Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 135

Monday, November 15 1999

• Re: Kol Kevudah -
• Re: Chabad and valuation of learning
• RE: Avodah V4 #134
• Re: Yitchak had Downs Syndrome!?!
• Chabad and valuation of learning
• 2-track Chinuch
• ketubah and independence
• Rebbes as Poskim
• Netiquette
• Re: Top Ten List
• Down's Syndrome, hyperbole.
• Re: Down's Syndrome, hyperbole.
• Yitzchak revisted
• RE: Kol Kevudah -
• Birthrights and their value
• Re: Avodah V4 #134
• History of B'nei Reuven in Chicago
• On Brain Death

Chana Luntz wrote:


> tznius behaviour is, to a certain extent, dictated to by our surrounding
> society. Thus when living in a Muslim society in which it is a gnai for
> a woman to go outside, and a disgrace on her husband - the Jewish people
> will also be shamed in Muslim eyes if Jewish women do not do likewise
> and stay within.
> 


I can testify (second-hand, from my grandmother) that this was not true in
Uzbekistan, at least at the time she was growing up. Jewish women did not
wear the chador, and were involved in public life to a much greater extent
than their Muslim counterparts, in both business and social activities. As
she told it, there was no shame whatsoever involved. Different societies
coexisting tolerably with each other. She told me that the Muslim women,
while not confined, did wear the chador, and had no interaction with men
other than their husbands. The Muslim houses were also divided into
separate men's and women's quarters, while the Jewish houses were not.


---sam

--- Avi Feldblum <mljewish@shamash.org> wrote:
> Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes at the end
> of a long posting:
> > It's hard for me to agree to the claim that
> Lubavitch
> > respects learning. It is obvious to me that the
> > Lubavitcher members of this main Shul, of Chabad
> do
> > not respect this Talmid Chcham, Poseik, and
> Zakein. 
> > They only respect themselves.
> 
> I really do not understand how you can take the
> behaviour of a group of
> individuals and decide by that to paint with a broad
> brush the movement
> and it's leaders as a whole.

I have responded privately to many who are upset with
me about my above post. Sometimes I let my anger get
the better of me.  Perhaps I was a little harsh. I
want to apologize to all on the list if I have
offended any of you.  My differences with Chasidus in
general and Chabad Chasidus in particular is a matter
of record on this list and need not be rehashed, but
honest, sincere individuals can disagree passionately
about a subject and still remain respectful.  

I know there are Talmidei Chachamim in Lubavitch.  I
never said there wasn't.  My concepts of a Gadol
BiYiroel I define differently than do many members on
the list. And certainly Lubavitch has had Gedolim in
the past as I have also mentioned, by name.

Unfortunately,  My perceptions of Lubavitch are
heavily colored by my environment. I spend two hours
daily in the main Lubavitcher shul, in the second
largest city in the US.  For years (until very
recently) I have davened in that shul for Kabbolas
Shabbos, Shabbos Mincha, and daily Shacharis.  I live
in the heart of the Lubavitch neighborhood ond know
many Lubavitchers here very well.  I also have much
contact with many other Lubavichers not in my
neighborhood, I have been to many Lubavitrch Simchos. 
I also, read many of their publications, both local
and otherwise. I have also, been keeping abreast of
Mashichist developments. It is difficult to miss a
full page ad proclaiming the Rebbe as Moshiach.  So I
am not judging the entire movement based on the
actions of just a few.  

But I do admit that the story which I related was
based on the actions of just a few.  But those few are
the mainstream Lubavitchers here in Chicago. 

I DO NOT blame Lubavitch, the movement, for the
behavior of the Bnai Ruven membership.

I, also, know that other cities do not support the
Maschichists.  (Detroit)

I, also, know that there are Lubavitcher members on
this list that are big Talmidei Chachim.

But the actions of those Lubavitchers which I refferd
to, have really upset me for over a year, now. It is
painful for me to see a man with the stature of R.
Shusterman, be marginalized instead of being given the
due respect anyone should have for a great Talmid
Chacham.  They do give lip service in that direction
but actions speak louder than words.


Finally, I want to re-emphasize that I do not blame
Lubavitch, the Movement for actions of a few
Lubavitchers,  This is a movement for which I once had
tremendous respect and admiration for. My legitimate
disagreements with Lubavitch have been spelled out
before and don't need to be repeated here.  

The biggest complaint which I feel does deserve
repeating is about their messianic beliefs about the
Rebbe and the question I have regarding the percentage
of Lubavitchers who believe the Rebbe is Moshiach,
dead or alive. 

I hope I have cleared things up.

HM

=====

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

	In response to harry maryles'  Top Ten List

	For what it's worth, I once heard from a respected talmid chacham
that in his opinion the 3 most influential people on torah life in America
was R' Aharon Kotler, Rav Soloveitchik and the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe. 

As the father of a son with Downs, as well as my association with Toras Aish,
I feel obligated to contribute my 2 cents on this one.

I too understood RAW's column as a statement about the worth of people with
Downs and other disabilities. I'm pretty sure RAW's intent was as it was taken
by others on the Avodah list: he's suggesting that the fact that someone saw
similarities shows that we have much to learn from people who have Downs. RAW
explicitely rejects the opinion, on the very orthodox grounds that we don't
find anything even remotely similar in our masorah ("there is no classical
opinion").

On the Down side (es chata'ai ani mazkir hayom, pun intended), RAW quotes an
outrageous opinion from the perspective of the kind of yahadus he purports
to teach, and doesn't condemn it as appalling, merely as contra-masorah. There's
a big difference between saying an idea is wrong vs clearly labeling it
apikursus.

RAW should also be aware enough of his own public persona to avoid this
kind of situation. Many readers of TA read his column looking for something
contravercial to lynch him for. Why does he insist on giving them the rope?

What usually happens when TA publishes material I find objectionable, is
that I have a long argument with Yitz Weiss (editor of Toras Aish) about it
-- after the fact. I don't get Toras Aish until everyone else does. It's
a similar problem I have with Avodah: my association gives me a measure
responsibility for content, but I don't actually have control over content.
DNAs just give me the possibility of commenting after the fact, which has
historically done little to prevent inflamatory posts, and still manages to
cast me in the role of grinch.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-Nov-99: Levi, Vayetzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 69a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

What a concept?

Not broad-brushing groups by the actions of just a few visible members?

A world devoid of sinas chinom?

Where would anti-Semites be w/o blaming all Jews for the actions of a few?

Imagine that, a world that did not blame all chareidim for the insensitivity of 
a few "touble-makers"?

It's unthinkable!

And yet isn't it about time?!

Must be Moshiach around the corner?!

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>
Finally, I want to re-emphasize that I do not blame 
Lubavitch, the Movement for actions of a few 
Lubavitchers, 
<snip>

I hope I have cleared things up.

HM

See footnote 6 below.
Communities (that are big enough) ought to think of having a "co-ordinated" 
2-track system...
Rich Wolpoe



Excerpted by permission from:
INSIGHT
5760 - #9




THE CHALLENGE OF PARENTING
<snip>
In contrast, Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch emphatically declares what Rashi only
implied. Beginning his commentary on the verse with the statement that the 
mistakes and weaknesses of our forefathers are not overlooked, Rabbi Hirsch 
writes: "the striking contrast in the grandchildren of Abraham may have been 
due, not so much to a difference in their temperament as to mistakes in the way 
they were brought up." He continues: "...both had exactly the same teaching and 
educational treatment, and the great law of education, chanoch l'na'ar al pi 
darko,5 'bring up each child in accordance with its own way, was forgotten." 
Yitzchak and Rivka treated Esav exactly like Yaakov,
raising both in the Beit Midrash for a life devoted to Torah study. An Esav, 
however, demands a different educational path so that he may find the method to 
devote his nature, his unique talents and traits, to the service of God.6 
Otherwise, in the rejection of the imposed path that strangles the personality, 
one will also reject God.7  Thus, Rabbi Hirsch contends, Esav's path of evil 
was, in part, due to the parenting mistakes of Yitzchak and Rivka in not 
applying the due diligence necessary to see the unique personalities of each 
brother and, thus, in not treating them differently, specifically in line with 
their personalities.
<snip>


Rabbi Benjamin Hecht


FOOTNOTES


5)  Mishlei 22:6
6) Rabbi Hirsch's commentary stands out as a not-so-subtle defence of his school
system which (a) extended Torah education beyond the focus of Talmud to 
incorporate Hebrew Language and Tanach amongst other subjects and (b) included 
secular studies. There are those who maintain that Rabbi Hirsch only presented 
his school system as an emergency measure to serve communities such as Frankfurt
and still believed the traditional yeshiva education to be the more proper one. 
The language of this commentary clearly challenges such a belief. In effect, it 
actually would seem that Rabbi Hirsch  advocates that each Jewish community have
two parallel systems of education: a more traditional yeshiva model for those 
whose nature leads them on the path of Torah scholarship and a more innovative 
model for those whose nature demands a broader educational direction. Crucial to
the success of such a dual system is that there be "the same feelings and love 
to all children," thus the absence of incorrect attitudes of haughtiness, envy 
and inadequacy. See, further, Rabbi S.R. Hirsch, Bereishit 25:28.
7)  If one is presented with a singular path of Torah and this path is contrary 
to one's personality, the internal struggle will not be perceived as a struggle 
with the specific path but a struggle with Torah itself.


NISHMA
3772 Bathurst Street
North York, Ontario
M3H 3M6
416-630-0588
416- 630-7702
mail@nishma.org

Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, Director

In R. Meiselman's book on women in Jewish law (Ktav, 1978 or so), he
states that if a woman chooses in the ketubah not to be supported by 
her husband, he must still pay for her clothing and possibly food, but
unfortunately he doesn't footnote this.  

Does anyone know where he gets his conclusion from?  Most people I've
discussed this with at various points (including Micha Berger) recalled
learning differently --- that independence meant independence, with no
support for the wife.

Janet

I was told by non-Satmar Chassidim that "technically" previous  Satamar "Rebbe" 
wasa misnomer; taht he was actually was the Rav of Satmar;

Apparently since he came from a Rebbe-she mishpocho, his role as Rav evolved to 
that of Rebbe.

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Rebbes as Poskim 
<SNIP>

 as
well as the late Satmar Rebbe -  who was also Rav and Rosh Yeshiva in various to
wns before Satmar.
<SNIP>

Shlomo B Abeles

My error.  I apologize.

R. Avi Weiss' article follows that of R. Riskin in the Toras Aish, and I was 
neglectful on that point.  

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

Akiva Miller

PS: One poster recently quoted Rabbi Riskin as the source for the comment 
about Down's Syndrome. This was an error. It was said by Rabbi Avi Weiss, 
who got the idea from Rabbi Saul Berman.





..

I would definitely include Shabtai Tzvi on the list (or at least Nathan of 
Gaza).  Their movement changed the entire structure of the Jewish community 
and arguably paved the way for Chasidus and the Reform Movement.

The Arizal was also unquestionably extremely influential and shaped the 
form of kabbalah as it has been understood since his time.

Rather than R. Aharon Kotler I would include R. Nosson Tzvi Finkel (the 
Alter of Slobodka) whose close students were responsible for much of the 
Torah growth in America.

to quote (and to echo) another recent post on the list:
>> My goal in this post is to ask everyone to carefully consider their words 
before sending them out to the world. If you want to express an opinion, that's 
fine, but please *explain* WHY you feel that way. Especially in some issues 
which can involve Lashon Hara, opinions are really irrelevant, or even 
forbidden.<<

My goal was NOT to mis-understand Gil.  Rather is is  to call for less hyperbole
and more precision when being critical.

EG, here's what I would prefer to see when being critical of this aritcle:

     While R. Avi Weiss's  goal of teaching compassion for those who have Down's 
     syndrom is admirable, his implication that Yitzchok Ovinu had this syndrome 
     is both unfounded and unacceptable.

Ok I plead guilty to criticizing a criticque, but I sensed that exaggeration, 
hyperbole, clouds the valid points ON BOTH SIDES of the issue.

Criticism more dispassionately will allow one to learn from even flawed POV's.

Obviously when R.  Meir learned from Acher, he apparently mastered this 
technique;  and thereby gained much Torah from perhaps a "flawed" Tanno.

I apologize for being hypervigilant myself on this matter, and picking on Gil 
Student's post is perhaps unfair in that his post is a mere a strawman for my 
real puspose- nevertheless I do protest over-protesting! <smile> 

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Avodah V4 #131 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    11/12/1999 2:00 PM




	In response to  richard_wolpoe@ibi.com who wrote 

	 Totally appalling?
> By totaally appaling are you suggesting that EVERYTHING written was 
> literally 
> appalling?
> 
> EG Is the fact that Down syndrome possessing teh image of G-d appaling? 
> 
> 
	I think what Gil meant was self-evident.

>          ]

Well, I finnally read the piece in the Toras Aish.  To say the least, I'm
unimpressed.  Indeed R. Weiss seems to be trying to "shoehorn" Downs
Syndrome into the Parshah.  While it is intriguing to contemplate a "down
syndrone" av (This reading of the text, and probably the whole "drasha"
would probably be very meaningful and useful at a Yachad Shabbaton. It would
go a long way in providing chizuk to our congnitively impaired
co-religionists), I don't think the characteristics presented demonstrate
it.  Had the Torah, for instance said that Yitzchak had a mongoloid face, a
heart murmer, and other cognitive and physiological traits associated with
Downs, this line of exegesis would be valid.  But the Toarh presents us with
a mysterious Yitzchak who's personality defies cursory analysis.
    While I think R. Weiss is guilty of poor analysis (usually I enjoy his
comments), I think it unfair to overly castigate him.  After all, who hasn't
"fudged" the sources a little in order to prove a valid point?
DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET

Speaking of Yitzchak, I had an interesting question form this week's parsha.
How come we don't find the torah describing the tefillos of Avraham and
Sorah when it came to davening for a child. Why do we only find this idea
mentioned by Yitzchak?

I think a possible answer has to do with what Yitzchak's role was as one of
the Avos. The Ramban mentions that the wells that Yitzchak were a remez to
the batei mikdash that B'nei yisroel would build. Rav Moshe Shapiro (from
Eretz Yisroel) points out that from this Ramban we gain an insight into the
role of Yitzchak. Yitzchak represented the idea of complete service to
Hakodosh Baruch Hu. The  idea of Avodah in the Beis hamikdash is that we are
offering korbanos to Hashem in place of ourselves. Yitzchak-who himself was
brought as a korbon personifies this characterisitic. This is also why
Yitzchak is perceived as Middas Hadin. Middas Hadin means that nothing can
exist unless it fits into the exact will of Hashem. Giving food to a sinner
is chesed-al pi din he shouldn't exist. When someone is completely m'vatel
himself to H"KBH he is saying that he recognizes the world can't have a
kiyum unless the exact will of Hashem is done. This is what Yitzchak
represented.
    I think with this approach we can understand why the idea of davening
for one's self is described davka by Yitzchak. Tefilah (which has replaced
Korbanos) is another way of totally subjugating yourself to H"KBH. When one
davens he is recognizing that there is a creator to whom he is totally
subservient. There is noone else that can help you-only G-d. This might also
explain why the torah seems to stress Yitzchak's "lack of individuality"
(for example-redigging the wells his father dug). Holding on to one's
mesorah can be considered an extension of this idea-namely being totally
m'vatel yourself to the service of G-d.

Any comments?

> As those who have to use mobile phones know, their primary use is that
> they prevent any possibility of an escape, you are always reachable,
> wherever you are.  It will be interesting to see whether this ban is
> adhered to.

Given that most charedim *don't* follow the Eida, I doubt you'll see much of
an impact.

Akiva


===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

As I was following the leining this past Shabbat I was troubled by the sale
of Esau's birthright to Jacob.  The Torah points out that Esau "spurned" or
"descrated" his birthright.  I have two questions about this:

   1.    It can be assumed that Isaac was a man of some means.  After all,
he did inheret his father, Abraham's, estate, which the Torah says was
considerable.  How then could Easu have been willing to sell his right to
primogeniture (which in Halahik terms is "pi shenayim" or two thirds of the
estate, or at common law, the entire estate") for a pot of gruel?
(Interestingly Rashi does supply some sort of legalistic gymnastics to
suggest that in reality Jacob was the bechor, as he was concieved first,
since he came out second [i.e. the first one in is the last one out])  This
transaction seems puzzling in light of the well known legal principle that
"some offers are too good to be true"

2.    Why is the desecration of the birthright ascribed only to Esau, who
sold it for a pittance?  After all, the text does not say that Jacob had
previously offered to purchase it.  Why is Jacob not culpable for offering
so very little for the birthright?  Indeed, the text clearly states that
Jacob set the price for his pot his stew.  The great disparity in value
between the consideration and commodity makes it hard to imagine that Jacob
merely drove an advantageous bargain.

Any thoughts?

DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@worldnet.att.net>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Down's Syndrome, hyperbole.


> Well, I finnally read the piece in the Toras Aish.  To say the least, I'm
> unimpressed.  Indeed R. Weiss seems to be trying to "shoehorn" Downs
> Syndrome into the Parshah.  While it is intriguing to contemplate a "down
> syndrone" av (This reading of the text, and probably the whole "drasha"
> would probably be very meaningful and useful at a Yachad Shabbaton. It
would
> go a long way in providing chizuk to our congnitively impaired
> co-religionists), I don't think the characteristics presented demonstrate
> it.  Had the Torah, for instance said that Yitzchak had a mongoloid face,
a
> heart murmer, and other cognitive and physiological traits associated with
> Downs, this line of exegesis would be valid.  But the Toarh presents us
with
> a mysterious Yitzchak who's personality defies cursory analysis.
>     While I think R. Weiss is guilty of poor analysis (usually I enjoy his
> comments), I think it unfair to overly castigate him.  After all, who
hasn't
> "fudged" the sources a little in order to prove a valid point?
> DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
> OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
> FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
> SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
>

RRW wrote:
<<He agreed and cited simlar stories where a relative was written off
as braid dead even though she signalled them with her eyes..>>

B"H that this person regained their health.  

I thought this thread was done, but I need to point out here that this
is an example of the typical confusion of medical terms that leads to
preposterous conclusions and unexplained, supernatural occurrences. 
Waking up from prolonged coma is a well-documented, even if rare, event.
 However, someone who can "signal with her eyes" is- by definition- not
brain dead.  I thought this distinction was emphasized earlier
(persistent vegetative state/coma/stupor...).  I'm the last to argue
that doctor's know much about anything, but the dentist here is truly
confused.

David Eisenman

Not having been there, there probably are a few points to be made:

Sure, denigration of a shul's or community's former or present Rabbonim is 
something which should be halachically frowned upon but it does happen -- 
not just with the unfortunate situation in Chabad today;  I once saw a Rabbi 
almost lose his job b/c he wanted to have the shul hold by Reb Moshe's Zman 
for when shabbos ends (versus something about 20 minutes shorter).

Most Chabad Rebbeim that I know will tell you and be able to tell someone 
the standard halachic posak vis-a-vis things like facial hair, razors, etc. 
even if most Chabad hold that one shouldn't shave at all -- many Lubavitch 
(and non-Lubavitch) Mashgachim supervise cholov stam and even pas palter 
products even they won't eat the products themselves;

As for the internal shul issues, many Lubavitchers (and members of other 
groups as well) will expect certain things from a Lubavitcher
minyan and will either attempt to change a pre-existing "lubavitcher" shul 
or will establish a new shul and that is normal.  Here in Flatbush there are 
approximately 5 Lubavitcher minyanim ranging from the "mostly non-Lubavitch 
Nusach Ari on the Amud" model to the very hard-core meshichist model -- 2 of 
these shuls broke away from the former shul not because the Lubavitchers in 
the shul considered themselves better than anyone else but there are chabad 
minhagim (like Tehillim Shabbos Mevarchim, farbrenging, observing minor 
Lubavitch holidays like Yud and Yud-tes Kislev) and a Lubavitcher will wish 
to be in a shul that observes these things.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Let me clarify this

1) the person who just "recovered" from 13 months of a coma was rumored to have 
been brain dead.  I have not confirmed that the doctors "blew" this diagnosis.  
The neis is confirmed in thtat the doctor's did give up hope of revocery.

2) I asserted that doctor's frequntly don't know what they're talking about. No 
I cannot prove it but I can tell you at least a few dozen times from person 
experience (anecdotal).

3) The dentist told me that the doctor's diagnosed his relative as being brain 
dead.  he pointed out to me that this was certainly NOT the case because she WAS
signaling them via her eyes.  Yes she was NOT brain dead.  and point #2 was 
again confirmed in that that once again doctors simply mis-diagnose.

I hope this helps
Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #134 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    11/15/1999 11:50 AM


RRW wrote:
<<He agreed and cited simlar stories where a relative was written off 
as braid dead even though she signalled them with her eyes..>>

B"H that this person regained their health.  

I thought this thread was done, but I need to point out here that this 
is an example of the typical confusion of medical terms that leads to 
preposterous conclusions and unexplained, supernatural occurrences. 
Waking up from prolonged coma is a well-documented, even if rare, event.
 However, someone who can "signal with her eyes" is- by definition- not
brain dead.  I thought this distinction was emphasized earlier 
(persistent vegetative state/coma/stupor...).  I'm the last to argue 
that doctor's know much about anything, but the dentist here is truly 
confused.

David Eisenman

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


[ 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         ]