Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 146

Monday, February 1 1999

• Re: MO and heterim
• R Yisroel Salanter and Voloshin-not
• rabbinic courtesies yet again
• Marriage and Property
• Re: rabbinic courtesies yet again
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• A call for stricter censorship
• Re: R Yisroel Salanter and Voloshin-not
• Re: Avodah V2 #145
• Re: Judging actions, judging men
• Re: Avodah V2 #143
• Re: Judging actions, judging men
• Noam Eliyahu Bechhofer
• Re: A call for stricter censorship
• Chasam Sofer and Nusach HaTefilo
• Darchei Shalom
• Mimetic Tradition and Mixed Swimming
• Re: Avodah V2 #145
• Re: rabbinic courtesies yet again
• Re: Avodah V2 #145
• lhagdil Torah

Even if I agree with all your points (which I'm not sure I do--but that's
ok if we argue) aren't you at least curious to find the sources for these
heterim. Doesn't it strike you odd that what some people think is such a
pashut problem (like mixed sqwimming) is allowed by others. So even if
you're right and you can follow those gedolim blindly because of your
svara that a
whole communities action makes it ok (or at least is megala that it's ok)
shouldn't you want to know the source of the heter---for limud torah's
sake at least, I know I do. Therefore I ask anyone with access to a Rav
who will go on record that it is permissable to go mixed swimming to
disclose the sources which make it permissible, hey- if it's a good svara
I can unpack my swimsuit and count the days until July rolls around :)
Elie Ginsparg

R Eli Clark, in discussing the Rov,  writes:  <found the tzibbur reciting
Tehillim.   He joined them.  When his father
came in, he told the Rav to set aside the tehillim and pick up a Gemara...This
approach is consistent with the classic Litvak view>

Not to disagree in the slightest with R Eli's sentiment, it is nevertheless
interesting to note that there is at least one chasidic source which
out-litvaked the litvaks.  thus the Kotzker rebbe at various times expressed
great contempt for 'tehillim sayers" as real men only learnt gemoroh. 

R. Eli goes on to say that   <R. Hayyim Volozhin is reported to have told R.
Yisrael Salanter that he would not
introduce mussar in to his yeshivah, because you don't give medicine to a
person who isn't sick.>

This is highly unlikely since R. Yisroel salanter was only a year or two (if
that) past bar mitzvoh when R. Chaim was niftar.  it is highly doubtful that
that he ever even saw R. Chaim.  He was however greatly influenced by R.
Chaim's student, R. Zundel of Salant.  The only other tenuous connection of R.
Yisroel salanter with Voloshin that I know of  is the published suspicion that
he was peripherally involved (or at least encouraged) in the first major
attempt to contest the Netziv's "right" to run the Yeshivah, the challenge to
the netziv coming from R. yehoshua heshel levine who was married toR. Chaim's
great grandaughter and was apparently a buddy of R. Yisroel salanter.

Mechy Frankel	frankel@hq.dswa.mil		michael.frankel@dtra.mil

Merely as a point of information, let me inquire of one poster who, after
defrocking R. greenberg, inter alia referenced the <..(so called) Jewish
Center> which individual was observed to be exiting.   Now a bit further in the
posting reference was made to Rabbi J J Schachter, spiritual leader of that
institution.  Should not consistency mandate that one refer to him as (Rabbi) J
J Schachter, or perhaps (so called R), or perhaps just JJ S.? .I do recall - my
mechtonim live on 86th and daven there when not hiking down to the SP - that
they don't have a bimah in the center but am otherwise puzzled by the swipe. 
are there some secret orgies going on there or something? 

This is of course a good bit further down the entirely predictable slippery
slope which was noted some time back in an exchange with RYGB who when
referring to R. Saul Lieberman (let alone halivni) could not bring himself to
let the rabbinical honrifics pass through his keyboard.  My memory of that
exchange and exactly who weighed in with what is now a bit hazy (can't rember
off hand whether it was RYGB or someone else, sincere apologies if i got this
wrong) but I do remember listmembers who would not accord such titular
courtesies to rabbi Lamm, and we have now have the discourteous references to
both  R (s) berman and greenberg -and i haven't even gotten to the tossing off
of apikorsus charges.  which brings things to a whole new, and much lower,
plane.   The suggestion by J. Rich that <How about a compromise, we call
everyone with smicha from a recognized institution by the title R' or Rabbi and
then caveat that we don't agree with many of his pskei dinim or hashkafot etc. 
If that doesn't work, we can create
a committee to determine the proper titling structure:-)> was already
implicitly rejected by at least some of the list givirim, since I don't think
even they would want to question the  kashrus of R. Lieberman and  Halivni's
semichos, or even R. Lamm's.  

Mechy Frankel	frankel@hq.dswa.mil		michael.frankel@dtra.mil

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 toramada@netvision.net.il wrote:

> kidnapped;  There are reports in the G'mara of women carrying out
> financial transactions (borrowing money against the Ketuba etc.) without
> reference to the need for a male to contersign.  Marital rape comes
> under the heading of "living with a snake" which is an ancient
> recognized reason for paskening for a Chiyuv Get when requested. 
> 

Once I was at a wedding where R' Mordechai Tendler officiate, and, because
many non-Orthodox people were present, he translated extensively. For the
first time, it hit me that the Tena'im - generally regarded as a
"throw-away" kibbud - have truly significant ramifications halacha
l'ma'seh, in that he emphasized - and would seem to be correct, quite so -
that the phrase "yishletu b'nichseihon shaveh b'shaveh" gives equal rights
over property to husband and wife. 

YGB

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

On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Michael Frankel wrote:

> This is of course a good bit further down the entirely predictable
> slippery slope which was noted some time back in an exchange with RYGB
> who when referring to R. Saul Lieberman (let alone halivni) could not
> bring himself to let the rabbinical honrifics pass through his keyboard. 

That is correct. After having been castigated, however, I am willing to
reconsider, so as not to get bogged down in the issues that arise from
quibbling on honorifics. In order to make points without losing points in
the brouhaha over titlles, let me note my willingness to write:

R' Lieberman
R' Rackman
R' Klein
and - a new one introduced here by R' Frankel:
R' Weiss-Halivni.

Let me note that my opinions regarding these individuals is not changed or
enhanced by my new-found willingness to use the "R'."

I do think a conversation as to whether the term "Rabbi" rightly applies
to anyone who at any time achieved a hetter hora'ah from an Orthodox
institution or individual or only to one who can currently be considered a
legitimate expositor of normative Halachic behavior is in order, but l'eis
atah ein kan makon l'ha'arich!

YGB

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

Subject: judging people

    I have a major problem with the recent discussion condemning certain
individuals. While one can disagree with actions the Jewish world is
too filled with religious Jews that won't speak to each other.

The venom written by some Israeli gedolim against Rav Goren zt'L is too
painful to repeat. There are printed teshuvot that one is not allowed
to read any work (even pure halacha) by Rav Soloveitchik. There are
known stories where major gedolim refused to attend a meeting involving
pikuach Nefesh because major rabbonim from Poale Agudah were attending
the meeting.
We seem to live in an era where everyone a step to the left is an apikorus
and being in the same room with that person is a support of his position.
While it has been mentioned that some people like Rav Feinstein are
apart from the general rule this is seen through rosy glasses.
We forget the demonstrations attacking Rav Moshe because of some of
his more controversial piske halacha. These became more than
theoretical disagreements of halachic issues.

Rav Aaron Kotler worked closely with the RCA in saving people from the
Shoah. Similarly Rav Yechezkal Abramowitz and others worked with many
groups in helping agunot from the Holocaust. Today such actions would be
impossible.

Rav Weiss (from Manchester and later Eda Charedit) once attended a wedding
in Shaalavim from close friends from England. He was asked why he
never had any contact with the rabbis there. He apologized but said that
while in England he was close to these people in Israel he could no longer
do so because of political pressures.

Everyone has their definitions of orthodoxy. However, I would strongly reject
such ideas as not referring to Rabbi Rackman or Rabbi Greenberg or others
as rabbis. Just remember that there are others out there who would your
semicha and would sit in the same room with you because of your apikorsus.

I strongly agree with Rabbi Broyde about reaching out to others but have
one question for him. I recently read an article by a rabbi who spoke at
a conservative group and was very disappointed. He felt that his very
attendance at the meeting led to expectations that he would be more
liberal and giving in his opinions. They could not understand how he
was willing to attend the meeting but not willing to compromise.


kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

>> If the Zionists were shown retroactively to have made the better
>> decision than the Jews who stayed behind, that can be characterized as
>> sound political judgement, yad Hashem or dumb luck.   But it has nothing
>> to do with "paskening" or with halakhic principles.

Rav Soloveitchik has used the phrase that the existence and growth of
the state of Israel demonstrates that the zionists were right.
This does not in any way justify there anti-religious acts past or
present. Neither was it meant as a condemnation of Agudah groups.
Rather, I interpret it as meaning that we shouyd look at Israel as a
positive status because G-d allowed it to survive against all odds.

I find this a much more believable hashkafa that the Satmar belief
that the Holocaust was Yad Hashem while the establishment of Israel
was the work of the sita achara. As I once heard there is something
perverse in believing that the murder of 6 million Jews is the wish
of Hashem while simultaneously holding that the saving of Jews
through Israel is the work of the devil.

Eli Turkel

Subject: Tur

>> By co-incidence, last Shabbos while learning the Tur, I said to my chavrusa as
>> as we started the BY "Now we'll REALLY learn this stuff." And he seriously
>> objected to my slighting the Tur's kovod etc. (BTW I asked the Tur for 
>> mechilo).What my point was The Sefer haTur, while written by a big gadol, 
>> does not provide the same challenge (and reward) as learning the BY.

I once heard that in Europe they made fun of the Chazon Ish because he spent
a lot of time studying the Tur rather "really" learning.
As the rabbi pointed out history has determined which side was right.

Eli Turkel

I applaud the Micha's latest attempts (e.g. V2, no. 141) to eliminate the
unacceptable language that was used in a number of recent postings. He
wrote:

	"you're causing roughly 200 people to read lashon hara, or avak 		L"H. How
would you feel if you caused 200 people to ch"v be 			mechallel Shabbos?"

However, I think that he is underestimating the damage that could occur
from these posts. Imagine an unsympathetic university researcher
researching the social dynamics of the orthodox community on the internet
or an anti-religious crusader looking for ammunition to fuel his cause who
examined the freely accessible archives of "avodah". I do not know the
legal status of these archives, but, if published in another forum (e.g. a
book or another internet forum) could lead to "Chilul Hashem" on a much
grander scale. It simply frightens me to think of this. Is it possible to
restrict access of the archives to members only?

	I understand the conundrum the list owner faces; on the one hand, he
doesn't wish to stifle free communication and exchange of ideas, but, on
the other hand, he (and we) cannot remain silent in the face of blatantly
unacceptable language. Unfortunately, my yeshiva experience has taught me
that the Ramban's construct "Naval Bereshut HaTorah" is not merely a
theoretical construct or a historical artifact, but remains a serious
problem for the Orthodox (MO/Haredi/Hassidic, etc) communities to this day.

	I am afraid that the experience of the last few exchanges shows that
polite requests for self-censorship often fall on deaf ears. While I am
sure that most, if not all, of the list members agrees with the idea in
principle, when his or her pet "peeve" arises they feel that this is an
extraordinary case (Eit La'asot, etc). Witness the recent justification
(V2, no. 141)

 "How can we be silent b'makom Chillul Hashem? Ein cholkin kavod l'Rav!"

Is it possible to poll the members to see if there is a significant
majority that favors more active and restrictive censorship?

Saul Stokar

In a message dated 1/30/99 11:18:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
FRANKEL@hq.dswa.mil writes:

<< R Eli Clark, in discussing the Rov,  writes:  <found the tzibbur reciting
 Tehillim.   He joined them.  When his father
 came in, he told the Rav to set aside the tehillim and pick up a
Gemara...This
 approach is consistent with the classic Litvak view>
  >>
Dear Eli,
Would the classic Litvak view be that you should be learning in the zchut of
the choleh or just that you should be learning. What about time spent in
prayer-how much should that be minimized in favor of learning? Does this also
assume that the person wastes no time during the day?

Kol Tuv, 
Joel Rich

<< It does seem a bit strange for  a MO to defend gdolim's infallibility and
the more right wing to bash them.   However, I think the point is being
missed.  >>

I agree - a defense of such a position is needless and only obscures the
point.  Infallibility is not the issue.  You may learn a sugya and disagree
with ma'aseh rav - however, do so  bearing in mind that there exists an
alternative POV, whether written or unrecorded (as many tshuvos are!), which
demands attention and consideration, and that historically that POV may have
carried more weight in other times and places.  Irrelevant to what you
personally do; entirely relevant to how you view other's actions.

-CB

In a message dated 1/29/99 9:02:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< Or to put this another way:  "hate the sin" not the sinner.  I think
Bruriioh - 
 Eishes R. Meier expressed a similar concept yitamu chato'im NOT chot'im.
  >>
True- see brachot 10 and while I believe this approach with all my heart, I
have to be intellectually honest and refer you also to taanit 23b, the
zohar(vayera 104 ) and sanhedrin 77.  See also the maharsha, maharatz chiyut
and meiri on the brachot source. Apparently  it's not so pashut that one
always prays for the sinner to repent.  If anyone does go through the sources,
I'd be interested in their take on this issue. Interestingly the Munkatcher
was quoted as saying that Bruriah is not l'halacha since women tend to be
rachmaniyot etc. 

More off line if anyone's interested

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

Dear Daniel Lefton,

	Rabbi Yitz Greenberg lives in Riverdale, not Manhattan. He davens
in the Riverdale Jewish Center, not the Manhattan Jewish Center. 
		
				Rabbi Dov Weiss
				Rabbinic Intern, The Jewish Center

On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> have to be intellectually honest and refer you also to taanit 23b, the
> zohar(vayera 104 ) and sanhedrin 77.  See also the maharsha, maharatz
> chiyut and meiri on the brachot source. Apparently it's not so pashut
> that one always prays for the sinner to repent.  If anyone does go
> through the sources, I'd be interested in their take on this issue.
> Interestingly the Munkatcher was quoted as saying that Bruriah is not
> l'halacha since women tend to be rachmaniyot etc. 
>

In this vein, note the German, Roedelheim Siddur version of
"V'La'Malshinim": "V'kol osei rish'a k'rega yoveidu." 

YGB

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

B'ezras Hashem Yisborach the bris mila of our son passed b'shalom
u'b'simcha this morning, and nikra shemo b'Yisroel Noam Eliyahu Bechhofer.
B"H these names are "original" - not named after any family members. May
he grow l'Torah u'l'Chuppa u'l'Ma'asim Tovim b'Ne'imus, v'yizkeh la'chazos
b'Noam Hashem!

B"H he and my wife are doing very well.

May we always share Semachos!

YGB

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

I accepted not to post further on these topics. Let me note, however, as a
founder of this group and one interested in its continued success, my
vehement disagreement to the:

1. Halachic conclusions.
2. List implications.
3. Philosophical underpinnings,

expressed therein, and in the previous post of similar import by R' Eli
Turkel.

If anyone wants to discuss these issues offline, please feel free to
contact me.

On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Dr. Saul Stokar wrote:

> I applaud the Micha's latest attempts (e.g. V2, no. 141) to eliminate
> the unacceptable language that was used in a number of recent postings.
> 

YGB

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

My son just faxed me a page from th Shut Chasm Sofer Shulchan Aruch, 
Aruch Chaim, Siman 15. I'll try to free translate the pertinent points:

	When the Ari came along he analyzed and examined and revealed 	
	the greatness of the Nusach of the Sfardim because he himself 
	was a Sfardi.  And if he would have been an Ashkenazi or there 
	could be found an Ashkenazi, a man such as the Ari, the same 
	could have been done foe the Ashkenazi siddur. But, we don't 
	have anyone who could extract the same type of greatness from 
	the Nusach of the Ashkenazim so it is best for them (the 
	Sfardim) to daven from a siddur of the Sfardim.  The Chasam 
	Sofer's Rebbi R. Nosson Adler and The Baal Haflaah changed their 
	nusachos and Davened according to the Nusach of the Ari (because 
	of their better understanding of Tefilah thru the Ari's 
	interpretations). But ther rest of the minyan  davened Nusach 	
	Ashkenaz as did the son of the Haflaah, the Baal Machne Levi. 
	They did not change their Nusach From nusach Ashkenaz.  When 
	the Machne Levi's father died he close down that shul and 
	davened in  the shul of Frankfurt Am Mein.  And this is a well 
	know and widely known thing, that any one who doesn't have any 
	knowledgeability (on the level of the Ari), cannot change our 
	Nusach, as was decereed by the Magen Avraham 266, 8. and so as 
	well, wrote the Ari, explicitly.  So it comes out from what we 
	just mentioned that those who daven in sfardit likely do so 
	through the Secrets of G-d and enter in quietly into that level 
	and they know that what they are saying and they do beautifully.

I apoplogize for the awkwardness of my translation but so it is, as I do 
it on the fly.  But it seems to me from the above that:

1. Nusach Sfard is not what the Ari wrote.
2. R. Nosson Adler and the Haflah davened the Nusach of the Sfardim as 
interpreted by the Ari (not Nusach Sfard as we know it).
3. Only the They davened this Sfardi Nusach while the rest of the Kahal 
davened nusach Ashkenaz.
4. The Haflah's son davened Nusach Ashkenaz.
5. The Magen Avraham paskin's that we cannot change our Nusach.
6. The Ari himself agrees that we cannot change our Nusach.

HM

A Yeshivat Har Etzion mailing list (I forget which) explained a chidush of
R' Aharaon Lichtenstein on the topic.

Normally we assume "darchei Shalom" is basically synonymous with "mishum
eivah", that we are pemitted to be mechaleil Shabbos for non-Jews because
this will prevent animosity, thereby preserving Jewish lives, and therefore
maximize Shabbos observance overall.

R' Aharon suggested otherwise. The Rambam gives two mikoros for showing
chessed to non-Jews: darchei Shalom and "mah Ani ... af ata". R' Aharon
holds that in other for the Rambam not to be soseir himself, we must
understand darchei Shalom to be a manifestation of vihalachta bidrachav. It's
not "merely" a survival technique, it's the ikkar of yahadus!

(BTW, capitalizing Shalom is a personal conceit. As "Shalom" is a sheim,
"darchei Shalom" might be a twist on "d'rachav".)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6077 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 31-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

With all due defference to Dr.Chaim Soloveitchik's thesis about relying 
too much on the printed word and not enough on one's own mesorah (which 
I pretty much agreed with, in a previous post), there is no substitute 
for writtern psak halacha.  It allows for the least amount of confusion. 
Of course the printred word can be understood best when we have 
suficient knowledge ourselves about the issues at hand.  Knowledge is 
power. In this case the power to know and understand the halacha as it 
is presented in the Teshuvos.  The more you know... the more you 
understand. And perhaps that is the main problem with relying too much 
on the printed word, not having enough foreknowledge. 

But, as I said, I agree with the thesis that we rely too much on the 
"printed word" to serve as our Rebbe. We need to go back to our own 
roots to see what maaseh avos really was.  We just need to be careful to 
make sure that the Mesorah we get is accurate and not adulterated by 
external factors not related to Halacha, such as Chasidus.
It might be argued that Maaseh Rav is a form of Mesorah that is not 
printed... it is mimetic. But one cannot watch a Gadol's behavior in a 
vacuum.  One must watch it in context and in full knowlege of the 
circumstances. If not, one runs the risk that error will creep into your 
observance of the Mitzvos.  All this due to the fact that "you saw your 
rebbe doing it". It is all too easy for this to happen. I've been guilty 
of the very same thing myself.  I, now, no longer just "watch and do".  
I try and find out the reasons for the behavior of my rebbeim which 
might, to the uninformed observer, seem to be somewhat questionable. 

This brings me to the reason for this post. I mentioned in an earlier 
post that some who might be considered Gedolim went mixed swimming. They 
did.  There were eyewitnesses.  But there were special circumstsances.  
In the case of one that I know about, and whose identity I will not 
devulge, it was a case of health. This eldery gadol was told by his  
doctors  that he needed to go to the salt baths of Arad for health and 
at the time he started going there were no separate beaches there.  
(Maybe there are now, I don't know.)

So, before we start saying, "He did it, therefore, I can do it", know 
the circumstances.

HM

On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
 however, do so  bearing in mind that there exists an
> alternative POV, whether written or unrecorded (as many tshuvos are!), which
> demands attention and consideration, and that historically that POV may have
> carried more weight in other times and places.  Irrelevant to what you
> personally do; entirely relevant to how you view other's actions.
> 
> -CB
> 
However, this doesn't take away the right of one to ask that others
justify that point of view.(i can think you're not a sinner while still
asking you why you act in a particular way) The posts that I have read of
yours
in the past would cause me to believe that you would search out the source
for the heter and not blindly follow, when a safek issur is at stake.
Therefore, if in fact you believe that mixed swimmin is allowed you'll be
the one who will tell me what the heter is based on .
Elie Ginsparg

Just a small note regarding Honorifics.  R. Moshe, in his Teshuvos, 
refers to conservative and reform Rabbis as "Rabbis" (transliterated 
into Hebrew).

HM

In a message dated 1/31/99 8:04:12 PM EST, C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< 
 However, this doesn't take away the right of one to ask that others
 justify that point of view.(i can think you're not a sinner while still
 asking you why you act in a particular way) The posts that I have read of
 yours
 in the past would cause me to believe that you would search out the source
 for the heter and not blindly follow, when a safek issur is at stake.
 Therefore, if in fact you believe that mixed swimmin is allowed you'll be
 the one who will tell me what the heter is based on .
 Elie Ginsparg
  >>
Dear Elie,
Just for the sake of clarity, is everyone agreed that the source of the
"issur" is histaklut and nothing else?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

>>Yagdil Torah veYaadir" before Avos to teach that the ethics of social behavior
are Torah, too.

Mordechai Torczyner<<

Correction: that possuk comes at the END of each perek, not before...

Rich Wolpoe

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


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