Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 055
Tuesday, May 18 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:02:20 EDT
Subject: Re: Waiting for Mashi'ah
46 to the Omer
In a message dated 5/16/99 8:52:06 PM EST, email@example.com writes:
> n v3n53, Eli Clark <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> quotes me and comments:
> : He shall not be a
> : long time "and if he tarries, wait for him" (Hab. 2:3)....
> : I think it is clear where Rambam stood on this issue and clearer still
> : where we should stand.
> I disagree. The Rambam's hashkafah is far from what we'd consider normative
Actually there is a mistake in the translation, the Rambam writes that one
should not think that it will be a long time (please see inside).
Just for clarification I am giving a free translation of the Sefer Beis
E-lokin to the Mabit in Shaar Hayisodos chapter 50 (as not all have this
Sefer I will not rely just on a Mareh Mokom).
.....and therefore the Rav [Rambam] Z"L warned in the belief and the assertion
that he will come and not to think that he will come in a long time "Im
Yismahmeiah Chakei Loi" (as the Novae Chvakuk says), for that which his time
was not set [is because it] can be at any time close or distant AND ONE WHO
DOESN'T BELIEVE FOR THE CLOSE TIME WILL ALSO NOT BELIEVE FOR THE DISTANT
TIME, and also if one will set a date when the time that he set passes it
will diminish his belief in the future, also if he will set a time he will
not believe he will come prior to that set time, and if he doesn't come in
the time he set for him to come he won't believe he can come in an open ended
And therfore the belief is that he should not think that he will be long, for
he has no set time and his coming is possible every day as it says in the
Possuk (Tehillim 95:7) "Hayoim Im Bkoile Sishmou", AND AS IT TAKES LONGER FOR
HIM TO COME HIS HOPE WILL BECOME EVEN GREATER BECAUSE HE IS CLOSER NOW THEN
BEFORE, and as the Possuk says "Im Yismahmeiah Chakei Loi" that THE LENGTH IS
THE CAUSE THAT YOU WILL BE MCHAKEH FOR HIM, and as the Possuk says "Ke Boi
Yovoi Vloi Yeacheir" that at the time of his coming he will not be late and
that his coming will not be in a long while and that is the reason for the
double words "Boi Yovoi".
> IOW, the Rambam might have believed that moshiach won't be coming for a
> (from the time of the writing of peirush hamishnayos).
See his Igeres Teimon.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:02:26 EDT
Subject: Re: Waiting for Moshiach
46 to the Omer
In a message dated 5/13/99 9:20:17 AM EST, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> Last, let's look at the Chofeitz Chaim's example. On the one hand, he kept a
> suitcase packed in case moshiach came and spent much time learning kodshim.
> On the other, what did the CC spend much of his time doing? Crisscrossing
> Europe to raise funds for a yeshiva in Radun! Perhaps the message is that
> while we believe moshiach could come tomorrow, and hope he would, we
> the odds are against it.
Someone tells me the other day "it doesn't look like Moshiach is coming
today," to which I responded how do you know what the looks are supposed to
be. The odds get better from day to day, but since we don't know when we must
fulfill our obligations in the present, and that itself could be the P'uloh
Achas that is Machria Atzmoi Vkol Holom Lkaf Zchus, (the Hayom Im Bkole
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:02:24 EDT
Subject: Re: Brisker Torah
46 to the Omer
In a message dated 5/16/99 8:05:37 PM EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:
> 1. In the "Kuntras HaMoadim miToras Brisk", (Shavous section), the Brisker
> Rav is quoted as holding that even empirical observations are validated
> through Torah -
While the following examples can be answered in another light
> e.g. Temurah 16a where the Yehoshua uses a pasuk to prove
> that he served Moshe constantly, something Moshe knew from personal
B'pashtus the Loshon Hagemoroh is that he told him this is what *you* wrote
about me (Lav Davkoh because it is the Torah).
> Gittin 6a where the gemera deduces from a pasuk that Bavel is
> north of Eretz Yisrael, when a map would suffice.
As we find Eretz Yisroel is called also "Marovoh" in relation to Bovel
because it is both to the east and north of Eretz Yisroel, hence the Gemoroh
brings Rayoh to this definition (as Betzem in the Gemoroh in Gittin the
question would be no matter to which direction it is, however a bigger Rayoh
would be from B"B 25).
However the Yesod for this approach is Bpashtus the Chazal that the Torah is
the blueprints for the world hence everything is first found in Torah and
that is the source for it later being visible to our eyes, (even though that
OTOH we have the Kllal "Lomoh Le Krah Sevoroh He").
And see also the Sugia in B"K 92, and Bchoros 8a WRT the length of a snakes
pregnancy, (and also my favorite reference to the Gilyon Hasahas in Psochim
94b), also note Shabbos 108a WRT blood being red.
>I find the chiddush
> remarkable - see Niddah 30b where the chachamim counter R' Yishmael's
> from pesukim that a nekeivah is formed after 80 days with proof from
IMHO Adraboh there the Chachomim disagreed with his Limud, IOW had they
accepted his Limud then they would accept his answers, (Bdugmas Taanis 5b
"Mikroh Ani Doreish" it makes no difference what the external world seems to
> 3. If anyone read the Meshech Chochma on last weeks parsha re: the issur
> zarus not being dependent on an object having kedusha (e.g. acc. to R'
> ma'ser may be eaten b'tumah but not be fed to a zar) - it seems to be
> against Rambam Ma'aser 1:2 who says neither zarus or tumah applies to
> because it is not kadosh* (emph. mine).
I unfortunately don't have (yet) the Meshech Chochma, so I don't know perhaps
he is talking only according to Rabi Meir (who obviously doesn't hold that
"Ke Kodesh Heim" (Shmos 29:33) is the only criteria (see Rashi there as in
Minochos 85b and Makkos 18a) he may hold that Ein Dorshin Taameh Dikroh,
whereas OTOH that may Davkoh be the Mokor for the Ramabm (as many ask that
Lichoroh the Halacha should be like R"M) as the Rambam holds that (in such a
clear place) Dorshin Taamoh Dikroh (see LC"M Hil. Malveh 3:1, and in many
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:02:17 EDT
Subject: Re: Chodosh Ossur min haTroah
46 to the Omer
In a message dated 5/17/99 8:42:49 AM EST, email@example.com writes:
> The rebbe replied <sarcastically>:
> "You don't understand the Meharsho; and the Meharsho did not understand
WADR Hiflig Al Hamidah, while one may disagree in Torah, the wording used is
to be measured.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:08:31 -0400
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject: The Charedi Loss in the Israeli Elections
The Israeli Elections are over. It look's like Barak is the winner. What
Happened? Why has a Chareidei basher (and we are all charedim legabi
Barak and his crowd) won the day? Why has a man who has threatened to do
away with all of the Charedi "gains" of the past few years, threatened
to abolish exemptions to Yeshiva students and reduce the financial
support to Yeshivos and other charedi institions, won over the hearts
and minds of the majority of the Israeli electorate? I believe it is a
senses of self delusion on the part of charedi leaders. A self delusion
that is the charedim in Eretz Israel are almost omnipotent in their
"march" towards achieving the "Will of G-d". Because of the last
"miraculous" election of the charedi sympathetic" Netanyahu they felt
they could ask for and get just about anything they asked for. And
indeed they did. What does that type of power do. It blinds you to an
appreciation of those outside the "charedi community" who have
contributed to the well being and, in some cases" very existence of
Eretz Israel. It was an "IN YOU FACE" attitude towards chiloni society
that created this reactionary stance on the part of the electorate. To
be sure the issues surrounding this election are very complex and one
cannnot point to one or two specific issues that caused the downfall of
the Charedim. But I can't help but believe, for example, that when it
comes to fighting and dying to defend one's country, wasn't a primary
factor as to why a Chiloni Father would have nothing but disdain for the
Yeshiva student who makes the claim that HE is the one who is being
Mekaim the Medinah by his, and others like him, learning Torah.
Barak does not undersdand the value of the status quo agreement. Ben
Gurion new the value of maintaining it because he understood the in
order to have a jewish state you needed recognizable jews and not
I haven't even scratched the surface of my depression over the events
taking place in Israel. Perhaps I am over-reacting and things won't get
as bad for the Charedim as I feel they will... I just don't know.
I know this is off the beaten path for this list but I need to get this
off my chest. It does, however, present the need to re-evaluate the way
in which some charedim interact with some chilonim. Perhaps The Roshei
Yeshiva in Eeretz Israel would reconsider the approach they have been
taking towards the chiloni society. Let them take a page from some of
the great Kiruv organizations such as NCSY, as to how to interact with
chilonim. Of course we will never win over the hardcore nti-religeous
like Shulmit Aloni and Yossi Sarid. But the vast majority of Israeli
citizens are yet approachable and could be won over to at least an
understanding like Ben Gurion', about the need for a status quo
Sorry for venting. But I needed that.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:38:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Zvi Weiss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Comments on Shoa'h, etc.
> From: Moshe Feldman <email@example.com>
> Subject: Shoah, Crusades, N'fash (vs. Nefesh) HaRav and Hashavat Avedah
> I took the unusual step of rereading (twice!) the entire
> correspondence on this issue. I believe that some have inadventently
> attributed to me positions based on others' mischaracterizations of
> my positions. I challenge those responding to me to do as I did and
> read the entire series of avodah e-mails.
===> While I have not had the opportunity to re-read the entier thread
(which I no longer have extant), I believe that comments can be addressed
germane to the items below. Note that in addition to
"mischaracterization", it is also possible that the expressed position was
simply misunderstood or inadequately described...
> I. Rav Schachter:
> First, because it bothers me so much, I would like to respond to
> accusations that I have belittled R. Hershel Schachter by calling him
> one of the more conservative of the major talmidim of the Rav. I
> write as one who speaks to Rav Schachter (who, in many ways, is my
> rebbe muvhak in Halacha) on a frequent basis (probably more than 98%
> of the people on this list!), who has a personal relationship with
> him which stems not only from the fact that (he told me that) he
> considered me one of his better talmidim but from my relationship
> with two of his sons-in-law (chavuta of one, roomate of another), and
> who has shared some of my most personal she'elot with Rav Schachter.
> Rav Schachter is a human being (remember, unlike others, I believe
> that this is the case of ALL gedolim). Consequently, I believe that
> he, as any other gadol, has certain proclivities. (E.g., if the next
> great Satmar Rebbe were born today into the Satmar community, I have
> no doubt that he would be anti-Zionist.) As Rav Soloveitchik had
> many sides to him, it is natural that each of his major talmidim
> would understand him somewhat differently. (Everyone, to some
> extent, recreates his rebbe in his own image.) Chas v'shalom to
> suggest that Rav Schachter distorts what the Rav said. Rather, my
> view is that Rav Schachter, as demonstrated by his sefer "N'fash
> HaRav," tends to emphasize the conservative side of the Rav more than
> other talmidim have (e.g., Julius Berman; also, see the various books
> that have come out over the past few years). Consequently, while I
> have no doubt that Rav Schachter, in his sefer, will accurately cite
> incidents which demonstrates the Rav's conservatism, there are other
> incidents cited by others which indicate other sides to the Rav. No
> talmid can by himself encapsulate all that the Rav stood for. This
> does not insult any talmid of the Rav, much less Rav Schachter, whom
> I would never intentionally insult. (This applies to Rav Moshe
> Meiselman as well, from whom I have never had the zechut to hear
> shiurim.) Moreover, I do not wish to pidgeonhole Rav Schachter; he
> is an independent talmid chacham whom I choose to go to for psak
> precisely because I know that he is not a knee-jerk machmir (BTW, I
> do keep some of his chumrot in addition to his kulot). Nevertheless,
> I do believe that some measure of generalization (e.g. Rav Schachter
> tends to be more right-wing than Rav Lichtenstein) does help us
> organize our thoughts.
===> The complaint has been that regardless of R. Schachter's personal
"persuasion", it is not proper (once evidence has been produced by R.
Schachter) to somehow call into question R. Schachter;s citation of that
material. *If* the issue had been some sort of "d'rash" (i.e., using that
evidence to support a different IMPLIED position), then perhaps, the claim
could be made that R. Schachter was making the "d'rash" based upon his (R.
Schechter's) own personal hashkofa. However, the point was that the
material cited was a fairly direct matter from the Rov ZT"L (as r. Sholom
Carmy also pointed out). THEREFORE, the generalization seems unwarranted
and unjustified. It is important to keep in mind that if we cite "direct
evidence" about the Rav's attitude re Yom HaShoa'h (or Yom Ha'Atzma'ut),
the general issue of whether the Rav was "liberal" or "conservative" is
not that critical (unless one is tryin to engage in some sort of
revisionism...). If I note that the Rav opposed (e.g.) the recitation of
Hallel on Y"H for specific halachic reasons, then the issue of
"conservative" vs. "liberal" does not seem germane TO THIS QUESTION since
we have a clear-cut peice of evidence. It is only if one is trying to
find a basis to "alter" that "metzi'ut" that one will try to find issues
of "conservative" or "liberal". Let me take a counterexample: The Rav
ZT"L set up Maimonides as a co-ed school. REGARDLESS of MY POV about
co-ed schools, I think that it is incorrect to try to posit that the Rav
"changed his mind" or "would have changed his mind" unless we have VERY
VERY unambiguous evidence to support that.
> II. Yom HaShoah and alternative commemorations of the Holocaust:
> Some seem to believe that I support the commemoration of Yom HaShoah.
> This is not the case. I have used the existence of Yom HaShoah to
> counter Eli Clark's suggestion that the masses do not wish to
> commemorate the Holocaust (and to counter a specific point of Zvi
> Weiss, which I will not mention here).
> I prefer that the Shoah be remembered through age-old halachic
> methods. Possibilities include acts of mourning (cf. increased
> avelut during Sefirah to commemorate the Crusades) and a fast day
> (cf. the 20th of Sivan, which M.B. 580:16 states was accepted as a
> fast day in Poland to commemorate the Chmielnitzky massacre; see also
> Igerot Moshe, quoted below).
> III. Comparing the Holocaust with the Crusades:
> Zvi Weiss, on more than one occasion, has called me "arrogant" for
> suggesting that the Holocaust was more traumatic than the Crusades
> (he derived his contrary position from the fact that the gedolim were
> not metakain anything for the Holocaust but were metakein increased
> mourning for the Crusades). Since Mr. Weiss has used similarly
> strong language in replying to my posts (interestingly, I have not
> reciprocated and I wonder how the use of such language on a
> continuous basis serves the purpose of the Avodah list of having
> frank and open discussions), I began to doubt myself. I called two
> individuals who have profoundly impacted my thinking: my father, Dr.
> Louis H. Feldman (one of the outstanding authorities on ancient
> Jewish history), and Rav Sholom Kamenetsky, Rosh Kollel in
> Philadelphia, son of the Rosh Yeshivah of Yeshiva of Philadelphia and
> considered the "heir apparent" to become the Rosh Yeshivah, and of
> course, grandson of Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky (he is also a rebbe of mine
> and a personal friend). (For those who are interested, Rav Sholom is
> considered mainstream "Lakewood".) Rav Sholom told me that it is
> quite clear that the Holocaust was more traumatic. He pointed to the
> fact that subsequent to the Crusades, Jewish life continued in Europe
> while the Holocaust completely wiped out the Jewish communites of
> Eastern Europe. Rav Sholom also suggested that while it may have
> been appropriate for the gedolim to institute something to
> commemorate the Holocaust, only those great rabbanim (Rav Elchanan
> Wasserman comes to *my* mind) who perished could have been metakein
> an appropriate method of commemoration.
===> There is a misunderstanding here. I agree that the Sho'ah that
consumed so much more of Yahadus was a terrible event that rivals the
Churban HaBayit. HOWEVER, I have noted that for THOSE WHO EXPERIENCED the
event, THEY found it terribly traumatic and we cannot "masure" of
"compare" senses of trauma. THAT is what I object to and I continue to
object to it. I feel that such an approach can trivialize suffering and
destroy the sense of history. I noted that the Gedolim in that time
responded to those events in terms of the trauma that they experienced.
And, I simply noted that the fact that the Gedolim AT THAT time were
metakain something does nto AUTOMATICALLY mean that there should be
something for the Sho'ah because it is impossible to "Guage" trauma in
Even before the comment from R. Sholom SHLITA, I noted that R. Wein had
noted that there was a lack in this area.
> My father suggested (but cautioned that as this is not his field,
> this is just a guess of his; I should point out that those familiar
> with his seminal work "Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980"
> will appreciate the fact that my father is reluctant to take a
> scholarly stance until he has read ALL relevant material; if you are
> unfamiliar with my father, I suggest you go to www.barnesandnoble.com
> or to www.amazon.com and do a search for the books my father has
> authored; BTW, barnesandnoble.com has my father's "Jew and Gentile in
> the Ancient World" (Princeton Univ. Press, 1997) for just $19.96!)
> the following "off the cuff" guess: In the case of the Crusades,
> each community was semi-autonomous. The Rav of the community
> generally enacted takanot for the community without having to receive
> the consent of other communities. Hence, the Rav of each community
> affected by the Crusades was able to enact takanot as he saw fit (I
> might add to my father's words that in fact there were, in general,
> many more takanot enacted during the period of the Crusades than
> during the modern day). Contrast this with the difficulty of the
> Mahari beRav to cobble together the gedolim of Eretz Yisrael to
> reestablish the Sanhedrin (based on the Rambam). In contrast to the
> Crusades, it was difficult already in the time of the Chmielnitzky
> massacre to get the Va'ad Arba Aratzot to agree on some commemoration
> of the the massacre (they didn't; the 20th of Sivan fast day started
> with the Shach, who had been personally affected by the massacre and
> who gave a tzava'ah to his descendants to keep the 20th; this
> eventually spread to [most] of Poland). Similarly, one may postulate
> that gedolim found it difficult to come up with a single method of
> commemorating the Holocaust, which affected so many Jewish
> communities (especially since, in the modern day of instant
> communication, no gadol can act without others almost immediately
> knowing of his action).
===> The above seems to fit in well with the theory that I had advanced
earlier that it is only when we have a sense of community that we can
properly begin to react to events that affect that community...
> As to the trauma of the Holocaust vs. Crusades: my father pointed out
> that although 25% of 20,000 Ashkenazic Jews were killed during the
> Crusades, this was merely 0.5% of the total Jewish population of the
> time (estimated by Salo Baron at 1,000,000). In contrast, 80% of
> European Jewry and 33% of world Jewry was decimated during the
===> Again, my point was not in terms of numbers but in terms of the
reactions of the survivors to the events. In that context, I don't think
that the numbers are that determining.
And, I still feel that it is counterproductive to attempt to quantify
suffering and trauma in this context.
> IV. Rav Moshe Feinstein's position:
> I did a search on Bar Ilan She'elot U'tshuvot and found that Igerot
> Moshe Y.D. 4:57 (par. 11) states as follows (loose translation):
> "[With regard to the questioner's contention that] it would have been
> fitting to establish some day for fasting and prayer [to commemorate
> the Holocaust] . . .: Behold, in the Kinot that all Israel says on
> Tisha B'Av, it states that they did not establish a special day for
> fasting and crying in [commemoration] of the gezeirot of the
> [Crusaders], which were in all European countries, where the majority
> of the Jews lived, and a number of cities and villages were destroyed
> . . ., because one should not establish another day for fasting and
> crying, and therefore one should mention them during the Kinot said
> during Tisha B'Av for the destruction of the Bet HaMikdash. For the
> same reason one should not establish a special day for the gezeirot
> which occurred in our lifetime, [since] they are part of all the
> gezeirot which were during the entire long period of this galut.
====> It appears that R. Moshe's position here is the same as the one
attribute to the C"I, the Brisker Rav, and others... I.e., there seems to
have developed a "normative" approach that has accepted this idea that we
cannot "add" commemorations (at least not national ones) to our Lu'ach.
> This [case of the Holocaust] is not similar to the gezeirot of Tach
> V'Tat made by Chmeilnitzky head of the Kossaks, where [Jews] were
> killed in Ukraine and in part of Poland, where they established there
> a day of fasting and saying of selichot because [the latter] was not
> a gezeirah on the entire [nation of Israel], unlike the gezeirah of
> galut and the churban, but were in just one country [and was thus] a
> gezeirah additional to the [gezeirah of galut] affecting those
> places. Also, the [Chmeilnitzky massacre] was not decreed by the
> malchut but by those who rebelled against it and therefore it was not
> an extension of the galut and the churban; since the non-Jewish
> kingdom defended the Jews as much as they could. The only connection
> [of the Massacre] to the galut is only in that it derived from the
> same sins which caused us the galut. Therefore, it was possible to
> enact a fast day and the saying of selichot, but for those places [in
> the Ukraine and Poland] alone. But the gezeirot of Hitler applied to
> all of klal Yisrael, since he intended to capture the entire world
===> This may also explain why it (the commemoration) died out. Since it
was limited to certain communities, as Jews "moved around", they went to
> . . . ."
> V. Gedolim and katonti
> Some have taken exception to my suggestion that the gedolim of our
> generation felt too "small" to be proactive. They view this as
> disrespectful. First, I clearly stated that this is not my view of
> the Rav. Second, I did not make the statement to imply that the
> gedolim are "at fault" in this regard; I believe that this is a
> natural consequence of the need to combat Reform and Conservative
> Jewry; this is why the rallying cry of some has been "chadash assur
> min haTorah." I am making a historical suggestion and do not
> consider any gadol at fault; I am merely suggesting that perhaps, in
> the wane of the 20th century (when Reform & Conservative no longer
> pose a threat to Orthodoxy), we might wish to rethink this issue (and
> I am far from the first person to suggest this general approach).
> Some may consider this "churlish" (for those who did not get as high
> a score on the SAT as a certain esteemed listmember, this means "of
> or resembling, or characteristic of a rude ill-bred person."). I do
> not. I also will not reciprocate the insult.
===> At the very least, this appears to be a case of "Hizaharu
b'divreichem". First of all, if the Gedolim do not state that their
concern with C/R is the basis for their p'sak (especially as quoted by R.
Moshe above) -- it seems improper to attribute additional motivations
without adequate support. For example, was the statement "Chadash Asur
min Hatora" provided as the reason for the p'sak by the Gedolim in
question. Second, it is quite possible that there will be more than a
little disagreement as to whether C/R still "constitute a threat or not".
*If* that had been the basis for the reluctance described, it may have
been useful to describe WHY C/R is not longer considered a threat. Third,
the danger might be from "secularists" rather than C/R -- and because of
THAT the Gedolim may have felt the imperative to react as they did (NOte:
I do NOT subscribe to that -- I am pretty much willing to take the
formulation as face value -- BUT for those who *do* consider such an
approach, I think that it is inadequate to look only at C/R....
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Comments on Shoa'h, etc.
I will not respond to Mr. Weiss' post as he has not bothered to check
the Avodah archives (or email me for a copy). He has further
compounded misinterpretation upon misinterpretation, conflating
various issues. I will just make the following summary comments.
--- Zvi Weiss <email@example.com> wrote:
> ===> The complaint has been that regardless of R. Schachter's
> However, the point was that
> material cited was a fairly direct matter from the Rov ZT"L (as r.
> Carmy also pointed out).
You confused two different points (impugning R. Schachter vs.
understanding the Rav). I addressed R. Carmy's point on Friday.
I also note that you have completely ignored many of the guidelines
Micha Berger laid out when he admitted you to the list: no use of
"SHLITA" "ZT'L" etc.; no making negative personal accusations; and
not taking the time to condense prior posts.
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 22:52:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Comments on Shoa'h, Avodah, etc.
I am rolling out my old proposal for a "List Rabbinic Authority". And, I
bet you he would find that this conversation has gotten WAY out of line on
many halachic counts. Contrast this discussion to our edifying
conversation on the Luach!
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 23:55:16 EDT
Subject: Re: Rambam's ikarim
In a message dated 5/17/99 2:39:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< When did the thirteen ikarim become accepted as the litmus test for
theological orthodoxy? What did Jews consider the core of their theology
before the Rambam? If one isn't an Aristotelean (like most of us nowadays),
are there other acceptable (=normative) options? For example, I probably
believe something _on the order of_ >>
Didn't Saadia speak of 3 Ikkarim? I do not know them inside, I only heard
about this parenthetically, but I have often wondered the same thing,
especially in light of the previous post by Micha that illustrates that what
many people believe are the Ani Maamins, not what the Rambam himself wrote in
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:20:17 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Turkel <email@example.com>
Subject: rav soloveitchik / references
I am presently finishing an extensive bibliography of works
by/about Rav Soloveitchik.
1. There is a recent article by R. Meiselman in Tradition. If
anyone can send to me the exact reference it would be
2. R. Schacter had a hesped on the Rav in Or haMizrach shortly
after the Rav passed away. Again, the exact reference would
BTW the latest BDD has a very interesting review of Nefesh haRav
the review is by Lawrence Kaplan.
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:24:02 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Turkel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
BDD (Bechol Derachav Daehu) is a journal from BarIlan
that appears twice a year English/hebrew and they are up
to volume 7. I highly recommend it (I have no connection)
and it has articles of a great variety of interest that
don't appear in other places.
I know of at least one associate editor on this list.
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 07:45:32 -0500
From: Joshua Cypess <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: rav soloveitchik / references
>1. There is a recent article by R. Meiselman in Tradition. If
> anyone can send to me the exact reference it would be
Meiselman, Moshe. "The Rav, Feminism, and Public Policy: An Insider's
Overview." TRADITION. 33:1, Fall 1998. pp. 5-30
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:12:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Administrivia: List Rabbinic Authority
R' YGB writes:
: I am rolling out my old proposal for a "List Rabbinic Authority".
I've considered the idea, but I don't think it has much value. Usually these
things go from non-existant to obviously out-of-hand in a matter of hours.
What poseik is going to be available in the middle of the afternoon? Aside
from the problem that *I'm* not necessarily available in the middle of
This brings me back to my original desire for everyone to receive Avodah
in digest mode. Tempers have a chance to cool before replying. The
non-instantaneousness of the dialogue encourages more forethought.
Last, there's little to be gained by publically criticizing another person
on the list. If you really think the person's out of bounds, your words are
far more likely to be accepted if they were said in private. Handling it in
a way that bruises kavod ha'adam is just an invitation to receive the same
in response. If you don't feel comfortable writing the person, that's what
I'm here for. And, odds are pretty high I did it already.
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 18-May-99: Shelishi
email@example.com A"H O"Ch 319:20-26
http://www.aishdas.org Eruvin 82a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Kuzari II 41-44
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:21:17 -0400
Subject: Crusades - Litrugical Footnote
German Kehillos say the Av HoRachamim Shochein Meromim but twice a year -
Shabbos Chazon (muvan!) and the Shabbos before Shevuos. this is due to the
massacres that took place on R.CH. Sivan during the curases.
My shul has a Japeht Music book. Next to the to the Lecho Dodi for Shabbos
Chazzon (sung to Eli Tziyon) is penned in also sung on Shabbos Before Shevuos.
curretnly, we do NOT aobserve this minhog, but I thought it was worthy to note
that their is a traditionon of litrugically equating the Shabbos before Shevuos
to that of Chazon...
Go to top.
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version. ]
[ To post: mail to firstname.lastname@example.org ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to email@example.com ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to firstname.lastname@example.org ]