Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 002

Thursday, April 6 2000

• Re: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
• The Mazinka
• Re: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
• Re: aniyei ircha
• Re: The Mazinka
• Re: The Mazinka
• Breslov on Philosophy, Tradition; Proof, Trust and Faith
• Dor Rivii and Satmar Rav
• Re: Matza shiurim
• Taz on milah
• Re: Breslov on Philosophy, Tradition; Proof, Trust and Faith
• Re: Breslov on Philosophy, Tradition; Proof, Trust and Faith
• aniyei ircha: (ATT vs TTA)

On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:15:39 -0400 "Daniel B. Schwartz"
<SCHWARTZESQ@worldnet.att.net> writes:

<< Is Yossi Sarid and the other dati haters above the law in their
incitement?
 
Not thay are not; but I have not heard Sarid say that ROY is chayav mitah
or is a rasha.  I have heard Sarid et cie unnecessarily and offensively
disrespect ROY and Da'ati'im, but I have not heard them incite people to
violence against religious Jews.>>

	You haven't been listening very closely.  They have done just that, 
time and time again.

	Question for you:  do you agree with ROY that Sarid is a rasha?

<<No not at all.  He too should be investigated and prosecuted as
appropriate under the law.  But that does not in any way derrogate from
ROY's possible liability.>>

	But he will NOT be investigated because the Arabs ('scuse me, 
Palestinians) are now the darlings of the political left and holding
their feet to the fire is not PC

<<Is a rav by mere dint of his status above the law?"  Do rabbonim have
the right to break traffic laws? Are they allowed to double park?  Are
they allowed to assault those they believe are sinners and then claim a
Halachik justification>>

	No and they should not commit tax fraud or allow deadbeat husbands to
get away with not giving gittin.  As I wrote previously,  this is
irrelevant.  The law against "incitement" as enforced is a joke and to
invoke it to prevent a gadol baTorah from making a macho'oh lichvod
haTorah is a travesty.

<<I'm sorry, I didn't know that we "mere mortals" are not allowed to
question the leadership;>>

	Questioning ROY on the basis of a law that would not last fifteen
minutes in any other democratic country is not the same as asking for
justification of his shiur in achilas matzo.

<<My respect him and the respect for him  of a great many non-Chareidi
Orthodox is directly related to his conduct and the presentation of his
justifications for his actions.>>

	MY respect for him is a consequence of his gadlus as demonstrated in
countless areas of halacha.  If I don't understand why he eats a smaller
shiur kazayis than I do,  and I cannot for whatever reason question him
on it,  that does not make him wrong and me right.  Same here.

<<I'm not sure that is correct when considering the entire historical
context.  There is probably more than enough blame to go around.>>

	Absolutely and completely false by all accounts.  Go back to your
(preSarid curriculum) history.  Perhaps some of the historians on the
list can contribute specifics.

<<No but then again, I'm not sure that Yossi Sarid is Zimri either.  I
fail to see the direct comparisons between sexual congress with a heathen
woman in the presence of the Shechina and introducing Darwish into a
secular school curriculum.>>

	Darwish is far from the issue.  Sarid has been on an antiTorah campaign
since he was omeid al da'ato.  His office at misrad hadatot gives him the
ability to carry out what he always drooled over.  In the scheme of
things,  his aveiros may well be worse than be'ilas aramis.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

This coming June 11, my wife and I, as well as the
parents of my daughter's Chasan will both be
privileged to marry off our youngest children to each
other, thereby qualifying us, both sets of parents,
for the famous ritual known in Klal Israel as the
Mazinka, or Krinzel Tanz. Apparently this is an age
old  custom which I know precious little about.  I've
seen it done many times at various different weddings.
 There always seems to be some confusion as to how to
go about it.  The most common way of doing it is the
following: The two parents sit in the center of a
circle while the famous "Mazinka" tune is played. 
Family members as well as dear loved ones circle
around them and as each member of the circle pass the
parent couple, they bend over and kiss them.  This
circle consists not only of the bride and groom but
all members of the family, children, brothers and
sisters and their husbands and wives and their
children, uncles, aunts, close friends and other
relatives. The circle of course is co-ed.  It is
usually done with a great deal of affection for the
parent couple.  I have, also, seen versions where only
men dance around the father and women dance around the
mother.  I have seen a version where the father and
mother sort of straddle the mechitza sitting together
while the women's side dances in front of the mother
and vice versa the men. 

There is a band here in Chicago that will stop playing
if the Mazinka involves mixed dancing (i.e. men and
women in the same circle). But my gut feeling is that
the correct Minhag is to do it mixed with the two
parents sitting together.

My question is this.  What is the origin of the
Mazinka?  When did begin, historically?  Is it
possible that it's origins are not from the Frum
community?  It seems to me that as lovely as it is to
see an outpouring of affection on the part of family
and friends to the parents of the Chasan or Kallah, it
could not possibly have originated in a community of
Shomrei Torah and Mitzvos because of the mixed nature
of the custom.  Even though it is possible to do it in
an Halachicly acceptable way, such as circling without
holding hands and the kissing being done by men to men
and women to women, or in a platonic way, (i.e. not
BeDerech Chibah), it, never the less, doesn't seem
likely to have originated in a Frum environment. 
Or... Did it? 

Does anyone know the historicity here?  What is the
best way to do it Halachicly?   If the custom is only
historically accurate in a non-Halachic fashion should
one do it at all?  Why perpetuate a tradition that
violates the spirit, if not the letter of the law. Why
modify it so that it doesn't resemble what the
original custom is just to make a Non Halachic
custom... Halachic?  Wouldn't it be better to just
eliminate the whole thing?  

Is the Mazinka a legitimate custom at weddings in Klal
Israel?

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

On 5 Apr 00, at 21:00, Gershon Dubin wrote:

[Rest of excellent post snipped]

> 	Darwish is far from the issue.  Sarid has been on an antiTorah campaign
> since he was omeid al da'ato.  His office at misrad hadatot gives him the
> ability to carry out what he always drooled over.  In the scheme of
> things,  his aveiros may well be worse than be'ilas aramis.

One minor correction - Sarid is the Minister of Education (Sar 
HaChinuch).

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

One additional thing about aniyei ircha - the question then has to be
asked "What is "the poor of your city"?"

For somebody like Carl Sherer, the answer seems pretty simple.  Those
people who cannot afford the shabbas chickens down the block (and
presumably, m'pnei darchei shalom, local Arabs in a similar
circumstance).

But David Glasner, I believe, lives in the United States,and that, it
seems to me, makes the issue not so simple.

It would not suprise me in the least if David's local muncipality
decided to do a fundraiser for the children of Sudan.  And if/when they
come knocking on his door, what is the appropriate response?  While when
the rule was originally formulated, I doubt the that local goyim the
goyim would expect anyone (Jewish or not) to support anybody else
besides the local poor, today, if your particular local goyim set their
tzedaka priorities as being Sudan first (which, if they are a
sufficiently wealthy community, they might well do), it is not clear to
me that darchei shalom would not extend to giving to the particular
tzedaka priorities of such goyim, even if the eventual recipients are
outside one's city.  One can certainly see how a refusal to give to such
a cause could cause aivah, and not be considered good citizenship.

In particular I note that, in this discussion, there has been a clear
Israel/galus divide, and I wonder if it is not merely a fact, but a
correct reflection of the particular reality of what constitutes one's
city, and what the priorities of that particular city are.

regards

Chana

On 5 Apr 00, at 18:43, Harry Maryles wrote:

> This coming June 11, my wife and I, as well as the
> parents of my daughter's Chasan will both be
> privileged to marry off our youngest children to each
> other, thereby qualifying us, both sets of parents,
> for the famous ritual known in Klal Israel as the
> Mazinka, or Krinzel Tanz. 

[snip]

> My question is this.  What is the origin of the
> Mazinka?  When did begin, historically?  Is it
> possible that it's origins are not from the Frum
> community?  It seems to me that as lovely as it is to
> see an outpouring of affection on the part of family
> and friends to the parents of the Chasan or Kallah, it
> could not possibly have originated in a community of
> Shomrei Torah and Mitzvos because of the mixed nature
> of the custom.  Even though it is possible to do it in
> an Halachicly acceptable way, such as circling without
> holding hands and the kissing being done by men to men
> and women to women, or in a platonic way, (i.e. not
> BeDerech Chibah), it, never the less, doesn't seem
> likely to have originated in a Frum environment. 
> Or... Did it? 
> 
> Does anyone know the historicity here?  What is the
> best way to do it Halachicly?   If the custom is only
> historically accurate in a non-Halachic fashion should
> one do it at all?  Why perpetuate a tradition that
> violates the spirit, if not the letter of the law. Why
> modify it so that it doesn't resemble what the
> original custom is just to make a Non Halachic
> custom... Halachic?  Wouldn't it be better to just
> eliminate the whole thing?  
> 
> Is the Mazinka a legitimate custom at weddings in Klal
> Israel?

When my wife (also a native Chicagoan) and I got married in 1981, 
Adina was the last child to get married, and therefore we did the 
mazinkin around my inlaws at our wedding. The circle was mixed, 
but it was arranged so that no adult was holding hands with a 
member of the opposite sex who was not their spouse. My inlaws 
sat in the middle, and my father-in-law's sister-in-law made a 
garland of flowers to go around my mother-in-law's head. BTW - 
this was in Yerushalayim.

I don't know the origin of the mazinkin. 

I can tell you that when I lived in the States, the bochrim in the 
Yeshiva in town once came back from a chasuna and told me that 
there were bochrim who had laughed at the mitzva tantz which took 
place at the Chasuna (IIRC the chasuna in question was actually 
not a chassidishe chasuna). The Rosh Yeshiva chided them with 
"hanach lahem l'Yisrael...." He then told them a story about the 
husband of the mikve lady in a certain town who, in shul each 
morning, used to go up to each husband whose wife went to the 
mikve the previous night and said Mazal Tov. The people thought 
he was doing something improper until one day someone came up 
to him and said, "how come you didn't wish me Mazal Tov?" and 
he answered, "Your wife wasn't at the mikve last night...."

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 6 Apr 00, at 13:29, Carl M. Sherer wrote:

> When my wife (also a native Chicagoan) and I got married in 1981, 
> Adina was the last child to get married, and therefore we did the 
> mazinkin around my inlaws at our wedding. The circle was mixed, 
> but it was arranged so that no adult was holding hands with a 
> member of the opposite sex who was not their spouse. My inlaws 
> sat in the middle, and my father-in-law's sister-in-law made a 
> garland of flowers to go around my mother-in-law's head. BTW - 
> this was in Yerushalayim.

I should have added to this that the only people in the circle were 
my wife and I and her siblings, the two siblings' spouses who were 
there, and the two or three grandchildren who had not been sent to 
bed right after the Chupa. Plus one distant cousin of mine (age 6 at 
the time) who snuck in....

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

I was discussing Breslov hashkafah (and/or the lack thereof) with a member
of that kehillah on scj. I obtained his permission to copy a snapshot here,
so that I can get frum perspectives on the subject.

-mi

----- Forwarded message from MOSHES@MM.HUJI.AC.IL -----
Date:     Thu,  6 Apr 2000 9:05 +0200
Subject:  Re: Science, Philosophy, Tradition; Proof, Trust and Faith

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes:
> moshes@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:

>: Reb Nachman spoke many times against the study of philosophy. He
>: would often say. "How much must we thank Moshe Rabbenu. He gave
>: us a Torah starting with "Bereshis - In the Beginning". No logical
>: "proofs" as to G-d's existance or the validity of Torah. Just the
>: _foundation_ of belief - belief in Creation".

> Sounds very much like the Kuzari.

I have no idea.

> He argued that philosophy was for the Greeks, who lacked a tradition.

Reb Nachman makes a similar comment. Non-Jews have a problem in
finding a source to guide them through the vicissitudes of this world.
Jews are lucky, we have a Torah.

> In the absense of data, one tries to use reason to close up the gaps.
> However, philosophy is flawed in that different philosophers can use
> it to argue opposing ideas. It's only a second-best to actually
> having the data.

> This line of reasoning, though, requires a level of trust in
> tradition. What is the foundation of that trust?

He said it in the first line "Moshe Rabenu". In other places he
mentions the Patriarchs as the source.

> Also, as I asked in private email, did R' Nachman object to
> philosophy in general, or theology in particular?

Oy, but I don't fully know the difference. :-( or maybe :-))))

>: His main student, Reb Noson, wrote an 8 volume work, showing the
>: moral lessons to be derived from the halachos in all 4 sections
>: of the Shulchan Aruch.

> I'm collecting such works of ta'amei hamitzvos (tastes of the
> mitzvos; reasons for, or perhaps it's more accurate to say lessons
> from, the mitzvos).

Much more accurate. I carefully avoided the phrase "ta'amei
hamitzvos". Unfortunatly, there is a tendency to "limit" the mitzvah
to a particular "reason". Besides making the mitzvah less universal,
it gives an insidious oportunity to say "The reason doesn't apply any
more, so the mitzvah doesn't either", G-d forbid.

> Maybe I'll even use them once in a while. <grin> I recently got
> from Jon the name of the Tzemach Tzedek's book. What's R' Noson's?

Likutey Halachos. Enjoy it. He also has _much_ on the topic of
"his'chazkut" - strengthening oneself when feeling low.

>: But, the _basis_ of Yiddishkeit, the _source_ and the fount of
>: Judaism is "faith". Like the women and plain people have. Without
>: sophistication and without "proofs".

> "Faith" or "trust"?

Emunah.

> I was arguing that experience builds *trust* in a tradition, which
> then teaches us things we needn't prove a priori using philosophy.

An interesting idea, but I don't recall it from Reb Nachman.

> (Aside from that, and I guess this was the Chafeitz Chaim's point
> in mandating universal education for girls -- the day of
> unsophisticated women are behind us.)

You left out the <sigh>

Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
----- End forwarded message -----

Bi'm'chilas Kvod Toroso of the Dor Revii and his worthy descendant, I
wonder, am I the only subscriber to this list who is a bit puzzled
with the comparing the DR to the SR?

Admittedly, my only knowledge of the DR is what has recently been posted
on this list by RDG and from what I have heard from a very knowledgable
Rav - who recalls many details of the Parsha in Klausenburg
(and I look forward to reading any articles about him).

But let's be honest - AFAIS - even posters on this list - who I would
generally label as surprisingly knowledgable-"non-Kanoim" ("mishtayns geredt"),
have hardly heard of the DR - who though he may have been a Godol shebegedolim - but
seems quite unrecognizeable to most and  was to many unacceptable as Rav
even in his own Kehilla.  His sforim are not that well known either.

Comparing him to the Satmar Rebbe who was a Marbitz Torah and Rosh Yeshiva to
talmidim for almost 75 years, a manhig of Hungarian orthodoxy and a rebbe
to thousands, whose Shitta and derech is still followed by 10,000's of
yidden world-wide - seems a bit over the top. LAD.

I repeat, I do not wish to minimise any of the Gadlus of the DR
-but it seems that we are distorting history somewhat.

SBA

On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 08:15:17PM -0400, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
: /semi humorous/

I missed the humor, so perhaps the following response is out of place. (Taking
sarcasm literally, or something.)

:                       Shouldn't we pick one set of measurements for 
: everything and use them consistently?

I would think at least two measurements: safeik di'Oraisa lichumrah, safeik
diRabbanan likulah. Maybe a third in the middle for cases where two di'Oraisos
have conflicting chumros.

Machlokesim are resolved in two ways: either through pisak or through treating
them as a safeik. Most Rabbanim do not feel qualified to voice an opinion
on the subject, so most of us are talmidim (of talmidim, of talmidim...) of
those who are forced to treat the subject as one of safeik.


Sammy asked why we all assume a k'zayis is a volume and not a weight. It
probably is because most computations (including the Chazon Ish's and R'
Moshe's) involve computing from data to ammah to etzbah to cubic etzbah to
k'beitzah to k'zayis.

I wonder if we've uncovered an overlooked Ash/Seph difference.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Apr-00: Shelishi, Sazria
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 19b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

The source for the Taz that has been cited a few times
is O.C. 588 and Y.D. 117.  Interestingly, the Taz in 117
brings support from the sugya of selling issureim 
(Pesachim 23/24) which someone used as a ra'aya against
him yesterday.  Whether the Taz is correct and how to 
fit in all the sugyos is a major discussion in achronim,
see R' Akiva Eiger, P.T. and Gilyon MHRSh"A in Y.D. 117.

(Derech agav, the sevara by milah is also brought by the
Meiri in megillah.  Also, it does not appear that the
Taz was limiting himself to places where the Torah has
a miztva).

-Chaim

In a way, this isn't a reply to my own post, just one I forwarded. Either way,
if there is a breach of nettiquette involved, I apologize.

I quoted Moshe Shulman as writing:
:> This line of reasoning, though, requires a level of trust in
:> tradition. What is the foundation of that trust?

: He said it in the first line "Moshe Rabenu". In other places he
: mentions the Patriarchs as the source.

But the existance of Moshe and the Avos themselves is itself a topic of
emunah. The Kuzari (who I mention as another anti-philosopher) argued on
the basis of the inability to pass a fiction as personal history when
dealing with an entire nation who believe it about their own predecessors.

I was asking what R' Nachman's position was.

:>            ... such works of ta'amei hamitzvos (tastes of the
:> mitzvos; reasons for, or perhaps it's more accurate to say lessons
:> from, the mitzvos).

: Much more accurate. I carefully avoided the phrase "ta'amei
: hamitzvos". Unfortunatly, there is a tendency to "limit" the mitzvah
: to a particular "reason".

Yes, it's hard to avoid translating the phrase as though it were
"sibosei hamitzvos".

:> "Faith" or "trust"?

: Emunah.

Exactly my question -- defining the word "emunah". I would take it mean
something closer (but not identical to) "trust". Which would tie in to
why we find "Mordechai omein es hadassah", "kiryah ne'emanah". Trustworthy,
reliable, you can depend on it, etc..

Which is why I then went to:
:> I was arguing that experience builds *trust* in a tradition, which
:> then teaches us things we needn't prove a priori using philosophy.

: An interesting idea, but I don't recall it from Reb Nachman.

Does anyone on the list do so?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Apr-00: Shelishi, Sazria
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 19b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> >: Reb Nachman spoke many times against the study of
> philosophy. He
> >: would often say. "How much must we thank Moshe
> Rabbenu. He gave
> >: us a Torah starting with "Bereshis - In the
> Beginning". No logical
> >: "proofs" as to G-d's existance or the validity of
> Torah. Just the
> >: _foundation_ of belief - belief in Creation".


> >: But, the _basis_ of Yiddishkeit, the _source_ and
> the fount of
> >: Judaism is "faith". Like the women and plain
> people have. Without
> >: sophistication and without "proofs".


What is one supposed to do with one's intellect which
asks the questions which demand answers? I cannot
agree with a theology which denies one his/her
intellect. One can say that he believes without proof
but is this real belief? Can one have a sincere doubt
and still have perfect faith?  Isn't this an inherent
contradiction? We can say Ani Maamin BeEmunah Shelaima
all day long but if a doubt exists we can't just deny
it's existance. That would be intellectualy dishonest
to one's own integrity. Such doubts must be answered
so that the intellect will be satisfied, otherwise the
doubt will remain no matter how much one wishes it
were not so.

The study of Philosophy helps to answer some of those
questions.

Chasidus, as is demonstrated by R. Nachman MiBreslov,
preaches that Emunah Peshutah, pure faith, is the
higher Madrega, or level, of belief. But the mind will
not accept that.  A thoughtful person will seek Emes,
Truth. Only a simple mind, a Pashut mind, will except
blind belief... or a willful denyer of one's own
thoughts.

This is, also, why I have such a problem with saying
that a woman's Emunah Peshutah is a higher form of
belief than a man's Emunah through his intellect.
First, this kind of feeds the notion that woman are
simple minded, and, more importantly, Emunah Peshutah
can too easily be shot down if it is attacked enough
through apostate philosophies.  Knowledge OTOH can
help counter such attacks.  Of course the danger lies
in the fact that competing philosophies can sometimes
win over the intellect to believing Sheker. Emunah
Peshutah SEEMS to avoid this pitfall, but it really
doesn't. I believe that ultimately, Emunah Peshutah is
even more vulnerable to apostacy than Emunah through
Daas. One can avoid coming into contact with Apostacy,
I suppose, but It is certainly better to be equipped
with knowledge than to be unequipped with ignorance. 

Inquiring minds want to know.

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

The Associated Talmud Torahs (ATT) is the umbrella
organization, the Board of Ed. if yoyu will for all
the orthodox educational institutions here in Chicago.

The Torah Teachers Association (TTA) is the union
representing all the Mechanchim working for the Att. 

Chicago is about to have a system wide strike. The TTA
is doing so in a clever way.  All of the teachers who
receive paid personal days throughout the year will be
taking the same personal day off.

The issue is (surprise!) money.  The TTA says that the
teachers don't make enough. (They don't!) they are
requesting an increase to 6% (I believe) annual pay
increase instead of the 3% increase they now receive.

The ATT says there is no money to give. This is an
inpasse and therefore the strike was called.

The truth is that the teachers are grossly underpaid. 
The truth also is that there are no exccess funds to
pay them the money that the deserve. Tuitions (which
reflect cost of education per pupil) are so high that
90% of all parents are on full or partial
scholarships.

The only way that all the schools have funds in
exccess of tuition moniies collected is through
fundraisers such as banquets, concerts, and the like.
Arie Crown Hebrew Day School is the most successful at
fundraisding in the city and they are always short of
meeting their budgets.  Where are these institutions
supposed to get money torelieve even the shortdfalllet
alone incresed salary demands?

I have heard it said that the Baal HaBattim (board
members)should increase their fundraisng efforts. 
Having served on three boards of three different
schools, I can tell you that they are all raising
funds to the best of their ability.  Nothing woyuld
make them happier than the ability to increase their
fundraising. Many of these board members are hard
working members of the community theat give countless
hours of their time to the various institutions in
order to raise funds or raise the educational
standards of the repective schools.  So, this is not a
realistic solution.

That leaves only one other source: the Wealthy. But
now we are on that slippery slope of just how much
should a wealthy person sacrifice in order to meet the
demands (even the legitimate demands) of those who
spend their lives educating our children? These few
wealthy individuals give tremendous amounts of money
to the various instituions.  Without their support,
the system would close.  Should they even give more? 
What about the fact that many of these Askanim give
money to institutiions outside the city? There is one
individual who opledged $250,000.00 to Lakewood
Yeshiva. Should he have diverted that donation to
Chicago's institutions? How would Lakewood survive
without these kinds of donations? Yeshivas Mir in
Yerushalayim depends on it's very existence on
donations outside it's own environs. Shoud we in
Chicago take care of our own and let Mir fend for
itself? 

Is this what is meant by Anyei Ircha Kodmon?

Or should we tell the wealthy to stop buying
$75,000.00 Jaguars and Lexuses, sell their 20 room
mansions, take less luxourious vacations, etc. etc. 
Is that a legitimate request, to ask of a wealthy man,
in order to better pay the presently GROSSLY underpaid
teachers, even by their own admission?  There are many
wealthy Baal Habattim who buy Luxurious Diros in
Israel for their children in Israel and give them
enough money to,live a somewhat luxurious lifestyle. 
There are several who buy expensive homes for all of
their kids here in the States and remodel them
luxuriously.  All the kids drive luxury automobiles. 
Is this OK?  Should we deny the fruits of financial
success to these Askanim,?  Would it even make that
much of a difference to the total pie if those funds
were to be added to the pot?

I don't have any answers just a lot of questions.

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.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         ]