Avodah Mailing List
Volume 04 : Number 161
Thursday, December 2 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:00:26 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[6]: Problem kids
I'm not sure my vision of "pressure" is the same as yours.
Pressure is not only nagging pushing threatening.
It's also about demanding, demanding that my kid get into harvard or be a doctor
or whatever.
It's about meeting perntal expectations instead of understadnding the kid as
they are - their individuality.
Would a sensitive talented musical child be well-served by marine-like
discipline?
Rich Wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Jewish kids on the verge of religious rebellion generally aren't going to
straighten out because of parental "pressure" -- nagging, pushing,
threatening, imposing new rules, inculcating fear, etc. Kids with overworked
parents generally aren't going to rebel solely because of their parents'
material struggle and lack of free time. Lots of studies, and lots of
anecdotal evidence, have shown that much. Kids I know frequently take pride
in their parents' sacrifice. On the other hand, I doubt such kids would have
the same regard for their parents' "indulgence," however well-meaning the
intention. Indulgence is weakness -- it is a form of ignorance, really, of
the respect for the child that is reflected by the right form of discipline.
Ask any Marine Corps drill instructor.
If a parent can't connect with his or her child, then I doubt the problems
that will follow can be usefully categorized into passive "neglect" (the
parent is always working, has too many community responsibilities, etc.)
versus active "pressure" (the parent has enough time to bully the kid into
compliance). There's got to be another way to analyze it.
David Finch
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:49:44 -0500
From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: agunahs in baltimore
can you supply a link to the article?
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: Newman,Saul Z <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 10:24 AM
Subject: agunahs in baltimore
>
> please see naomi ragen's article in JPost today on shreklich cases of
agunot
> in baltim ore. if her facts wrong terrible motzi shem ra. if her facts
> right, terrible chillul hashem by the batei din/ rabbis/community
> involved.....
>
>
>
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:31:18 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[6]: Problem kids
Also realize that there are kids that will NEVER "straighten out"!
I have a long detailed story of a yeshivisher rebbe who had many kids and one
was a rebel. Her parents bent over backwards to do EVERTYHING to help her.
She once confided to me: "My parents are SO kind and understanding they give me
NOTHING to rebel at!" yet rebel she did nevertheless.
Blaming parents is a game popular among therapists and others. parents are
obligated only to do their best. Kids are people with minds of their own.
Rich Wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Jewish kids on the verge of religious rebellion generally aren't going to
straighten out because of parental "pressure"
<snip>.
David Finch
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:12:48 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Not knowing from more tza'ar
(The grammar in this line is Yiddish, I just noticed.)
RRW <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
: I understood this to mean the supernatural course of events, i.e the G'eulah
I assume something similar is meant. My point isn't that they meant the
wrong thing, but rather that by breaking from the formal nusach they invite
the possibility of problems that sticking with minhag avoids. As I said,
people expect you to play by the rules. Which is why I compared it to rules
about who pays for what when making a chasunah.
: The Yekke brocho for being menahcem a a Yahrzeit etc. is "ad bias hagoel"
: the comforted peson replis bimheiro beyomeinu!
There is a couple of assumptions here, that I don't know if they're true:
1- That the Ramban is correct, and not the Rambam and Sefer haIkarrim, and that
post-techiyah lives are forever. Otherwise, we're going to have to go through
losing kerovim all over again.
2- That "bias goel" and "techias hameisim" are at the same time. R' Saadia
Gaon writes that the messianic era is the last part of history, techias
hameisim is the first moment of post-history.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 2-Dec-99: Chamishi, Vayeshev
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 77b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:14:18 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Problem Kids
I wonder if the increase in number of troubled teens has something to do
with the increased number of children with ADD or ADHD in the 1980s. Not
that they're the same population, necessarily, but perhaps a common cause?
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 2-Dec-99: Chamishi, Vayeshev
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 77b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 12:39:27 -0500
From: "David Eisenman" <eisenman@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: hamakom yenachem, singular vs. plural
I have always understood that one should always say it in the masculine
plural, since you are including the mourner(s) amongst all Aveilei
Yisrael; this, in fact, may be a part of the nichum.
I learned another interpretive twist when I was at a shiva house a few
years ago in Manhattan for a member of the KJ kehillah. After davening
Rabbi Adam Mintz (then at KJ), along with all of the people who were
present, recited nichum aveilim together, and then he recited an English
translation that went "May G-D comfort you amongst all of us who mourn
for Zion and Jerusalem." This would not absolutely necessitate reciting
eschem all the time, but they do work together nicely.
Sincerely,
David Eisenman
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:44:18 +0200
From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject: RE: agunahs in baltimore
> in baltim ore. if her facts wrong terrible motzi shem ra. if
> her facts
> right, terrible chillul hashem by the batei din/ rabbis/community
> involved.....
Check her "facts" *very* carefully -- she has an agenda and doesn't hesitate
to misrepresent "facts" to support it.
(see Jephte's Daughter, for example).
Akiva
===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:42:21 -0500
From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
Subject: RE: Avodah V4 #160
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF3CEC.963ED7B4
Content-Type: text/plain
The Mordechai has a shittah that in the case where someone is among
Goyim and he will not see Ner Chanukah at all,even if his wife is lighting
for him at home, he would still have to light to fullfill the aspect of
"Roeh es Haneiros". However, the Rambam doesn't bring the halachah of
Birchas Haroeh at all and it would seem the Rambam would argue on the
Mordechai. The Rambam would still hold if you have no wife at home you still
have to light. The Ran explains that the chiddush of "achsenai" is that we
don't say ner chanukah is like the chiyuv of mezuzah-that if you have no
house you have no chiyuv. Mashma that even though an achsenai is "homeless"
and not viewed as having a house he still has a chiyuv. You might be able to
say that the Ran is a "Chovas Hagavrah " person, but I'm not sure this is
so. As a possible hesber to the Ran (& Rambam) you could say that even
though m'ikar hadin it is a chovas bayis, nevertheless the chachamim created
a secondary chiyuv when someone doesn't have a house.
On the same topic, I am trying to figure out what
the "Mishtatef B'Prutah" accomplishes for an Achsenai. If you hold it's
chovas gavrah so why couldn't he be yotzei through shomei k'oneh (assuming
that shomea k'oneh would work in this case). If it's chovas ahbayis-does the
prutah give him a din as part of the bayis? A 3rd possibility is that it
works like ner shabbos but then the question is how does it work by ner
shabbos.
> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:34:30 +0200
> From: "Burack" <mburack@emiltd.com>
> Subject: Homeless on Channuka
>
> The Gemara in Shabbos stipulates that the chiyuv of ner Channuka is "ner
> ish
> u'bayso." How literally do we define "bayso?" For example, Rashi
> understands it to mean "household," whereas Tos., in Sukkah 46a (d"h
> Haroeh), takes it more literally. Tos asks why is there a birkas haroeh
> by
> Chanuka and no other mitzvah? Tos (in his second answer) responds that
> some
> people don't have homes to fulfill the mitzvah. The nafka minah would be
> the
> homeless population.
>
> Based upon this assumption, do the homeless have a chiyuv to seek out a
> lit
> menorah and make a birkas haroeh? Any ideas?
>
>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF3CEC.963ED7B4
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Avodah V4 #160</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<UL>
<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">The Mordechai has a =
shittah that in the case where someone is among Goyim and he will not =
see Ner Chanukah at all,even if his wife is lighting for him at home, =
he would still have to light to fullfill the aspect of "Roeh =
es Haneiros". However, the Rambam doesn't bring the halachah of =
Birchas Haroeh at all and it would seem the Rambam would argue on the =
Mordechai. The Rambam would still hold if you have no wife at home you =
still have to light. The Ran explains that the chiddush of =
"achsenai" is that we don't say ner chanukah is like the =
chiyuv of mezuzah-that if you have no house you have no chiyuv. Mashma =
that even though an achsenai is "homeless" and not viewed as =
having a house he still has a chiyuv. You might be able to say that the =
Ran is a "Chovas Hagavrah " person, but I'm not sure =
this is so. As a possible hesber to the Ran (& Rambam) you could =
say that even though m'ikar hadin it is a chovas bayis, nevertheless =
the chachamim created a secondary chiyuv when someone doesn't have a =
house. </FONT></P>
<P> =
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" =
SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial"> On the same topic, I am trying to figure out =
what the "Mishtatef B'Prutah" accomplishes for an Achsenai. =
If you hold it's chovas gavrah so why couldn't he be yotzei through =
shomei k'oneh (assuming that shomea k'oneh would work in this case). If =
it's chovas ahbayis-does the prutah give him a din as part of the =
bayis? A 3rd possibility is that it works like ner shabbos but then the =
question is how does it work by ner shabbos.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:34:30 =
+0200</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">From: "Burack" =
<mburack@emiltd.com></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Subject: Homeless on Channuka</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">The Gemara in Shabbos stipulates that =
the chiyuv of ner Channuka is "ner ish</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">u'bayso." How literally do =
we define "bayso?" For example, Rashi</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">understands it to mean =
"household," whereas Tos., in Sukkah 46a =
(d"h</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Haroeh), takes it more =
literally. Tos asks why is there a birkas haroeh by</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Chanuka and no other mitzvah? =
Tos (in his second answer) responds that some</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">people don't have homes to fulfill =
the mitzvah. The nafka minah would be the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">homeless population.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Based upon this assumption, do the =
homeless have a chiyuv to seek out a lit</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">menorah and make a birkas haroeh? Any =
ideas?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
</UL>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF3CEC.963ED7B4--
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:08:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Josh Hoexter <hoexter@wam.umd.edu>
Subject: Dulberg Sisters
I don't think this was posted already -
There is a web page with more information and a link to send emails.
http://www.torah.org/services/dulberg.asp
Josh Hoexter
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:11:57 EST
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re[6]: Problem kids
In a message dated 12/2/99 10:45:44 AM US Central Standard Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
<< I'm not sure my vision of "pressure" is the same as yours.
Pressure is not only nagging pushing threatening.
It's also about demanding, demanding that my kid get into harvard or be a
doctor
or whatever.
It's about meeting perntal expectations instead of understadnding the kid as
they are - their individuality.
Would a sensitive talented musical child be well-served by marine-like
discipline?
>>
We seem basically to agree with each other. There must be a fine line indeed
between "nagging" and "demanding"; frankly, I'm not sure I see the
distinction. Pushing a kid to study hard (and build up a superficially
well-rounded high-school resume) to get into Harvard might involve all sorts
of coercion that you and I would both call "pressure." Is it beneficial
pressure? Maybe that depends on the kid. You're absolutely right to point out
the importance of whether such pressure reflects parental expectations
instead of an effort to understand kids as individuals. (As a survivor of the
Ivy League, I think the whole get-into-a-good-school thing is a lot of
hoo-hah.)
You ask, "Would a sensitive talented musical child be well-served by
marine-like discipline?" This is an interesting question. A Wall Street
Journal reporter recently wrote a book about Marine Corps boot-camp training.
His biggest finding: The Marines take slovenly, aimless, self-absorbed,
utterly undisciplined street kids and actually turn them into relatively
mature responsible adults with pride in themselves and their military
community. Physical hardness is part of it; actual violence has little if any
role to play in the process. The recruits start out as losers; a remarkable
percentage of them come out strong, without the self-loathing that sunk them
down in the first place.
This should not sound unfamiliar to families of "sensitive" artists,
musicians, and scholars. Undeveloped talent alone is nothing -- its a burden,
actually. From friends who went there, I understand Julliard is as tough on
its students as the Marines are on its recruits -- unrelenting discipline
instead of gentle nurturing, endless repetition so the mind and body loses
their bad habits, intolerance of second-rate effort. I know a couple of
ballet dancers who, to convey the sensitivity of their art, tore up their
knees and ankles like defensive linemen. More to the point: Generations of
Ashkenazim learned Torah the hard way, crowding around a single volume of
Talmud, studying 18 hours a day, sometimes under the supervision of
exceedingly tough-minded Gedolim whose Holy perfectionism far exceeded
anything that would be tolerated in modern society, including the Marine
Corps.
Put it this way: In learning Torah, our forefathers understood that it was
not enough to be smart, or sensitive, or well-meaning. There was, and is, far
too much a stake. To keep the Torah, we need to be strong in a variety of
ways that a hard-nosed instructor at Julliard (or at Parris Island) would
understand. (Personally, I'm not there, but with HaShem's help I aspire to
it.)
Back to the original point, I think there is a subtle sort of dialectic
between "hardness" and "softness" in the character of children that needs to
be explored before trying to figure out a solution to a problem child's
dilemma.
David Finch
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:29:00 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: Brave New World or Retroactive Fatherhood
Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes in v4n159:
: If I am not mistaken, R. Moshe Paskins that the vlad
: is NOT a mamzer in such cases and it is permissible to
: fertilize a mother even with the sperm of her own
: father.
The Satmerer Rebbe/Rav is choleik, and holds the v'lad to be a mamzer. It would
appear the machlokes is whether mamzeirus requires bi'ah asurah. A ra'ayah
R' Moshe brings is that R' Akiva extends the concept of mamzer to the product
of ANY bi'ah asurah (aside from those specific to kohanim and niddah, IIRC).
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 2-Dec-99: Chamishi, Vayeshev
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 77b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:40:27 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: agunahs in baltimore
In a message dated 12/2/99 12:44:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
atwood@netvision.net.il writes:
<<
Check her "facts" *very* carefully -- she has an agenda and doesn't hesitate
to misrepresent "facts" to support it.
(see Jephte's Daughter, for example).
Akiva
>>
I haven't read the article , many JP writers have agendas , do you mean that
she :
1)lies
2)tells only part of the story
3)interprets the facts consistent with her world view
4)other
misrepresenting facts to me falls under 1) and requires absolute proof
Kol Tuv
Joel Rich
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:36:05 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[8]: Problem kids
Remember that Marines are volunteers.
I think that gives the Corps "permission" to push them.
Kids didn't volunteer to be born.
I guess the bottom line is for whose beneift are we pushing, theirs or ours?
Also recall Hirsch's admonition re: chinuch and Eisav.
Rich Wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>
You ask, "Would a sensitive talented musical child be well-served by
marine-like discipline?" This is an interesting question. A Wall Street
Journal reporter recently wrote a book about Marine Corps boot-camp training.
His biggest finding: The Marines take slovenly, aimless, self-absorbed,
utterly undisciplined street kids and actually turn them into relatively
mature responsible adults with pride in themselves and their military
community. Physical hardness is part of it; actual violence has little if any
role to play in the process. The recruits start out as losers; a remarkable
percentage of them come out strong, without the self-loathing that sunk them
down in the first place.
<snip>
David finch
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:09:40 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject: Homeless
From: "Burack" <mburack@emiltd.com>
> Subject: Homeless on Channuka
>
<< Based upon this assumption, do the homeless have a chiyuv to seek out
a lit menorah and make a birkas haroeh? Any ideas?>>
If they see the ner, they should certainly make the brocho. As far as
SEEKING out, rather than saying the brocho if they happen to see a ner
Chanuka, do we ever find a mitzvah to seek out a birchas haro'eh?
Gershon
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:13:29 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject: hamakom yenachem
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:35:36 -0500 (EST)
<< From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
> Subject: Re: hamakom yenachem, singular vs. plural
> the effect of "You should no from no more tza'ar". My father was
> bothered by this. In the natural course of events, people outlive their
parents.
> For me to know no more tza'ar is actually a kelalah that he too would
have
> to sit shiv'ah for me ch"v, and not the other way around.
> Once I became sensitive to that issue, I was more reluctant to
> extend "Lishanah Tovah ..." with "li'alter li'chaim..." -- unless in a
> kehillah where I'd be the sole person breaking what they perceive as
the
> minhag.>>
Sticking to the script is usually a good idea. I have heard people say
all kinds of unintentionally stupid or hurtful things, when they would
have been 100% safe saying what was niskadesh as minhag Yisrael.
Gershon
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:52:57 EST
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re[8]: Problem kids
In a message dated 12/2/99 12:48:12 PM US Central Standard Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
<< Remember that Marines are volunteers.
I think that gives the Corps "permission" to push them.
Kids didn't volunteer to be born.
I guess the bottom line is for whose beneift are we pushing, theirs or ours?
Also recall Hirsch's admonition re: chinuch and Eisav.
>>
Again we agree. (Except for a nit of a nit: During the Vietnam War, the
Marines filled its monthly quotas with unwilling draftees. I know a fellow --
Jewish, actually -- who was put on a bus to Parris Island from the Syracuse
Draftee Depot because he was caught picking his nose when told to line up.)
Our question, though, is how one approaches the problem child, specifically
the teenage rebel against religion. Almost any response to this is going to
involve a change in someone's direction, either the child's or the parent's.
Whether it's pushing, goading, gentle encouragement, or genuine discipline,
something will be done or nothing will be done. Of course, as you say, none
of us volunteered to be born. But we're here, for now, right? As one secular
Jewish wiseman put it thirty years ago, "He who's not busy being born is busy
dying." It's that sense of dying, I think, that's behind a lot of teenage
rebellion.
David Finch
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:05:17 -0500
From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: agunahs in baltimore
I believe the facts as reported by Ragen. In my law practice I seen
precisely this situation all the time. The rule here in New York, is that
husbands get protection from beth din and wives get it from the courts.
Batei din unlawfully insiste on interloping into areas where they have no
legal jurisdiction. For example, it is well settled in case law that child
custody and visitation are not subject arbitration. Yet batei din ignore
the law and subject parents to their illegal jurisdiction. I have heard of
dayanim simply deciding make children should live with their father, despite
overwhelming evidence of paternal abuse and aliention from the father,
simply because that is what is apparently stated in the Shulchan Arukh. No
experts are consulted and evidence is simply ignored. In those areas where
a beth din could assume some jurisdiction as an arbitrator; for example WRT
to equitable distribution and spousal maintnence, they do a horrific job.
They simply ignore certain assets (i.e. pension plans and stock portfolios,
and oftentime investment real estate) and do not distribute them between the
parties. All too often this leave the woman in a lurch. Sadly, baei din,
which could be a giuding light in Alternate Dispute Resolution of
matrimonial actions, are caught in the darkness of mysoginy and self imposed
ignorance.
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: <Joelirich@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: agunahs in baltimore
> In a message dated 12/2/99 12:44:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> atwood@netvision.net.il writes:
>
> <<
> Check her "facts" *very* carefully -- she has an agenda and doesn't
hesitate
> to misrepresent "facts" to support it.
>
> (see Jephte's Daughter, for example).
>
> Akiva
>
> >>
> I haven't read the article , many JP writers have agendas , do you mean
that
> she :
> 1)lies
> 2)tells only part of the story
> 3)interprets the facts consistent with her world view
> 4)other
>
> misrepresenting facts to me falls under 1) and requires absolute proof
>
> Kol Tuv
> Joel Rich
>
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:26:29 -0500
From: "Frenkel, Garry J." <garry.j.frenkel@ssa.gov>
Subject: agunahs in baltimore
Avodah V4 #160 contained:
>please see naomi ragen's article in JPost today on shreklich cases of
agunot
>in baltim ore. if her facts wrong terrible motzi shem ra. if her facts
>right, terrible chillul hashem by the batei din/ rabbis/community
>involved.....
Just to be fair, the article spoke about an alleged problem in Baltimore AND
Munsey.
But to the real point. I'm not familiar with Ms Ragen's work but from her
tone it's clear she has an axe to grind. To wit "the abusive and immoral
treatment of religious women at the hands of the religious community isn't
an Israeli original". Everyone knows that there are two sides to every
story and as a member of the Baltimore community I am (very) slightly aware
of the other side of this one. But all that I know is only from hearsay (a
nice word for Lashon Hora perhaps). There is no indication from Ms Ragen's
piece that she made any attempt to corroborate any of the "facts" that came
from someone who is not just Nogea B'davar but is the Davar. This is the
type of irresponsible journalism that one would expect from a supermarket
tabloid. Given the lack of objectivity of the article it can be nothing more
than Motzi Shem Ra, and I therefore question the propriety of the original
poster's act of bringing it to the attention of this list.
Gad Frenkel
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:40:38 +0200
From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject: RE: agunahs in baltimore
> >>
> I haven't read the article , many JP writers have agendas ,
> do you mean that
> she :
> 1)lies
> 2)tells only part of the story
> 3)interprets the facts consistent with her world view
> 4)other
Like the maraglim, Naomi Regan takes a few grains of truth, consciously
exaggerates and distorts them, and presents the resulting picture as the way
things are (or could be).
Akiva
===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274
Go to top.
*********************
[ 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 ]