line with Rambam's points
about Midrash and literalism.

If ShB is meant in a midrashic vein - stories meant to convey a point,
then the point of this story is clearly that physical indulgence (within
halachic limits, of course!) as a means of ensuring a joyous feeling is OK.
 
> 2. It is mostly ma'asim, not ideological or pilosophical statements.

Indeed, yet we know almost nothing the Besht wrote himself anyway.

> 3. As I heard from one of my Rabbeim, anyone who bases a philosophy on
> asingle *Ma'amar Chazal* is dishonest and incorrect. One can derive almost
> any possible thing form an isolated Chazal. Patterns need be established.

And noting that you did not dismiss Schatz-Uffenheimer, I will note that
she has perceived a pattern: that pleasure as a means of engendering joy
was present from the beginning, and that it later changed to a means of
elevating the sparks.  I don't think anyone was advocating hedonism, 

> >              Is it anyone's fault that many of the people who are writing
> > on Chasidic history in English (other than heavily biased stuff coming
> > out of Lubavitch, and I include Dr. Mindel in this characterization)
> > are disciples of Heschel?  We cannot grant bias-neutral status to anyone
> > (as has become obvious in the RW vs LW media thread).
> 
> Still cannot accept the premise. We all know that the "Historians" 
> (Graetz, Dubnov et al) were heavily biased against Chassidim.

And other "Historians" (Mindel, Touger, Wein, etc.) were heavily biased
in favor of Chassidim, or against secularism, or against Haskalah, or
zionism, etc.  Reading history with a jaundiced eye is necessary, just
as reading the newspapers, be they Yated or Jewish Week, with an eye
toward their biases.  

Hirsch criticized Graetz for his distortion of history.  He did not
dismiss him a priori as an associate of Frankel. 

If I may quote our listmanager from another forum:

>Hirsch analyzes Graetz's history, at least its coverage of the mishnaic and
>talmudic eras (the first volume published), and shows that Graetz's theory of
>Hegelian historical development during this period is based entirely on
>misquotes, partial quotes, and conjection in the absence of erudition. In
>numerous cases the partial quote actually proves the opposite when the
>entire text is seen.

Read books, and understand where the authors are coming from, and
you will understand history in a more balanced way.  Read books
written only from one perspective, and you will wind up in a place
where others will not take you seriously.  Surely you didn't learn
to pasken by reading one author's teshuvot - you read a number of 
different people, and learned how they thought, and that helped 
shape how you think.

If you can convince me that Schochet is writing poor history, and 
is distorting his sources, I might accept your dismissal. But a-priori
dismissal as a historian just for being a Conservative rabbi is not
realistic.

JJB

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
 
> Rav Kook (RAYHK) expressed the idea
> that the Kabbalistic
> model might be applicable to Chochmos Chitzoniyos
> (CC). 
 
> RAYHK was against organized CC, i.e., in yeshivos
> and even Torah-true high
> schools a la the German TIDE model. (See R'
Tzuriel's
> comments on the Heb U
> episode as well).
 
> Let me ask: I do not possess my own copy of R'
> Lamm's TUM - did he not
> distinguish between his school of thought and that
> of RAYHK?

Yes. 

There is a distinct chapter entitled: 
The Mystical Model: Abraham Isaac Hakoen Kook on the
Sacred and the Profane.

The other one is titled:
The Hasidic Model: Mada as Worship.

The Kookian model is based on the relationship of
Torah (the sacred) and Mada (the profane) and the fact
that  everything that is profane (not yet holy) is to
be found in and sanctified through the Torah.  "The
Kookian version of Torah Umadda is the very antithesis
of secularism which recognizes the sacred only in it's
insularity." Kodesh is so overpoweing it never gets
the chance to be independant because of it's automatic
encounter with Kodesh.

The Chasidic model is entirely different as it does
not take into account the mysticism of the Kookian
model.  It is Avodah B'Gasshmiut. "serving G-d with
and through our very corporeality, worshiping Him in
our material, physical situations."

The idea expressed by RYGB in an earlier post about
Nitzotzos not being universally available to man to be
exploited is one that I do not understand.  He states
that there are certain activities or items wich are
beyond the perameters of permissiblity and hence
cannot be accessed.  I can understand this point if it
reffers to what is actually forbidden by the Torah. Mo
one would accept that one can be Oveid Hashem by being
mechallel Shabbos, no matter how sincere the act my be
in one's devotion to Hashem.  But Divrei Reshus is
another matter entirely. RYGB asserts that Chasidus
defines Divrei Reshus as a more limited area, and can
therefore "outlaw" more traditional reshus areas.  In
this way Limudei chol is conveniatly eliminated as
being exploitable for Nitzotzos.  Well this is just
TOO convienient. 

As most of then list knows by now, I personaly don't
subscribe to Chasidic Philosophy but if I did, I would
have difficulty with the lack of objectivity in the
appraoch to Nitzotzos.  It would seem to me that the
Torah should be the ONLY arbiter as to what a Davar
HaReshus is.  Once detrmined as such than we as G-d's
faithful servants should be able to expoit them
(Avodah B'Gashmiut) in service to Him.

HM







=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

<< "Ksiv (Tehillim 111:6) 'Ko'ach ma'asav hegeed l'amo loseis lahem nachalas
 goyim', haynu ki Yisroel metzeedam mei'ein ha'tzorech lahem leida shum
 chochmos ha'teva, ki al pi toras Hashem v'hisnahagus Hashem Yisborach heim
 misnahagim meebli tzorech lahem klal l'hisnahagus ha'tiviyos, rak me
 she'amar la'shemen v'yadlik yomar la'chometz v'yadlik..." >>

True, but is he referring to an ideal, or to a practical course of action?  I 
would suggest to bear in mind that the same R' Chanina who remarked 'mi 
she-amar l'shemen v'yidlak yomar l'chometz v'yidlak' is the R' Chanina about 
whom we learn 'kol ha-olam nizon b'shvil Chanina bni v'Chanina b'ni dai lo 
b'kav charuvin m'Erev Shabbos l'Erev Shabbos'.  As the Noam EliMelech writes 
also on this week's parsha, it is because of the R' Chaninas who paved the 
road (b'shvil=road) through avodah of asceticism *the rest of us* can have it 
relatively easy thorugh the avodah b'gashmiyus.  

-Chaim

> schools a la the German TIDE model. He adhered to the cherem not to
> introduce CC in Yerushalayim (Igros 2:266). And, he made the statement  in

Several consecutive letters deal with the institution of schools teaching
secular subjects. R. Kook writes to people on both sides of the issue, and
there are differences in tone from letter to letter. In no letter does he
"adhere" to the herem: he merely indicates understanding of what motivated
it, and expresses his reluctance to break ranks and challenge it for
political reasons. When he writes to baalei bayit, his primary tone is
that he supports their efforts, even though he can't be publicly involved.
When he writes to peers (R. Tukichinsky or R. Ahronsen) he makes it very
clear that he himself would not have taken the position represented by the
herem, but that he cannot exercise in Eretz Yisrael the freedom which R.
Ahronsen has in Kiev.

What I have written summarizes, and thus simplifies, the complex maneuvers
in which R. Kook is engaged, but this is his general drift. These letters
are all pre-World War I. After the war, when R. Kook moved from Jaffa to
Jerusalem, he could no longer avoid dealing with the Jerusalem herem head
on.

> 
> Let me ask: I do not possess my own copy of R' Lamm's TUM - did he not
> distinguish between his school of thought and that of RAYHK? > >

Based more on my knowledge of R. Lamm's general outlook than on the exact
wording of his texts:

He would probably regard one central aspect of his views on secular
studies as deriving quite strongly from R. Kook. He would also perceive
that strand in R. Kook as anchored in R. Kook's Hasidic orientation. At
the same time, he would not assert that his views can be derived from
Hasidic thought directly.

Please tell me how you define "adhere".

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <avodah-digest@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 5:44 PM
Subject: R. Kook & R. Lamm


> > schools a la the German TIDE model. He adhered to the cherem not to
> > introduce CC in Yerushalayim (Igros 2:266). And, he made the statement
in
>
> Several consecutive letters deal with the institution of schools teaching
> secular subjects. R. Kook writes to people on both sides of the issue, and
> there are differences in tone from letter to letter. In no letter does he
> "adhere" to the herem: he merely indicates understanding of what motivated
> it, and expresses his reluctance to break ranks and challenge it for
> political reasons. When he writes to baalei bayit, his primary tone is
> that he supports their efforts, even though he can't be publicly involved.
> When he writes to peers (R. Tukichinsky or R. Ahronsen) he makes it very
> clear that he himself would not have taken the position represented by the
> herem, but that he cannot exercise in Eretz Yisrael the freedom which R.
> Ahronsen has in Kiev.
>
> What I have written summarizes, and thus simplifies, the complex maneuvers
> in which R. Kook is engaged, but this is his general drift. These letters
> are all pre-World War I. After the war, when R. Kook moved from Jaffa to
> Jerusalem, he could no longer avoid dealing with the Jerusalem herem head
> on.
>
> >
> > Let me ask: I do not possess my own copy of R' Lamm's TUM - did he not
> > distinguish between his school of thought and that of RAYHK? > >
>
> Based more on my knowledge of R. Lamm's general outlook than on the exact
> wording of his texts:
>
> He would probably regard one central aspect of his views on secular
> studies as deriving quite strongly from R. Kook. He would also perceive
> that strand in R. Kook as anchored in R. Kook's Hasidic orientation. At
> the same time, he would not assert that his views can be derived from
> Hasidic thought directly.
>
>

> 
> Dr Hendel responded:
> 
> <<< since an Issur DOraitha is involved in cracking Jokes about God 
> I would apprciate if we could have an offical policy statement (by 
> esteemed listowner) that such behavior is unacceptable. >>>
> 
> I'll be the first to agree the the joke is in very poor taste. (Or, 
> given the Subject line of the original poster, perhaps I count only 
> as the second person to say so.) But I am having some trouble 
> identifying exactly which issur Dr. Hendel is referring to. I'm not 
> surprised that there is one, but I'd like to know which. Heightening 
> my awareness of such things will help me avoid making such jokes 
> myself.
> 
> Akiva Miller

1) there is a general mitzvah to RESPECT GOD.
2) Any violation of this mitzvah would be an ISSUR ASAY
3) Although the SA does not give a LIST of what shouldn't be done clearly
at the
very least anything you would not do before a King, or CEO or American
President in Public
you shouldn't do before God (Note I am making the prohibition dependent
on your assessment
of what you would not do).

About the above I am sure. About what is to follow I would have to say it
is speculative (But
I still think it has legitimacy)

It seems to me that cracking Jokes about God is a Toladah of GIDUF in
that it has the same form
but not the same intensity. I would argue that any TOLADAH of an issur
mithah must be
rabinically prohibited (as a syag). But I do not have further proof

Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:23:21 -0500 Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
writes:
> > From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com	>
> > Subject: One More Thought on The Yoatzoth
> 
> > 2) YOATZOTH HELP WITH CHANA PROBLEMS
> > ======================================
> > On Shabbath Chana
> 
> 	Pardon my ignorance:  what is Shabos Chana?
ANSWER
=========
Shabbath Chana is a Shabbath dedicated across the United States in which
Rabbis were
suppose to advise their kehilloth about the problem and speak about it.

Chana stands for Counseling, Helpline, and Aid Network for Abused Women
It is basically an orginazation to help (married) abused women in the
orthodox
community. (It seems to me the Yozatzoth could help tremendously here)

> 
> <snip>
> 
> > In a similar vein a few years ago I met a woman who went to Rav
> > Moshe and requested a divorce after 6 weeks of marriage (to one
> > of his talmidim). When Rav Moshe told her to "try it out a bit 
> more"
> > she fainted on the spot. 
> > Again I think YOATZOTH could vastly help in situations like this
> > My point is you need not only SOCIAL skills you need HALACHIC
> > skills also

> 
> 	Pardon me once again,  but which one of these was Rav Moshe 
> lacking?

ANSWER
========
I thought that obviuos Gershon...R Moshe Lacked Social skills...you
don't tell a 6 week Callah that wants a divorce to "try it a little
more"--
the poor woman fainted....obviously the situation was not handled
correclty

> 
> <snip>
>  
> > Sadya here is my point--The following two cases are the same
> > Case 1: A women is cooking chicken soup. A cold dairy spoon 
> > (that has not been used in 24 hours) falls in and is immediately 
> > taken out(I am assuming the whole soup remains kosher). The
> > women is trusted to serve this soup as Kosher WITHOUT
> > telling her husband what had happened. Furthermore I think
> > most Poskim would agree that if she had been already advised
> > that the soup is Kosher the last time the spoon feel in she should
> > not feel obligated to ASK A SHEEILAH. In other words she is
> > trusted.
> > 
> > Case 2: Same soup. Same spoon. Same falling in. Except that
> > this women asks her neighbor if it is Kosher and her neighbor
> > tells her "that has happened to me several times and it is
> >  Kosher".
> 
> 	In response to RRH's scenarios,  I would like to quote from 
> none other than..........Reb Russell himself in another post,  same 
> digest:
> 
> ****************
> > Unless you are trained in how to make distinctions, how to resolve
> > conflicting opiinions, how to see exceptions to iron clad rules 
> > (part
> > of the process of Talmud Torah
> ****************
> 
> 	Anyone with more than a glancing familiarity with Isur 
> veHeter knows that small changes change the halacha.  Witness RRH's 
> scenario wherein an eino ben yomo figures prominently.  One could 
> also imagine things like nosein taam lifgam,  dvorim sheyesh lahem 
> matirin,  beriya,  davar charif,  etc.  I don't think many of us on 
> this list need elaboration.
> 
> 	I for one would be horrified if my wife were to decide a 
> shaila of this ilk on her own based on a previous psak which 
> appeared similar.   Being medameh milsa lemilsa,  and the opposite,  
> making chilukim between cases,  is the essence of horo'ah and should 
> not (with few exceptions) be left to the woman or (no exceptions) 
> her neighbor. 
> 
> 	This is not to demean the level of women's learning;  the 
> same would apply to anyone,  man or woman,  who did not have the 
> requisite training;  I would be just as horrified if one of my sons 
> were to presume to be medameh milsa lemilsa without having become 
> familiar with the halachos first.
> 
> Gershon

First, I am flattered you quote me. NExt, despite the strength of your
arguments I must still argue my position!! Why? Because a women who
is COUNTING is believed WITHOUT asking a Sheelah even though a
million and one things could have happened to make the counting
invalid.  

Let me put it another way....If you can't hold women competent to know
distinctions then you can't even hold them competent to ask a sheeila

of course your point is valid...that simply means that women should 
be trained to know when they work their kitchen a) what was done
in the last 24 hours, b) what imparts taste, c) what is cold hot etc

After all if they were never trained in 24 hour observatoin asking
a sheelah would not help. When the Rav asks whether it had been
used in the past 24 hours she would shrug her shoulder and say she
forgot!


Food (pardon the pun) for thought
Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:05:33 -0500 Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
writes:
> From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com>
> > Subject: RE: Discussing Multiple Viewpoints
> 
> > So...if Agudah wants to promote its view...then it is obligated to
> > explain clearly and lucidly all the other views and then state why
> > its view is preferred.
> 
> 	I am not sure whether you are stating that anyone who wishes 
> to state an opinion,  be they private individual or organization,  
> is obligated to state all other viewpoints as well.  
> 
> 	If this is an obligation you have not proved it.  Rebbi 
> certainly brought the opposing opinions.  However,  no other tannaim 
> or amoraim did, with the exception of Bais Hillel.  BH is lauded for 
> mentioning the views of Beis Shammai;  it does not appear in that 
> Mishna to criticize everyone else who does not,  beginning with, 
> well, Beis Shammai.
> 
> 	If it is advice that you offer,  that mentioning opposing 
> views will likely help the promulgation of your own,  the Agudah,  
> the OU and any other organization who does not publicize opposing 
> views (do ANY?) are at liberty to ignore your kind advice.
> 
> Gershon


I would hold it as part of the laws of leshon harah (About which I seem
to have
very peculiar views). Let me enumerate them

---I hold it leshon hara to say that the mesorah has mistakes (you have
to judge
the mesorah the same way you judge people...give it the benefit of the
doubt)
Mechy Fraenkel a few years ago was really upset about this.

--I hold it obligatory to believe that mistakes between different torahs
can
be resolved even if we don't see the resolution immeidately (Rabbi Broyde
was
agahst at this a year ago...and gave me a lecture about
slander/libel....)

--I hold it leshon hara to have doubts about the yoatzoth (Michah thought
this
was outright false)

--I hold it leshon hara not to tell opposing views when you head a major
orginazation
(like the mishnah) and are giving horaah.

Let me explain the last one. Eg If I run the Charedi movement and issue a
proclomation
to wear long sleeve shirts as halachah then I **must** explain why I
think it is Assur
and what I think of people who wear short sleeve shirts. if I don't
explain this then I
have created an atmosphere in which my followers will MISTRUST people who
have short sleeve
shirts (and this creation of an atmosphere by my deliberate omission is a
violation of
DAN LCAF ZECUTH which is part of leshon hara and which requires us to
judge major
parts of the Jewish community positively).

I know these views appear wierd...but I really believe them (and would be
happy to
reopen discussion). If Rebbe had NOT mentioned the minority views when he
wrote
the mishnah then he would have in effect made everyone else look like
some sort of
Zaken Mamray...Instead he showed that they were respectable minority
opinions which
were overridden.

This is NOT advice. I am not saying that if you don't do it you will
cause friction. I am
saying that causing friction with statements is always a violatoin of
leshon hara

i hope this clarifies my views

Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

To everyone:  In order to delete from a certain point to the end of the
digest just press:
Ctrl+shift+end and then <del>
(Windows 95/98 systems)

Can others post the instructions for other systems so we don't accidently
receive repeats of whole digests?

Thanks,

Shoshana L. Boublil

A question that my father heard from Mrs. G Turkel (Eli's mother), that he
offered I ask the chevra:

Fish didn't require the teivah to survive the mabul because they didn't sin.
However, sometime during or after the mabul they must have sinned, because
that is what gives us the permission to eat fish.

The question is: What was their cheit?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  8-Nov-99: Levi, Toldos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 65b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

> > From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com	>

<<ANSWER
========
I thought that obviuos Gershon...R Moshe Lacked Social skills...you
don't tell a 6 week Callah that wants a divorce to "try it a little
more"--
the poor woman fainted....obviously the situation was not handled
correclty>>
	The fault,  dear Brutus...

Gershon

From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com

<<First, I am flattered you quote me.>>
	Don't be;  I quoted you to show the inconsistency of your position.

<<Let me put it another way....If you can't hold women competent to know
distinctions then you can't even hold them competent to ask a sheeila>>
	You are equating being able to ANSWER a shaila to being able to POSE
one.  This is patently incorrect.

Gershon

Where is he quoted in the Tosfot?  Or Zarua and Rokeach are
considered part of the German school, not ba'alei Hatosfot (even if
OZ was taught by ba'alei Hatosfot).

Also, even if you wish to consider him one of the ba'alei hatosfot,
why is difficult to believe that the other ba'alei hatosfot made fun
of his talmidim?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

--- BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> RYH *was* one of the baalei ha'Tosafot, and whose talmidim included
> the Or Zarua and the Baal Ha'Rokeach. The Or Zarua was also a
> talmid
> of R. Yehuda Sir Leone whose rav muvhak was the RI Hazaken. So how
> could
> "many ofthe ba'alei hatosafot make fun of him" in the words of a
> recent
> post ??
> 
> Josh
> 


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]