Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 116

Wednesday, July 7 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 14:14:53 -0500
From: "Mike A. Singer" <m-singer@uchicago.edu>
Subject:
Seeking Reference for "Permission to Heal"


I vaguely recall having heard that the Gemara states that doctors have
"permission to heal."  I'd like to locate this discussion.  Can anyone
direct me to the proper reference?  Thanks very much!

Amirom Singer
m-singer@uchicago.edu


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:32:47 -0400
From: "MARK FELDMAN" <mfeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
re: Seeking Reference for "Permission to Heal"


See Berachot 60a dealing with "v'rapo yirape" (also found in Bava Kama 
85a).

(The wonders of computer aided research!)

Kol tuv,
Moshe
-------------
Original Text
From: "Mike A. Singer" <m-singer@uchicago.edu>, on 7/7/99 3:23 PM:
To: SMTP@CMPNY5@Servers[<avodah@aishdas.org>]

I vaguely recall having heard that the Gemara states that doctors have
"permission to heal."  I'd like to locate this discussion.  Can anyone
direct me to the proper reference?  Thanks very much!

Amirom Singer
m-singer@uchicago.edu


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 15:27:02 -0400
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Independent thinking


richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> 
> During a visit to my chavruso's bungalo, we did the old YU anti-YU shaklo
> v'taryo. I explained that just because Dr. Lamm says x does NOT mean all of YU
> holds that way, unlike a more yeshivishe institution in which the Rosh Yeshiva's
> word is law at least within the confines of that Yeshiva. IOW, different
> institutions tolerate pluralism and others do not.
> 
> YU's hashkofo encouraged us to be independent poskim.  Many students were
> ridiculed by rabbei'im, one rebbe (circa 1975) termed the semicha klaf (and no
> necessarily YU's klaf) as pieces of paper with R. Moshe's phone number on it!
> 
> Many yeshivishe people are horrified that YU rabbonim paskin so boldly, but it's
> a fact that we were encouraged to do so.  The hahskofo was all about independent
> thought, standing up on our own.  My yoreh deah rebbe told me do not stay in NY,
> but go out to Kansas, etc.

In the main, I agree with the above with one caveat.  It has been my 
experience that, unfortunately, there are some musmachim who paskin 
"from the hip" That is, they are not sufficiently versed in Yore Deah, 
shach and Taz to be Roy Topaskin.  So even though I encourage 
independant thought, Psak Halacha requires more kowledge then some 
Musmachim have. Although, it of course depends on the psak and what you 
mean by "psak". Obviously, most of us can look up a Halacha in the 
Shulchan Aruch and tell it over but few are those who can chart new 
graound Ala R. Moshe.  Sometimes as you later pointed out even an expert 
Posek need defer to another expert, who knows more about a certain field 
Ala R. Moshe Tendler.  And of course, he has his detractors, too.  I am 
more inclined to encourage independant thought in matters of Hashkafa 
rather than in Psak Halacha.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 15:35:52 -0400
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject:
Re: discussing failures of Orthodoxy


C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> 
>  >>>I think it is approriate to discuss what any and each of us
> see as flaws in the observance of Yahadus by large groups of Orthodox
> Jews outside this list.  <<<
> 
> I would like to just register my strong disagreement with the above
> statement.
> 
> This list or any other public forum is no place to debate what you see
> as the failings of others.  By all means, discuss the positive aspects of
> your own religious views - be it in embracing or rejecting Western culture,
> or other issues - and hope your enthusiasm and cogency will sway others.

It sounds pretty bad when you  quote me out of context.  Never the less, 
I contend that when there is a Toeles as I pointed out in the post you 
qouted from, then what seems be a negative statement out of context can 
relly be quite positive when taken in context.  I am not interested in 
bashing any group of people, only in helping improve the standard. In 
that spirit I hope I would accept similar critisizm of my own Hashkafa 
and/or Hanhaga.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:37:05 -0400
From: "MARK FELDMAN" <mfeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
Re: discussing failures of Orthodoxy


I agree with Harry on this point.  While care must be taken to steer clear 
of lashon hara (i.e., all of these discussions must have toelet), there is 
value in discussing the flaws of other groups rather than just discussing 
the benefits of our own.  For example, while I can talk about the benefits 
of teaching high-schoolers to think on their own, there is something missed 
when people are not forced to confront concrete results of an educational 
system which encourages complete subservience to authority (which I 
experienced in connection to certain Israeli charedi yeshivah bachurim).  
This is important to our discussion of the benefits/detriments of a 
Centrist Orthodox parent sending his child to a right-wing yeshivah.

OTOH, I agree that when possible, it is better to discuss the positive in 
your system rather the negative in someone else's.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
-------------
Original Text
From: "Harry Maryles" <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>, on 7/7/99 4:36 PM:
To: SMTP@CMPNY5@Servers[<avodah@aishdas.org>]

C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> 
>  >>>I think it is approriate to discuss what any and each of us
> see as flaws in the observance of Yahadus by large groups of Orthodox
> Jews outside this list.  <<<
> 
> I would like to just register my strong disagreement with the above
> statement.
> 
> This list or any other public forum is no place to debate what you see
> as the failings of others.  By all means, discuss the positive aspects of
> your own religious views - be it in embracing or rejecting Western 
culture,
> or other issues - and hope your enthusiasm and cogency will sway others.

It sounds pretty bad when you  quote me out of context.  Never the less, 
I contend that when there is a Toeles as I pointed out in the post you 
qouted from, then what seems be a negative statement out of context can 
relly be quite positive when taken in context.  I am not interested in 
bashing any group of people, only in helping improve the standard. In 
that spirit I hope I would accept similar critisizm of my own Hashkafa 
and/or Hanhaga.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:49:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Nature


In v3n108, Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu> discusses my paraphrase of
R' Avigdor Miller's position on Talmudic medicine:
:                   Of course all healing comes from G-d. But Judaism is 
: not Christian Science.

Christian Science is based on faith to the exclusion of medicine. R' Avigdor
Miller was suggesting that a combination of bitachon and hishtadlus is
necessary and is sufficient even if the hishtadlus is based on incorrect
medicine.

It relates to a basic difference between Xianity and Yiddishkeit. They teach
that man can't redeem himself, and therefore must rely on grace. We believe that
the act of trying to redeem yourself is itself the means to redemption. One
need only try one's best.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  7-Jul-99: Revi'i, Matos-Masei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 336:3-9
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 3b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 7


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:06:17 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Thought


>>From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

I am still not convinced:
1. I still do not see what we gain by discusiing this here. Aderaba,
instead of concentrrating on the need to think, we should discuss thought
provoking topics!<<

Lich'ora the discussion is regarding the proper boundaries or parameters of 
independent thought vs. deferring to a poseik, rav, gadol etc.  Where/When does 
one draw the line?

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:15:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Thought


On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Lich'ora the discussion is regarding the proper boundaries or parameters
> of independent thought vs. deferring to a poseik, rav, gadol etc. 
> Where/When does one draw the line? 
> 
> Rich Wolpoe
>

There is no one answer, nor should there be one, to this question. Nor can
I answer for you unless I know you very well. So, the conversation is
endless, and, perhaps, pointless. 

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:27:00 -0400
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject:
Being Mahmir on Hazal


RYZ writes:

>See S"O Horav 23 Ois 11, for discussion and mote Shitas Habach.

Sadly, I currently do not have access to the Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav.
Could I trouble you for a brief summary of his comments there?

She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,

Eli Clark


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:48:34 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Birchas HaTorah


Intresting feedback!  A few he'aros: as to defining the two possibilities: 
(1) whether you assume dibbur to be the preferred form of T"T
 and the question is whether hirhur is equivalent, or (2) whether the 
question revolves around hirhur itself being a kiyum, is the subject
 of the M"B. 

With respect to the Ma'HaRaL's shitta: I read a few chapters 
more to discover that at the end of perek 7 he spells out that a birchas
 hamitzva is said only on a ma'aseh mitzvah and that hirhur 
does not constitute a ma'aseh.  Both assumptions are interesting.  
In Eretz HaTZvi R' Schachter has a whole piece based on the Rav's Torah
 as to whether berachos are on the ma'aseh mirzva or the kiyum; e.g.
 perhaps this is the machloket Rambam and Rosh
whether the beracha on shofar is on the tekiyah or the shmiya.  The
second assumption of the MaHaRal is equally interesting: dibbur is a ma'aseh
viz. berachos (akimat sefasayim).  Brings to mind the Taz (I think) who says
women shouldn't say havdalah bec. there is no ma'aseh hamitzva involved - 
apparently the dibbur does not suffice.  

The suggestion was made that acc. to the R' Chaim re: the beracha
being on the cheftza shel Torah no ma'aseh hamitza is required.  I do not 
think
this is correct and is a mistake in understanding the concept of cheftza
shel mitzva.  Let me give an example: R' Chaim holds that mitzva haba'ah 
b'aveira 
is a psul in the cheftza of the lulav.  However, until I engage in the action 
of picking
up the lulav I cannot classify it as such!  Here too, the fact that the 
cheftza is
mechyev the beracha does not mean I do not need a ma'aseh hamitzva; it
means that once I am engaged in the ma'seh hamitza it is not the act of 
learning
which necessitates the beracha, but the chefza of Torah.  (Derech agav, for a 
nice
definition of gavra/cheftza see R' Shimon Shkop at the end of the first 
shiur in NEdarim).  

As for R' Dovid's practice: since there is a wealth of shittos in achronim
if he didn;t spell out what hsi logic was, what can we make of it?

-Chaim


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:09:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Broad Torah Education shiur suggestions


I'm in the process of converting my basement into a beis medrash of sorts.
(Tentatively named "Nachalei Emunah", taken from the piyut Kel Mistaseir.)

The concept is to provide a Fri night "d'veikus minyan" and shiurim/chaburos
four nights per week. The key is, though, not to provide yet another gemara
or parasha shiur, nor to replace the ones people already attend. Instead, I
want to organize shiurim that will supplement that with some of the
under-studied parts of Torah -- the machshavah of Chassidus and mussar,
classic hashkafah s'farim (Emunos v'Dei'os?), Iyov, Mishlei, n'vi'im achronim,
etc...

I'm opening the floor for suggestions. If you had such a resource in your
neighborhood, what would you want it to offer?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  7-Jul-99: Revi'i, Matos-Masei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 336:3-9
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 3b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 7


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:23:16 -0400
From: "Michael Poppers" <MPoppers@kayescholer.com>
Subject:
Re: RSRH through the eyes of Leo Levi


Earlier, I wrote:
>>In this vein, I recommend (esp. if you don't have the time or the desire
to
read Rav Hirsch's works) Rabbi Yehudah (Leo) Levi's Tradition 31:3 article,
entitled "Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch -- Myth and Fact."  Pages 6-8 address
secular studies of various kinds; based on them, I would emphasize that the
"caveat" means Rav Hirsch was *not* "[p]ro *all* areas." <<
EClark responded:
> It pains me to report that the above-cited article is baldly revisionist
in its presentation of R. Hirsch's views.  Least persuasive by far is
the author's contention that R. Hirsch would be a Zionist today.  Highly
deceptive is his characterization of R. Hirsch's attitude toward the
arts, especially his characterization of the circumstances under which
R. Hirsch gave his famous speech in praise of Schiller. <
Please forgive me for causing you pain, Eli, but your rhetoric isn't, to
use your word, persuasive.  I appreciate your three-sentence review for its
sharp rhetoric but (a) having read some of Rav Hirsch's works (in
translation...and, even if I was comfortable reading German, I might have a
hard time with his florid style :-), I humbly agree with those aspects of
the article which relate to what I've read (not that Professor Levi needs
any approbation); and (b) having read the article, I find your description
of his words, to say the least, off the mark.

Since this thread has now expanded from summarizing TIDE to examining
Professor Levi's "clarifications of the more commonly misunderstood aspects
of TIDE," let's examine the article and reveal exactly what you were
criticizing.
> Least persuasive by far is
the author's contention that R. Hirsch would be a Zionist today. <
Re Zionism, Professor Levi cites many sources (which I can quote if anyone
is interested) in support of stating that
-- Rav Hirsch (hereafter SRH) viewed Judaism not as a "religion" but as the
Jewish *nation*'s way of life; that
-- in SRH's view, a full Jewish life can only be accomplished in *Eretz
Yisroel*; and that
-- SRH raised money on behalf of the development of self-supporting
agricultural settlements in E'Y and, in 1883, appealed for support of the
Petach Tikva community.  He notes that SRH cites the "three oaths" of BT
K'subos and, like other Halachic authorities, considered them binding, in
spite of the Zionist movement's political efforts, until such time as the
nations of the world no longer opposed the en masse settlement of E'Y, and,
delineating it (given that SRH didn't live in this century) as speculative,
he suggests that SRH would have agreed with this century's authorities,
including but not limited to R.Meir Simcha of D'vinsk ("Or Someach"), R.A.
Bornstein ("Avnei Neizer"), R.Y.C. Sonnenfeld and his successor, R.Y.T.
Dushinsky, R.Y. Kahaneman, R.E.E. Dessler, and R.E.M. Bloch, that the
"three oaths" no longer apply.  I don't know how you want to define
"Zionist," but Professor Levi, IMHO, doesn't at all "contend...that SRH
would be a Zionist," nor does he "contend" that he wouldn't -- let the
reader judge your words in light of the above excerpts.
> Highly
deceptive is his characterization of R. Hirsch's attitude toward the
arts, especially his characterization of the circumstances under which
R. Hirsch gave his famous speech in praise of Schiller. <
Professor Levi notes SRH's eulogy of Schiller within the argument that
while non-Jewish thinkers often "independently rediscover certain of the
Torah's truths," SRH never turned, nor did he believe there was a need to
turn, to "outside sources [e.g. humanism] for ideological inspiration."
Having, no doubt, been present at the time of the eulogy, you may disagree
with Professor Levi's opinion that it was "compelled" by "dictates of good
manners," but do you disagree with his larger point that it never implies
that "we, as Jews, should -- or need to -- absorb ideas from a gentile"?
Even this point is but one aspect of a greater argument: according to SRH,
secular studies which contribute to a deeper understanding of the Divine
ways and the Torah's message (e.g. science, history) must be undertaken
from the viewpoint of Torah, serving Torah goals, etc., while secular
studies which do not thus contribute are not to be studied.  What of this
argument, pray tell, based on your understanding of SRH and his message as
expressed through his writings, do you find "highly deceptive"?

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:10:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Pro-secular studies schools of thought


On Wed, 7 July 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> 
> Well, even assuming that this accurately describes the difference
> between the Breuers and YU, what of the Gra?  Surely he subordinated his
> interest in math and science to Torah.  And, for example, R. 
> Lichtenstein has repeatedly made clear that secular culture is
> subordinate to Torah.  I cannot imagine R. Soloveitchik having any other
> view, though I am unaware of an explicit statement of his on the issue. 
> Rambam is an interesting case, and has been accused of importing foreign
> perspectives into Torah, but in any case, were he found direct conflict
> with Torah, he rejected the hokhmah of the goyim (I am disregarding, for
> our purposes, "esoteric" interpretations of Rambam). 
> 

I cannot imagine any Torah Sage *not* making it clear that ultimately
secular culture is subordinate to Torah. The questions, rather, are: 

1. Is the study of the secular akin to "dechuyah" or "hutrah". 

2. Are secular areas of knowledge a significant area of human development
of mind and ethics independent of Torah a la RYBS's Ramasayim Tzofim or
only an enhancement of the Torah's own tools a la Rakachus v'Tabachus.

> Also it should be noted that the Breuers' TIDE perspective is not
> identical -- notwithstanding claims to the contrary -- with Hirsch's
> own.  Nor, it probably goes without saying, is R. Soloveitchik's vision
> necessarily embodied by the curriculum at Yeshiva College. 
> 

No one generation's perspective is identical with its predecessors or
successors, but the Breuer TIDE perpsective is a conscious effort to
adhere to RSRH principles. I agree that YU does not necessarily make a
conscious effort to follow RYBS principles.

In this vein, one of my heroes, Dr. Isaac Breuer, strongly argued that by
the 20's RSRH would have been heavily involved in the shaping of a Torah
society iin EY, and that would be a direct result of the Austrittsgemeinde
Hashkofo, that is in itself a direct result of TIDE.

> She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:11:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Avodah Forum on Web (fwd)


From a kindred spirit who has left Avodah.

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:20:43 -0500
To: ygb@aishdas.org
Subject: Avodah Forum on Web

Dear Rabbi:  I have read recent comments by you and Micha, and you are
both on the mark.  As opposed to spiritual growth, the agenda of many
Avodah correspondents has been to rank various approaches to Judaism in
"order of merit".  This exercise allows one to score many debating points
without adding one iota (!) to ahavah or yirah. Not to mention that there
are many shadings and subtleties about each approach that vanish into
space.  Not to mention that no one is ever persuaded by the type of
argument that is mainly to make the arguer feel good. 

But isn't this barren approach THE problem we ALL face---not only AishDas
Avodahniks?  Isn't this THE reason we can't get our act together enough to
earn the geulah shelemah? Aside from the loss of the 1st and 2nd Bet
HaMikdash that we need to feel during this period, we ought to feel the
loss of honest, direct contact with HaShem and with each other.  How can
the web and email deal with this problem instead of making it worse?  I
hope you succeed! 


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:24:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Being Mahmir on Hazal


On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> I shall not press you, as you say you are simply defending R. Ahron. 
> But the case of shehiyah, unlike haladah, is very much resolved.  There
> is no more safek there than in any other case of mahloket Amoraim, where
> we look to kelalei pesak and the Rishonim for guidance.  Certainly the
> Rosh, the Tur and Mehabber saw the issue as resolved.  The Sefardim
> still do.  And even in a case of safek, the normal procedure is to take
> the most mahmir position, but in the case of shehiyah we have invented a
> new shitah that is more mahmir than anything in the Gemara or Rishonim. 
> 

Let me turn the table. Do you contend that the Rama here is being machmir
because he holds Chazal were wrong in their assessment of the impact of
even the most minute time frame for shehi'ah? Because that is the only
approach that would make this case similar to nidon didan.

> The doctrine of practical humra that you propose is new to me; applied
> more widely it would make the entire enterpise of pesak halakhah
> unnecessary.  Why ask a she'elah?  Why look for an answer?  Why try to
> resolve a mahloket posekim?  "Mah lanu ve-la-tzarah ha-zot?"  This
> doctrine may be practical, but it sort of conflicts with the last 2000
> years of halakhic history. 
> 

Actually, I think it underlies much of the last 2000 years of psak, in
cases of major machlokos of gedolei ha'poskim.

> She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:31:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: discussing failures of Orthodoxy


On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, MARK FELDMAN wrote:

> I agree with Harry on this point.  While care must be taken to steer clear 
> of lashon hara (i.e., all of these discussions must have toelet), there is 
> value in discussing the flaws of other groups rather than just discussing 
> the benefits of our own.  For example, while I can talk about the benefits 

Value in some sense perhaps. But far outweighed by the undermining
detrimental impact on our attempts to enrich each other and build. And
thus, perhaps fodder for a new list. But not ours, please.

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 20:08:16 -0400
From: "MARK FELDMAN" <mfeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
Re: discussing failures of Orthodoxy


I note the fact that some of those protesting here participated in the "YU 
and TV" discussion (look it up in the Subject Index) and the Lubavitch 
discussion.  Perhaps it's OK to criticize YU but not the right wing.

Interestingly, (in contrast to some of the past discussions) the 
conversation here has not degenerated and has been conducted in a 
respectful tone.  Personally, I think I learned something from Harry 
Maryles' remarks.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
-------------
Original Text
From: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu, on 7/7/99 7:35 PM:
To: SMTP@CMPNY5@Servers[<avodah@aishdas.org>]

FROM too long. Original FROM is
"Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>


----------------------  Original Message Follows  ----------------------

On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, MARK FELDMAN wrote:

> I agree with Harry on this point.  While care must be taken to steer 
clear 
> of lashon hara (i.e., all of these discussions must have toelet), there 
is 
> value in discussing the flaws of other groups rather than just discussing 
> the benefits of our own.  For example, while I can talk about the 
benefits 

Value in some sense perhaps. But far outweighed by the undermining
detrimental impact on our attempts to enrich each other and build. And
thus, perhaps fodder for a new list. But not ours, please.

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 19:29:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: discussing failures of Orthodoxy


On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, MARK FELDMAN wrote:

> I note the fact that some of those protesting here participated in the
> "YU and TV" discussion (look it up in the Subject Index) and the
> Lubavitch discussion.  Perhaps it's OK to criticize YU but not the right
> wing. 
> 

I assunme the writer refers to me. If so, let me respond:

1. The Lubavitch debate, before it veered out of control, was actually a
discussion that had substance to it - theological and halachic foundations
- and, more importantly, generated lively debate among listmembers pro and
con.

The debate over "Who Thinks" has no substance to it - certainly not
theological or halachic, is based purely on anecdote, and most
importantly, generates no debate among listmembers (how can it? other than
"Yuh-huh" or "Nuh-huh"?").



2. As a matter of fact, the RW on this list often feels that YU
viewpoints are pre-eminent here. I do not feel this way, but others have
complained to me about this.

Be that as it may, again, the YU debate concerned real issues, was based
on a Commentator essay, and generated substantial debate among
listmembers.

But you know what?

I am perfectly willing to accept critique and admit mistakes in the past.
So, please learn from my mistakes and do not repeat them!

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 20:41:24 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Have rachmonus!


>Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #113
>
>interesting stuff here, espec Eidensohn
	For this you had to post the ENTIRE digest?????

Gershon


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 09:54:47 +0100
From: David Herskovic <david@arctic1.demon.co.uk>
Subject:
bal tshuve movements


I did qualify my remarks about Israeli bal tshuve movements so I didn't
write them all off. Another contributor in a previous posting also
mentioned that Ohr Sameach and Aish HaTorah target different groups.

Eli Turkel wrote that many of the individuals are dedicated, and that it
is right that they should be full time. Shlomo Godick also wrote about
those who have the talents harnessing it to bring people closer to
yidishkayt. But the question is who are they? Is a yungerman who has
never left the daled ames shel yeshive the right man to attract balei
tshuve? what will the calibre of those attracted be like? Don't come
back at me that not all the mekarvim are like that because I am not
saying all but there are plenty who are like that. They may indeed be
dedicated but when the arguments and the results become politicised then
one may question the motivation.

It is one thing to invite a family over for shabes so that they can get
an impression of what it feels like to lead a frume life but that is not
the same as presenting chareidi life as a utopia simply because problems
are often covered up. Since yeshive graduates very often believe all
they read in the chareidi press I contend that they will not usually be
too persuasive with individuals with an education of a different kind.
They may be convinced that they are doing it for the best of reasons but
I would say that they are not 'mevinim' on themselves and are simply
deceiving themselves. A certain road is said to be paved with good
intentions.

I cannot say more without risking incurring the collective wrath of our
virtual more de'asre and rosh hokohel but to attempt to be constructive
I think what is needed is some introspection and self assessment in the
chareidi community in all areas and that is not happening at the moment.
The majority of topics discussed on this list such as history, science,
education etc. other than halokhe are never discussed in the chareidi
press and seldom in public. This position may conform to da'as toyre but
then do not complain when other groups find it unpalatable.

Talking of science takes me on to Shlomo Godick's other post about R'
Noigroshel lecturing on "Creation and the Big Bang". He then goes on to
say 'the level of intellectual sophistication is at least at high as
that of Moreh N'vuchim.' You will excuse me if despite not having heard
R' Noigroshel I think this last statement slightly over the top. But
although being an am ho'orets when it comes to science I am extremely
sceptical when I hear of these presentations. When it comes to science
you either argue on science's ground or you simply hold steadfast to
your beliefs. But to 'vend op' Darwinism or Big Bang or whatever it may
be, especially in front of a crowd who know and understand very few of
the issues, issues with which most of the respected scientific world is
in agreement, is intellectual dishonesty and geneivas da'as. Of course
he may be trying to reconcile the poles which is a different matter. But
even that requires knowledge and honesty.

In summary, there are well meaning mekarvim who have the right methods
and approach but there are also very many trying to attract people of
one persuasion with the mindset of another and then using any success as
weaponry to beat the very people they are trying to persuade.

David Herskovic

Ps Since writing this I have read r' Shlomo Godick's other post. I too
would have used an exclamation mark after Thailand but for slightly
different effect. As for the secular press being to blame I think it is
a classic case of kill the messenger.


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         ]

< Previous Next >