Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 120

Saturday, July 10 1999

• Re: Christian avodoh zoroh, siforim chitzonim and Abravanel too.
• Re: Christian avodoh zoroh, siforim chitzonim and Abravanel too.
• Top Doctor
• Re: SRHirsch -- Myth and Fact
• Re: Mother of Shooting Victim
• top doctor
• re: top doctor
• secular studies
• re: secular studies
• re: secular studies
• Re: Pro. Levi's Hirsch -- Myth and Fact
• Comment about "Jewish Music"
• Comment about Merchant of Venice
• re: secular studies
• Re: Shakespeare????
• Re: Shakespeare????
• Re: Jewish Music?
• Re: Shakespeare
• Re: Avodah V3 #105: Sheep & anesthesiology consent on shabbos

In a message dated 7/9/99 1:56:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< I a mcurious if any yeshiva has TMOV in its curriculum, and how
 they deal with its problems.  >>

I studied it as a H.S. student at Frisch, by, incidentally, a Daati English 
teacher.

Jordan  

In a message dated 7/9/99 1:56:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< I believe I have mentioned in the past here that the same might be said
 about "Jewish classics" like Potok's books - while some of them are
 enjoyable reading (although none really equal "The Chosen"),  >>

While I tend to the idea that no books should be  off limits, I also tend to 
agree that we should not let the shock of recognition for the people and 
events in Potoks books obscure the fact that his attitude towards Judaism, 
especially Orthodoxy, is ambivalent at best. I have always gotten the sinking 
feeling as I read his work that he is writing some great justification for 
his own life choices, despite the fact that Conservative Judaism has always 
been hard to express as a dynamic Shittoh.
BTW, I have met him....a very nice guy!

Jordan  

>>Why would one assume that the head of the department is more focused on their
task than lower level doctors in the department. he might have more
experience but is not necessarily more dedicated.

KT
Eli Turkel<<

Ein hochi nami.  To me TOP doctor means the most talented NOT the highest in the
hierarchy (olom tahapuchos heimo)

I think we can all sense the magic of a talented musician or architect or 
pyshician.  There is a certain something special that allows a "top" doctor to 
diagnose almost intutively.  I think that gift is from Hashem

Rich Wolpoe

In his (b'li neder) last post on the topic, EClark wrote:
> He cites a few occasions where Hirsch
speaks of a "national" this or that and concludes: "No wonder that the
Seridei Esh wrote that R. Hirsch 'must be deemed a wholehearted
nationalist.'" <
Let it be noted, then, that your argument (having started with "Least
persuasive...Zionist") is now with the S'ridai Aish.  If I was a betting
man (which I ain't)....

> Beli neder, this will be my last post to the list on this
topic... <
....and we'll let our fellow "thinkers" read Rav Hirsch's works for
themselves and come to an opinion re who was revising whom.

All the best (and a good Shabbos) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

For any of the list members, do we know any more of the names of the shooting 
victims for the purpose of making Mi Shebeirachs?

Jordan

> 
> I suggest you look in Yoreh Deah Siman 336:1 "u'mihu lo yitasek b'refuah
> ela im ken hu baki velo yehei sham gadol mimenu she'im lo chen, harei zeh
> shfech damim". Look in the Beer Hagolah for the source of what the mechaber
> wrote.
> 
> Josh (whose boss at the hospital says, "ehr iz a dokter; ehr farshteyt a krenk"

Taking this to its logical conclusion each ward should consist of only
one or two of the best doctors and all less experienced doctors should
be fired. Not to be speak of all the interns etc. that populate the
hospitals late at night.

In a shiur from rav Zilberstein (an expert on medical/halacha) he once
suggested that the most senior doctors should be on duty at night
rather the most junior ones since it is harder to get a second opinion.
It did not go over too well with the medical audience.

BTW the same remarks apply to rabbis. Should New York only have one
rabbi per community (i.e. each hasidic sect, each yeshiva etc.) and
eliminate the local rabbis.
In Israel many towns only have a chief rabbis(s) and individual shuls
do not have local rabbis and from my experience that system is horrible
(more shuls in israel are now hiring their own rabbis).

Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel wrote:
<<
Taking this to its logical conclusion each ward should consist of only
one or two of the best doctors and all less experienced doctors should
be fired. Not to be speak of all the interns etc. that populate the
hospitals late at night.
>>

Not necessarily.  The suggestion of Yitro (in Parshat Yitro) is appropriate 
here.  If only the top doctors do all the medical work, "navol tibol"--they 
will wear out quickly and there simply aren't enough.  Instead, let there 
be "sarei alafim, sarei me'ot, sarei chamishim v'sarei asarot"--there 
should be a hierarchy where the "easy" questions are answered by the 
"regular" doctors while "davar hakasheh" is answered by the top doctors.  
Theoretically (!!), that is the division of labor between partners and 
associates at law firms.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> 
> I haven't heard any doctrinaire pronouncements that *everyone* must become
> knowledgeable about secular studies. Those who attend YU are obviously a self
> selected group - for whom secular studies is of greater importance for a
> variety of reasons.
> 
Rav Aaron Soloveitchik, in his book, makes this very point in his book. 
After giving his reasons for the importance of secular studies and its 
deepening ones appreciation of religion he asks the question whether that 
means that his grandfather Rav Chaim was less religious than he was.
He obviously answers that R. Chaim did not need outside influences to
help him.

So we can conclude that R. Chaim did not need seculat studies to become
the Torah giant he was. Secular studies helped Rav Lichtenstein for a
deeper understanding.  The question arises about the average person.

Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel wrote:
<<
So we can conclude that R. Chaim did not need seculat studies to become
the Torah giant he was. Secular studies helped Rav Lichtenstein for a
deeper understanding.  The question arises about the average person.
>>

The question can cut both ways: 

1.  Perhaps R. Chaim was so great that he was able to figure out everything 
from the Torah, but the "average" person, who is more limited, needs some 
help in the form of secular studies, e.g. studying Milton to appreciate the 
difficulties encountered by a blind person, or studying psychology to 
understand human nature.

2. OTOH, perhaps only someone as great as R. Lichtenstein can absorb truly 
integrate secular studies with Torah (being able to separate the wheat from 
the chaff, and being able to identify how a particular idea of Milton 
accords with a certain ma'amar chazal).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, MARK FELDMAN wrote:

> The question can cut both ways: 
> 
> 1.  Perhaps R. Chaim was so great that he was able to figure out
> everything from the Torah, but the "average" person, who is more
> limited, needs some help in the form of secular studies, e.g. studying
> Milton to appreciate the difficulties encountered by a blind person, or
> studying psychology to understand human nature. 
> 

I do not think Briskers place a value on "figuring out everything" (I
think the Chazon Ish did) and would, therefore, not use that barometer to
measure the gadlus of R' Chaim.

> 2. OTOH, perhaps only someone as great as R. Lichtenstein can absorb
> truly integrate secular studies with Torah (being able to separate the
> wheat from the chaff, and being able to identify how a particular idea
> of Milton accords with a certain ma'amar chazal). 
>

This, however, again, is not the Brisker approach, as they hold staunchly
of yeridas ha'doros since R' Chaim - to the extent that both RYBS and RAS
hold that their father was greater than themselves.

Interesting caveat: One of R' Aharon's sons wanted to major in philosophy
in college. R' Aharon (who possesses a law degree) would not allow him to
do so.  The son protested that his uncle (RYBS) had been a philosophy
major. R' Aharon responded: "He made a contribution. You will not."

YGB

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

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> Let us defer our different understandings of English for now.  We begin
> with the question of whether Prof. Levi calls R. Hirsch a nationalist. 
> In his article, Prof. Levi argues that R. Hirsch viewed Judasim as
> nationalistic, not "religious."  He cites a few occasions where Hirsch
> speaks of a "national" this or that and concludes: "No wonder that the
> Seridei Esh wrote that R. Hirsch 'must be deemed a wholehearted
> nationalist.'"  Now I think most people would assume, as I do, that
> Prof. Levi in fact agrees with this assessment.  (Similarly, if, after a
> discussion of Microsoft's anti-competitive techniques, I were to say,
> "No wonder Joel Klein think it's a monopoly!"  I think most people would
> assume that I agree with that assessment.  But, technically, I myself
> never called him one.)  But I agree that Prof. Levi never writes:" R. 
> Hirsch was a nationalist." 
> 

Anyone that has read Dr. Isaac Breuer understands Prof. Levi and R'
Michael Poppers point as accurate: Dr. Breuer also stresses the
nationalistic character of Judaism, but distinguishes sharply between that
nationalism and the secular (Zionistic) defiinition thereof. I reccommend
highly my essay on Dr. Breuer at the Aishdas website for furthe
clarification :-).

> Regarding labelling R. Hirsch a Zionist: Prof. Levi writes that R. 
> Hirsch "would agree that under the present circumstances, aliya and any
> effort to improve the State of Israel, materially and spiritually,
> should be most welcome."  While this phrasing does not use the "Z" word,
> I think that "Zionist" is a fair summary thereof.  Certainly, the
> mainstream Agudah viewpoint, which is usually labelled "non-Zionist."
> does not encourage aliyah or ANY effort to improve the Medinah
> materially (although spiritually, probably yes).  And, on the other
> hand, R. Kook, to my knowledge, never called himself a Zionist, though
> his views generally put him in that category.  However, if you prefer, I
> will rephrase my statement: Prof. Levi never says that R. Hirsch would
> be a Zionist today, but does think that he would favor aliyah and would
> welcome actions that improve the Medinah materially (would that include
> army service?) and spiritually."  Regarding the value of such
> speculation, see below. 
> 

This is basic PAI Hashkofo, which is itself a direct result of Hirschian
thought, and, until unfortunate developments in the late '50's, was
regarded as a strain of AI philosophy (and still is, to a lesser extent,
and that is also discussed in that essay referenced above...).

> If I understand your position, you think Prof. Levi doesn't say R. 
> Hirsch was a nationalist, but rejects the notion that he was
> anti-nationalist.  I guess that would leave R. Hirsch -- what? -- a
> non-nationalist.  I think it time to review some terminology. 
> 

Read the opening chapters of Dr. Breuer's "Moriah" for clarification,
which will also clarify the "problems" you present in the next paragraph.

> What does "nationalism" mean?  In the context of early 19th century
> Jewish history, the term nationalism is virtually synonymous with
> "proto-Zionism," as represented in the religious world by figures such
> as R. Reines and R. Kalischer.  Their writings, which presaged the later
> development of political and religious Zionism, emphasized the
> importance of the Jewish people as a national entity that must, to
> fulfill its destiny, return to Eretz Yisrael and create there a Jewish
> polity.  In that period, the term "anti-nationalist" might be applied to
> those who opposed pre-messianic settlement of Eretz Yisrael, which
> Hirsch did (along with the majority of the Orthodox leadership of the
> time).  That having been said, Prof. Levi's use of the term
> "anti-nationalist" is his own (as I noted previously, he is not a
> historian).  To my knowledge, no historian of the period uses the term
> to describe those who disagreed with R. Kalischer or R. Reines. 
> Certainly none of the scholars who Prof. Levi criticizes uses the term. 
> Hence, Prof. Levi is attacking those who characterize Hirsch as
> "minimizing" (in R. Jonathan Sacks' term) Jewish nationalism in his
> writing and "opposing" (R. Lamm's term) Jewish nationalism in practice. 
> The sixteenth of his Nineteen Letters is evidence of the former, and R. 
> Hirsch's unwillingness to support R. Kalischer's efforts, which Prof. 
> Levi mentions (N. Rosenbloom describes him as "aloof and noncomittal"),
> evidence of the latter. 
> 

YGB

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

Comment about music:
It is my understanding that there is the concept that [almost] all music
is potentially Holy -- and that when we use this music "Jewishly", we
"raise" it to a new level ...  In that context, how does one define Jewish
Music -- except in terms of its "Jewish Use"?

--Zvi

Just a comment about the Merchant of Venice.  Many years ago, I read Harry
Golden's "Only in America" who presented a cogent arguement that
Shakespeare was actually writing on two levels -- one to satisfy his
antisemitic audience (and make money) and a cesond level where he imbued
Shylock with humanity and showed the xtians to be bloodthirsty and
mean-spirited...

--Zvi

RYGB wrote:
<<
> 2. OTOH, perhaps only someone as great as R. Lichtenstein can absorb
> truly integrate secular studies with Torah (being able to separate the
> wheat from the chaff, and being able to identify how a particular idea
> of Milton accords with a certain ma'amar chazal). 
>

This, however, again, is not the Brisker approach, as they hold staunchly
of yeridas ha'doros since R' Chaim - to the extent that both RYBS and RAS
hold that their father was greater than themselves.
>>

I did not mean that R. Lichtenstein is greater than was R. Chaim.  I was 
contrasting R. Lichtenstein with the "average" person.  R. Chaim did not 
need secular studies to achieve his elevated madregah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
-------------
Original Text
From: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu, on 7/9/99 2:42 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 Fri, 9 Jul 1999, MARK FELDMAN wrote:

> The question can cut both ways: 
> 
> 1.  Perhaps R. Chaim was so great that he was able to figure out
> everything from the Torah, but the "average" person, who is more
> limited, needs some help in the form of secular studies, e.g. studying
> Milton to appreciate the difficulties encountered by a blind person, or
> studying psychology to understand human nature. 
> 

I do not think Briskers place a value on "figuring out everything" (I
think the Chazon Ish did) and would, therefore, not use that barometer to
measure the gadlus of R' Chaim.

> 2. OTOH, perhaps only someone as great as R. Lichtenstein can absorb
> truly integrate secular studies with Torah (being able to separate the
> wheat from the chaff, and being able to identify how a particular idea
> of Milton accords with a certain ma'amar chazal). 
>

This, however, again, is not the Brisker approach, as they hold staunchly
of yeridas ha'doros since R' Chaim - to the extent that both RYBS and RAS
hold that their father was greater than themselves.

Interesting caveat: One of R' Aharon's sons wanted to major in philosophy
in college. R' Aharon (who possesses a law degree) would not allow him to
do so.  The son protested that his uncle (RYBS) had been a philosophy
major. R' Aharon responded: "He made a contribution. You will not."

YGB

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

I am perplexed on two accounts: (1) is Shakespeare's merit to be weighed 
solely on
the basis of his portrayel of Jews?  (2) must a discussion of this take place 
on
the list?  If you enjoy Shakespeare, so read him, if not, not. 

-Chaim

--- C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> (2) must a discussion of this
> take place 
> on
> the list?  If you enjoy Shakespeare, so read him, if not, not. 
> 

I thought that the discussion has been good, and relevant to the
purpose of Avodah.  The issue which is being explicated here is what
types of literature are helpmates to avodat Hashem, and Shakespeare
is a particular example.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> 
> Harry, the subject of Jewish musicology is a little complicated, precisely
> because of the factors you mention, like lack of notation for music of the
> Leviim, etc. But it would be a mistake to say there is no such thing as
> Jewish music. First of all, there are definitely specific scales associated
> with Jewish music, which are expressed in terms of Nuschaot for various
> tefillot. These scales find their way into Jewish music as well. It would be
> more accurate to say that some Jewish composers, such as Carlebach, whose
> music is a mainstay of my spiritual expression, and with whom I performed
> many times, used elements of the surrounding culture, such as Russian songs,
> Woody Guthrie tunes, and Central European music as filtered through Modzitz
> in conjunction with their more specifically Jewish content. It is also
> important to note that those scales or modes which I refer to as Jewish are
> not exclusively so, and are often found in music of the Middle East,
> Caucasus, and Southeastern Europe. The further north in Eastern Europe we
> get, the less modal the music is.
> As far as Mordechai et al go, I definitely think of them as pop stars who
> happen to sing Jewish. But don't sell them short, when Avraham Fried gets
> hold of a real Chasidic nigun, it is quite impressive. I wont post more on
> this particular point here, as my feelings about the current state of Jewish
> music are more appropriate for off list discussion.
> As far as knowing about the sound of music in the Bais Hamikdosh, I have two
> points. We do have ancient Jewish music. It is called Trop. It is hard to say
> that the Ashkenazic Torah Trop is what the music in the Bais Hamikdosh
> sounded like, but listening to the Cantillation in various versions can give
> us a rough idea of some of the sounds of that time, as certain musical
> principles crop up again and again.
> The other point is that musicologists used to theorize that Gregorian chant
> was derived from the music used in the Bais Hamikdosh, or as a music Analysis
> professor of mine used to put it, quaintly, the 'Jewish Church.' More recent
> scholarship on the subject has somewhat discredited that view, but Gregorian
> chant probably has in it some clues as to how the music might have sounded.
> Another good way for determining how the music sounded is archeological work
> in instruments of that time, as they will lead to being played and tuned a
> certain way. There has been work in this area, but I am not particularly well
> versed in it.
> 
> Jordan

Thank you for your most enlightening post. The truth is that I thought 
of Trop as a possible original Jewish form of music.  But I also, 
received  a post off list that brought this up and replied that the 
cantillation of sefardim sounds radically different then does that of 
the Ashkenazim because of the respective cultural influences, but, there 
does seem to be a very rudimentary similarity between Sefardi and 
Ashkenazi trop, indicating somewhat that at it's core it is esentially 
Jewish in origin, . Also, I did not mean to sell any of the current 
jewish pop-stars short. I have many of their CDs and play them all the 
time. I just wish that it didn't sound so "cookie-cutter" all the time. 

HM

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> 
> --- C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> > (2) must a discussion of this
> > take place 
> > on
> > the list?  If you enjoy Shakespeare, so read him, if not, not. 
> > 
> 
> I thought that the discussion has been good, and relevant to the
> purpose of Avodah.  The issue which is being explicated here is what
> types of literature are helpmates to avodat Hashem, and Shakespeare
> is a particular example.

When I have gone through Tanach, Shas Bavli+Yerushalmi, Medrash, Tur Beis
yosef, Shulchan Aruch , my choice of machshava sefarim etc....I'll be
ready to discuss whether or not Shakespeare can help my avodas Hashem,
untill then I must agree with Chaim. Then again even after I finish kol ha
torah kulla, I think I'll review it, shakespeare just doesn't fit in.
Elie Ginsparg

Very behind, but just a brief comment:

In message , Hershel Ginsburg <ginzy@netvision.net.il> writes
>>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:07:43 -0400
>>From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
>>Subject: Sheep & anesthesiology consent on shabbos
>>
>>I at first (because I did not read carefully) thought that this woman is
>>batty. She needs an operation; it's pikuach nefesh; do it. The end. If that
>>had been the case, her teachers and rabbis would according to some
>>interpretations (not that of Bais Yosef) would be culpable for her death
>>and/or her pain.


I agree that it does not appear to have happened on shabbas, but I felt
when I read the post that Noah was onto something.  The situation as
described was that the hospital asked the woman to sign a consent form
for the general anesthetic, as they needed to operate before she bled to
death.

Now, I suspect that, in order to take her blood pressure, they asked her
for her consent, nor do or did they ask for hundreds of other medical
procedures.  I also assume that, if a person is brought into such a
hospital in a coma, they would not insist on waiting till they wake up
and sign a consent form (or check out the credentials of the next of kin
to find out if they can sign)  I hope that the doctors would do what
needed to be done first to save the life, and ask for consent later.

So why did they ask for consent in this case?  Why didn't they just tell
her, this is what is necessary to save your life and do it?  My best
guess as to why consent was required by the hospital in this case is
because a general anesthetic is also a dangerous procedure, and
therefore the hospital requires patients to knowingly select the "least
dangerous" route, rather than make that decision for them.  

But if I am right here, then phoning a Rav is not necessarily such a
stupid thing to do.  After all, I would have thought that, if the
hospital gives me a choice (ie makes me sign a consent form), there must
be a real choice available otherwise they shouldn't be giving it to me.
Generally when I sign consent forms it is because I am choosing to do
something more risky than the norm, and the person who wants me to sign
the consent wants to absolve themselves of blame if it all goes horribly
wrong (eg I go rock climbing or something). If in fact there was no
"real" choice to be made, then I think the hospital or system is wrong
to require it.  

Now i know that in some circumstances such consents are required for
other reasons.  In Australia, for example, the J Witnesses do not
believe in blood transfusions.  And the court has held that while a
parent or child cannot withhold consent for a blood transfusion for a
child (even the parents won't consent, the hospital is authorised to
step in and give the child a transfusion if they believe it is necessary
to save the child's life), an adult is entitled to refuse such
treatment, even if it means they will die. Hence consent must be
obtained. I was not aware that Israel had similar constraints. And I
confess, as a pretty independant thinker and as a lawyer,  my instincts
might well be, on finding myself in an extremely vulnerable state, and
in considerable pain, if somebody stuck something in front of me and
demanded I sign, to refuse too. After all who knows what i was signing -
and I would hardly be in any position to read the small print (hey,
maybe I should call my lawyer rather than my Rav)!

Now maybe this seems flip, but more seriously, if consent means anything
at all, it means that somebody has taken the time to consider what they
are signing and decide that what they are consenting to is the best
possible course of action in the circumstances.  In any other
circumstance, consent is a meaningless concept.  So if it really is a
situation where there is no time to make that kind of informed decision,
it is dangerous and distructive if people are given the illusion that
there is.  And it is hardly a criticism for somebody not to be able to
work out that the consent being asked for is really meaningless, and
then to act in a way that is appropriate in a circumstance where consent
is meaningful - which certainly, when on is in a vulnerable painfilled
situation includes at the very least obtaining outside and independant
advice from somebody with specialist knowledge - (which is why general
legal advice is don't sign anything until you have consulted a lawyer!
)

Shavuah tov

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

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


[ 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         ]