Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 195

Tuesday, August 31 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:38:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Shmiros - Some Questions, Observations & Citations


In v3n191, david.nadoff@bfkpn.com
: 7. In an earlier posting, I may have been too hasty in agreeing with Michha
: Berger and Yosef Bechhofer that the display of a shmira alone, without writing
: it or reading it b'kavana, has no legitimate purpose. ...
: I do feel that the display of shmira texts, even of the photo offset variety
: and even if they are not read but only noticed in passing, may nevertheless
: fulfill a legitimate spiritual purpose. For example, merely seeing a wall
: display of mizmor 67 may cause one to think of the pasuk "ki shemesh u'magen
: Hashem etc.," reflect on the content of that mizmor or appreciate the faith
: with which Dovid Hamelech went into battle....

I'd agree with that sentiment. If I said it must be read b'kavanah, I didn't
necessarily mean R' Kaplan's meditative kavanah. Just that it should be read
as some magick formula. Anything which brings an appreciation of faith or
reflection on "adon hakol; haya, hoveh v'yihyeh" (an example David brings
that I snipped) or any other inspiration is already b'kavanah.

My point was that sh'mirah comes from doing something that makes you the
kind of person that deserves sh'mirah. Saying words without even thinking
"I'm saying these because I know sh'mirah comes from HKBH and I need His
help" or owning a book and forgetting that you left it near the baby's crib,
is not going to help. I'm a rationalist, what can I tell you. Although I have
yet to get to the R' Tzadok you mentioned. (I spent last night emptying my
basement, bringing in an amud and chairs.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    MMG"H for 31-Aug-99: Shelishi, Nitzavim-Vayeilech
micha@aishdas.org                                   A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                              Pisachim 31a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.   Nefesh Hachaim I 16


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:23:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
Subject:
R. Zevin's widow z"l


> > Zevin's widow, communicating his wishes. Why R. Zevin himself kept
> > silent edition after edition, and why he told his wife to insist on the
> > deletions only in English translations prepared after his death, remains
> > a mystery. 
> > 
> 
> Why does it remain a mystery?
> 
> Why didn't you (Tradition) send somebody to query the widow or the other
> heirs?

For the same reason that it was impossible to ask R. Zevin himself.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:34:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Nakdimon be Gurion/Joshua


In v3n190, Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes:
:                                             The Gemara indicates that
: a similar miracle indeed did happen to Moshe but was not recording.

You'd agree that this is unsurprising. The Torah doesn't just list miracles,
it has a specific agenda in which stories it tells.

: The gemara learns this by gexara shava betwwen Moshe and sefer Yehoushua,
: which by itself is unusual to use a gezerah shava outside of chumash.

I think such a GS would have to be an asmachta. I think d'rashah is, by
definition, limited to the text Hashem dictated to Moshe.

: Thus, the greatest of all miracles is given explicitly for Joshua
: but onlu hinted at for Moshe and then reappears for Nakdimon.

Remember what Rambam says in the intro to Cheilek about people who assume the
truth of every aggadic story.

:    Moshe's miracles were "le-enei kol yisrael".
I'm leaving this quote in to justify the below.

....
:    It aslo implies that other parts of the world were in darkness for
:    36 hours which is certainly not described in any legends of other
:    nations.

No it does not. It implies that l'einei a particular group of people,
the sun stopped. We know the medrash WRT makas dam, that the liquid could
simultaneously be blood for a Mitzri and yet be water for the Jew. Once we
lift the rules of physics, there's no reason to assume consistancy for all
observers, either. (For that matter, in modern physics we don't assume such
consistancy on many issues anyway.)

I picked up this idea in a booklet I read in the dorm once, 20 years ago. I
forget what and who it was a translation of. (Although I seem to recall
it was either the Maharal or the Gra. Did one of them write an intro to
the Seifer haYitzirah? Anyone have an machshavah CD?). It's an old, flakey,
memory. Sorry. I think the idea has enough merit, though, to warrant discussion
regardless of how badly I'm misremembering the source.

Another example brought, which I don't see from the pasuk but was in the
seifer, is k'rias Yam Suf. "Vehamayim lahem chomah" -- for *them* it was
a wall. The Egyptians ran into the sea even though from their perspective
it never split. Perhaps seeing the first Jews emerge from the other side
convinced them it was possible. When the pasuk speaks of the water covering
the Egyptians, that is again "l'einei kol Yisrael".

The notion is that nissim continuously occur. Whether or not they're witnessed
is a function of whether or not the people involved are on the madreigah on
which they're occuring. Which fits in well with R' Chanina's flammable vinegar,
as well as R' Pappa's question about the paucity of nissim in comparison to
earlier generations. Niskatnu hadoros means that fewer and fewer of us actually
reach madreigos that are significantly removed from teva.

This might also be relevent WRT the mabul. (Hopefully this won't fuly reopen
that discussion.) From humanity's perspective, the world flooded, everyone
but Noach died, and most of Noach's children still have a memory of the
flood in their mythology. From the olive tree's perspective, it was still
standing and producing leaves a year after the flood began. Perhaps that is
why historiography and archeology give us such different views of the event.

The idea, which I find entertaining, albeit not necessarily convincing, is
that nissim are illusions. I'm saying that they are real, but not necessarily
the reality all people/creations experience.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    MMG"H for 31-Aug-99: Shelishi, Nitzavim-Vayeilech
micha@aishdas.org                                   A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                              Pisachim 31a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.   Nefesh Hachaim I 16


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:37:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: R. Zevin's widow z"l


On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Shalom Carmy wrote:

> > Why didn't you (Tradition) send somebody to query the widow or the other
> > heirs?
> 
> For the same reason that it was impossible to ask R. Zevin himself.
> 

All R' Zevin's grandchildren are deceased?

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: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:43:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Cheit as ratzon Hashem


Of course cheit is ratzon Hashem. If Hashem didn't want it, it wouldn't exist.
I don't see "the age old philosophical question of man's ability to defy the
will of G-d" that Chaim Brown speaks of in v3n190.

Clearly HKBH values the existance of bechirah more than He is bothered
by cheit. IOW, the ability to sin is outweighed by the ability to *choose*
to do mitzvos as opposed to doing them automatically.

That said, it has nothing to do w/ R' Tzaddok's idea, which I won't comment
on until I see inside.

Related to this question might be Reish Lakish's comment which is understood
by the gemara to mean that teshuvah mei'ahavah can change a cheit into a
zechus. Rationalist that I am, I took this to be because by learning from the
cheit you became a better person. Just as one grows from performing mitzvos.
In that way you rerouted the cheit into a tool for accomplishing Hashem's
objective for your life.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-Aug-99: Shelishi, Nitzavim-Vayeilech
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 31a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 16


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:12:11 +0300
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Nakdimon be Gurion/Joshua


Micha Berger wrote:

> No it does not. It implies that l'einei a particular group of people,
> the sun stopped. We know the medrash WRT makas dam, that the liquid could
> simultaneously be blood for a Mitzri and yet be water for the Jew. Once we
> lift the rules of physics, there's no reason to assume consistancy for all
> observers, either. (For that matter, in modern physics we don't assume such
> consistancy on many issues anyway.)
>
> I picked up this idea in a booklet I read in the dorm once, 20 years ago. I
> forget what and who it was a translation of. (Although I seem to recall
> it was either the Maharal or the Gra. Did one of them write an intro to
> the Seifer haYitzirah? Anyone have an machshavah CD?). It's an old, flakey,
> memory. Sorry. I think the idea has enough merit, though, to warrant discussion
> regardless of how badly I'm misremembering the source.

The idea is expressed by the Maharal in the second Hakdama of Gevuras HaShem page
14-16. This was translated by R. Shlomo Malin "Book of Power"


                              Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: violence


Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes:
: The rabbis are working to eliminate these  problems but they are very
: limited because everything has to be done in secret. No rabbi can pubically
: mount a campaign against these problems since officially these problems
: don't exist. I understand that in the US some of these problems have
: been addressed but at least in my limited knowledge it has not reached Israel.

Yes, but the issue of not acknowledging societal problems is true here in
the states as well. Allow me to climb onto my soapbox to discuss a totally
unrelated example close to my heart:

Every day children are born handicapped. In many communities this will
affect shidduchim for that child's siblings. Or perhaps the couple already
has numerous children and can't handle the burden of another one. Often this
child is placed for adoption. Particularly in the case of mental handicaps,
given our culture's stress on learning, the frequency of Downs in births
by older women, and the number of those older women who may have numerous
other children to marry off. Sometimes through Jewish auspices -- although
our community does not have a single adoption agency aimed at keeping Jewish
children in Jewish homes -- and sometimes not. One Chassidishe Rebbe, one
with tens of thousands of Chassidim, actually advised such couples (and I
know first-hand of at least two cases) to abandon their child with Downs'
in the hospital and tell everyone it was a neifel ch"v!

Picture children born in frum homes being raised as non-Jews r"l!

The lack of agencies does not, b"h, translate to a lack of networks and
volunteers. However, I can guarantee that the rov of these kids do not
end up within the Jewish community, frum or non-frum. Catholic Charities
will place one of our children ahead of one of their own if faced with
more families than children. As will most other church-run adoption programs.
And they are far more organized then we are.

US law protects ethnicity, but not religion. On the state level, this means
that if a child is born of a Jewish mother and Black father, the agency is
expected to find a home for the child in the Black community, if possible.

Most states require "due diligence" in finding a home that matches the
ethnicity and religion of the birth-mother. "Due" is a subjective term, though.

There used to be an active smuggling ring based in Har haTzofim that
offered poor Jewish families the finest American life for their handicapped
children. The children were taken out of Israel and brought to Utah, to
be raised as Mormons. When the story broke, we as a community were given
48 hours to place 19 children with Downs before they could be placed by the
agency that first obtained the children. That's "due diligence".

Vechulu...

Real sh'mad is going on here.

Those who are interested in adopting a Jewish special needs child can contact
my wife at the number in my .signature file.

-mi

PS: I leave the question of bar da'as and bar chiyuvah to others. I'd be
interested by the discussion. I do know that most of the children we are
speaking of are capable of doing many, if not most mitzvos. And many with
Downs can teach us much about ahavas haBorei and avodah bisimchah ubileiv
shaleim.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    MMG"H for 31-Aug-99: Shelishi, Nitzavim-Vayeilech
micha@aishdas.org                                   A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                              Pisachim 31a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.   Nefesh Hachaim I 16


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:29:27 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: violence


In a message dated 8/31/99 10:17:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 
 Every day children are born handicapped. In many communities this will
 affect shidduchim for that child's siblings. Or perhaps the couple already
 has numerous children and can't handle the burden of another one. Often this
 child is placed for adoption. Particularly in the case of mental handicaps,
 given our culture's stress on learning, >>

As ye sew, so shall ye reap. We've discussed a few times whether success in 
learning is based on absolute achievement (the elitist school) or measured 
against ones own capabilities.  It's pretty clear what our society has 
paskened.

KVCT,
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:01:04 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Historical Perspectives


In a message dated 8/30/99 3:04:52 PM EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:

> Moshe at the rock, Miriam's lashon hara, etc etc. RYGB points out that
>  these stories are whitewashed to a certain degree, but they are not
>  categorically omitted either!
>  
>  How are these points relevant? Because the Torah did not pretend these
>  people were perfect. They are shown to be fallible humans. Indeed, they
>  are shown to be far greater than us, but still, something short of
>  perfect. 

Just a reminder Moshe RO"H was "Mivchar Min Hoenushi", and Bloshon Hakosuv 
"Vat'chasreihu *M'At*.."

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:11:03 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Nakdimon be Gurion/Joshua


In a message dated 8/31/99 9:16:27 AM EST, yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il writes:

> > No it does not. It implies that l'einei a particular group of people,
>  > the sun stopped. We know the medrash WRT makas dam, that the liquid could
>  > simultaneously be blood for a Mitzri and yet be water for the Jew. Once 
we
>  > lift the rules of physics, there's no reason to assume consistancy for 
all
>  > observers, either. (For that matter, in modern physics we don't assume 
> such
>  > consistancy on many issues anyway.)
>  
WRT Yehoshua doesn't it say, Vzaroi Yihiyeh Mloi Hagoyim.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:51:56 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
RE: DaM vs. DoM


The following comes from Rav Elazar M. Teitz, the rav of Elizabeth, NJ:

<<
I must take issue with virtually every point raised by Dr. Hendel in his
remarks about the need to repeat when DaM and DoM are interchanged.

First, his "two other issues": true, as far as tircha d'tzibura is
concerned, "it is a nuisance to have to hear verses over and over for no
good reason," but
that is exactly the point: is it indeed "for no good reason"? If Halachah
requires repetition, that is certainly good enough reason.

Secondly, "causing anguish."  This is totally a non-issue.  After all, a
mistake *was* made, even if repetition is not required.  The Mishnah
B'rurah in 142, citing the Pri Chodosh in Be'ur Halachah, explicitly
states that even for mistakes not requiring repetition, "Ain machazirin
otho, rak go'arin bo."

As for the proofs: Unfortunately, I do not have the Michlol to consult. 
(I would mention parenthetically that the noun-adjective distinction was not
being
made--as Dr. Hendel seems to assume--with regard to the word "DM."  It is
definitely a noun, whatever its nikud.  The distinction is in the word
NKI: is DM NKI "blood of an innocent" (noun) or "innocent blood"
(adjective).  The question about DM is whether or not it is possessive.

Statistically:  other than the combination DM NKI, there is 100%
consistency.  DaM is exclusively possessive, DoM is exclusively not. 
When HaNoki appears, DM must be possessive (since otherwise grammar
requires that the wording be HaDM); and 
indeed, in each case the reading is DaM.  Thus, since the only case about
which there can possibly be a question is that of DM NKI, it should seem
obvious that "Yilamed sothum min ham'forosh," that the same distinction
applies in those cases as well.

These statistics would also answer the "argument based on silence."  I
doubt that there is a reference anywhere distinguishing the word AYiN
(eye) and AYN (eye of), since there is no question as to the distinction.
 One may equally well presume that lack of any doubt explains the silence
on the DaM/DoM distinction.  (What *can* be questioned, but is irrelevant
to the question of difference in meaning, is the apparent lack of a
Mesorah notation of those with kamatz and those with patach.)

Since the requirement to repeat where there is a difference in meaning
seems to be undisputed, and at the very least there is reason to believe
that DaM and
DoM change meaning, from "blood" to "blood of," I would unhesitatingly
insist that a
substitution of one for the other require the re-reading of the phrase with
the correct
word.

>>

---------------

Original message:


----------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:17:53 -0400
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com>
Subject: Apologies on DM/DM: A definitive solution by RDQ

My apologies for the hasty way I wrote my DaM DoM posting
last week.

If I had followed my usual practices I could have come up with
a definitive solution printed below. BOTTOM LINE: Even 
according to Moshe's criteria (that you make a Baal Koray
go back for changes in meaning), you should NOT make a 
Baal Koray go back for DaM / DoM since there is no change
of meaning. I give 3 proofs below: a) RDQ, b) Statistical
c) Mesorah-Silence

Furthermore I would argue that you should stop Baalay Kriah
and gabaaim from making them go back since there are at least
2 other issues here

- ---bothering the community--it is a nuisance to have to hear verses
over and over for no good reason 

- ---causing anguish--it is an explicit Rambam (sales 10:15) that it is
a Biblical violation of the anguish prohibitions to make a person 
appear that he doesn't know something (So if DaM DoM has no
change of meaning we should not make him go back)

Now for the proofs. I believe I have 3

1) The RDQ in MICHLOL under discussion of NOUNS, form 
X(Kamatz)Y explicitly states that
- --even words like TzR , RA (and DM) belong to this class
- --these words have not one but TWO construct states
(one with PATACH and one with KAMATZ).
- --there is no difference in meaning (certainly not a NOUN
ADJECTIVE difference (innocent blood/blood of innocent)

The examples RDQ gives there are well worth researching.
The include AV OV (Ayin Beth), TzaR, TzOR, RA, RO
etc. You cannot possibly make these into noun-adjective
distinctions. 

The RDQ points out that even RA which frequently appears
with a PATACH or TzR is really a KAMATZ noun.

The RDQ also points out that sometimes the mesorah gives
a list of exceptions one way or the other

Finally--of all the examples that RDQ gives, RDQ explicitly 
singles out DM as possibly being a PATACH noun to begin 
with. 

Thus it is clear that this has no radical change of meaning (like
noun adjective). Although the RDQ does not give this analogy
I would suggest that it is like the difference between CHIRIK
and TZARAY in HaaLiThA (in Ki Tisah)--two forms of the
same grammatical function (It happens).

2) Statistically DM occurs about 3-400 times in Tenach. Here are
the stats

- ---about 100 (25%-33%) the context is clearly COnSTRUCT and
the word is clearly PATACH
- ---about 65-75% the word is a stand alone and clearly Kamatz
- ---DM+NKI seems to cause problems but occurs only 18 times
This includes 
- --DoM+ NKI
- --DaM +NKI
- --+HaNaKi
- --hyphenated/not hyphenated.

There is no text that has a clear demarcation based on meaning.
The Leningrad codex's punctuation seems to have entered the
KORAIN Tenach. The Mendelkorn 8th edition has some of
the variations Moshe mentioned.

3) If there had been a difference in meaning then either
- --some Midrash would mention it (a la Minchath Shai)
- --some mesorah would mention it
- ---someone (Rashi, Minchat Shai ) would mention it

I checked mesorahs in Leningrad and Aleppo. The mesorah gedolah
mentions
- --the 3 DM+Hnaki
- ---the 3 hyphenated DM
It doesn't seem to care at all about the Kamatz-patach issue. In
fact there is one mesorah about "2 examples with a Kamatz" but
that mesorah is referring to the word ShaFacH not to DoM.

This is an argument based on silence (and is admissable as 
supportive evidence). The whole function of the mesorah
and a major function of midrashim is to preserve the mesorah
If the mesorah said nothing it couldn't have been that important.

In summary based on the RDQ and the statistical evidence I would
conclude that although differences exist the word DM is **always*
construct and has its adjectival meaning (Blood of..) The clearest
proof of this is not from the usage of DM in Tnach but from the
usage of other 2 letter words (like AV=Cloud, TzaR, RA etc).
The clearest analogy to stop people from correcting baalay kriah
would be RA, ROH (I assume even Moshe would not correct
someone on this).

My apologies again for not checking RDQ, the Konkordance and
the mEsorah first. (BUT...I get this posting in just in time for
another DM in this weeks parshah).

Russell Hendel;  Phd ASA; 
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:05:34 +0300
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject:
Mental health:Reality therapy


Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 8/31/99 10:17:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> micha@aishdas.org writes:
> <<
>  Every day children are born handicapped. In many communities this will
>  affect shidduchim for that child's siblings. Or perhaps the couple already
>  has numerous children and can't handle the burden of another one. Often this
>  child is placed for adoption. Particularly in the case of mental handicaps,
>  given our culture's stress on learning, >>
>
> As ye sew, so shall ye reap. We've discussed a few times whether success in
> learning is based on absolute achievement (the elitist school) or measured
> against ones own capabilities.  It's pretty clear what our society has
> paskened.

I was hoping we could have a higher level discussion on this topic than the one
on Artscroll.

Let me mention a few factors. Rabbi Bleich has an excellent discussion in volume
II of his Contemporary Halachic issues chapter 15.
I don't think too much is gained by pointing fingers and blaming elitists vs
egalitarianism. This world is a finite one - with finite resources. Decisions
have to be made as to how to divide the pie. Not every time can there be a
win-win situation. Halacha argues against sacrificing your life for another. On a
broad level - we can say that a person who is severely handicapped in performing
mitzvos whether because he is retarded or psychotic or whether the halacha
excludes him (e.g.,  a cheresh or is blind) has a lower standing. (BTW the Raavad
says that a person who is made a cheresh receives full compensation because he is
repulsive to others and can't get a job.) There is thus a hierarchy of value
based upon - at least the theoretical ability to perform mitzvos. As opposed to
this the Catholics hold that the only issue is whether the person has a neshama
that can be saved from eternal damnation. The Catholic organization are quite
willing to accept any child - no matter in what condition because the highest
values is to save a neshama - this is one of the reasons why they are so strong
against abortion.

Social reality: A family with a handicapped child is in fact treated differently.
It is harder to get shidduchim. The children have a harder time having friends.
Often the siblings get less time with parents - or the parents are more
frustrated and take it out on them. Same for the family of a member who is
mentally ill. (Same for Baalei tshuva and Sfardim and Americans living in Israeli
society.) Not everyone has the ability to deal with a handicapped child - many
find it overwhelming dealing with normal ones. It is not uncommon for marriages
to breakup because one of the parents wants to devote his/her life to that child
and sacrifice the rest of the family and the other parent does not. Ditto for
dealing with the aging and elderly - especially senile parents or senile in laws.
When I worked in nursing homes - it was not uncommon to find that one child was
the dutiful one. In fact - in Italian families it seemed that one daughter was
designated not to get married and was expected to sacrifice her own dreams for
that of the parents. The dutiful child is often constantly criticized by the
parent(s) while the absent children are praised for their sacrifice of showing up
once a year. It is hard to deal with such injustice.

Of course it is not always negative - adversity can be beneficial. Some people
start living for the first time when they find they have a year to live. Some
learn to appreciate things like a hug because they have an affectionate Downs
syndrome child - and the whole family benefits. A rav has to take into account
the reality that exists now. There are those like the Novominsker Rebbe who have
made great efforts to educating and sensitizing the community about these things
- but it is not easy.


Regarding the original query regarding mental illness. In Israel much has changed
in recent years. I don't think it is as advanced as America but there is solid
progress in many communities. There is now a program (in Bnei Brak) to teach
avreichim to be social workers (program by Bar Ilan University). It has the
support of the chareidi establishment because of the awareness that there are
problems that need a religious counselor. The Amshinover Rebbe actively
supervises a program based at Sharei Tzedek for psychotherapy. Many if not most
of the rabbonim do send their followers to psychologists and psychiatrists (even
non religious ones). The followers - however -  do not always listen. Several
years ago there was in fact a public campaign against going to psychotherapists.
Upon investigation it turned out to be merely against people going without first
checking whether the therapist was competent and was sensitive to religious
issues. Finally - many issues that people go to psychotherapy can in fact be
dealt with as religious problems. Dealt with a case recently of a young lady who
had been put on prozac and had had many hours of therapy with another therapist
when all she needed was a one hour lecture on emunah and bitachon. As Dr. Abraham
Maslow used to say - "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look
like nails".

                         Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:53:53 -0500
From: david.nadoff@bfkpn.com
Subject:
Eit Sheker Sofrim and Dr. Birnbaum


On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 22:59:34 -0500 (CDT) Rabbi Bechhofer wrot on the
subject of Eit Sheker Sofrim and Dr. Birnbaum:

>I am sorry you have decided to fixate on this minor point in one essay I
>have written. It is a good example of the problem that one line can cause,
>in that it can cause some reader or another to dismiss an entire essay,
>perhaps even an entire book, because the line is so distasteful to him.

>Nevertheless, the quote that Dr. Birnbaum "was not a ba'al teshuva" was
>not a statement that I crafted or thought of, but is a direct quote from
>R' Avrohom Eliyahu Kaplan, cited by his son R' Tzvi Kaplan, if I recall
>correctly, in "Me'ma'ayanei Kedem". We may speculate as to why RAEK,
>eighty or so years ago, expressed himself in that fashion (and I do not
>believe your interpretation is the closet one to correct), but that is not
>material right now to the question you asked me. If it is a "kum va'aseh"
>distortion, then lo alai telunascha ki im al RAEK. In an essay about Dr.
>Birnbaum, it is legitimate to quote what others said about him,
>especially if they meant it in a laudatory manner.

>YGB

Bimchilas kvodcha, this is not a fair or responsive treatment of my point.  First,
the statements I am "fixating on" (that Dr. Birnbaum was not a ba'al teshuva,
never succumbed to yetzarim, etc.) are neither "minor" nor only "one line" of your article, and do not consist only of a quotation of RAEK. Those statements
comprise the opening paragraph of your essay, in which you amplify in your own words and even go farther than RAEK's remark (which, as I recall, appears as a prominent banner under the title and before the first paragraph of the article), and set the tone for the whole article.

Second, my objection to those statements has not led me "to dismiss [your] entire
essay."  On the contrary, in a prior posting on this list (V3#164), I described your article as a "fine essay" and in my letter to the Jewish Observer (Kislev 5758), I devoted a full paragraph to praise of your article. I have also recommended your
article on a number of occasions and consider it a valuable contribution to our knowledge of Dr. Birnbaum's ideas (as I said in my letter to TJO).

Third, I am in fact no more "fixated on" the objectionable statements in your article
than I am on the rest of it, which I find informative and even inspiring. But I have no
reason to write about the article as a whole to a group presumably in sympathy with
its basic message, and that has direct access to the article itself on the aishdas.org web
site. The questions of the definition of and Dr. Birnbaum's status as a ba'al teshuva do,
however, merit further treatment because, in my opinion, your article is inaccurate on
this score and your response to my letter in TJO was a d'chia b'kash. In addition, your recent statement about shev v'al ta'aseh omissions in your essays about RAEK to avoid alienating a segment of your readers (V3#193) led me to wonder whether something similar was at work in your perpetuation of the idea that Dr. Birnbaum is not a ba'al teshuva in your essay on him.

Fourth, I believe that kum va'aseh distortions on the subject of Dr. Birnbaum's status
as a ba'al teshuva were defensible 80 years ago when RAEK is said to have advanced them,
in order to avoid wholesale dismissal of Dr. Birnbaum's then somewhat controversial
program. Such distortions, and the perpetuation of the distortions of the distant past, are not appropriate in our time because (1) I don't think that contemporary Jews
otherwise ideologically receptive to views of the type promoted by Dr. Birnbaum would consider his ideas tainted merely because he was a ba'al teshuva, (2) I think Dr. Binbaum
could serve as a fabulous role model for the contemporary ba'al teshuva movement, if we
would but let him out of the closet and (3) prominent denials of the ba'al teshuva status of important personages sends a subtle negative message to ba'alay teshuva, prospective ba'alay teshuva and those in the frum community who deal with them. 

Your article revives for English language readers and gives currency to an all but forgotten remark said to have been made by RAEK over 80 years ago, under very
different circumstances than those prevailing today and, I believe, with a very
specific objective that is now inapposite and no longer served. For that reason, olecho telunosi.

Ksiva vchasima tova
David


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:22:53 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Mental health:Reality therapy


In a message dated 8/31/99 3:10:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il writes:

<< 
 > In a message dated 8/31/99 10:17:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
 > micha@aishdas.org writes:
 > <<
 >  Every day children are born handicapped. In many communities this will
 >  affect shidduchim for that child's siblings. Or perhaps the couple already
 >  has numerous children and can't handle the burden of another one. Often 
this
 >  child is placed for adoption. Particularly in the case of mental 
handicaps,
 >  given our culture's stress on learning, >>
 >
 > As ye sew, so shall ye reap. We've discussed a few times whether success in
 > learning is based on absolute achievement (the elitist school) or measured
 > against ones own capabilities.  It's pretty clear what our society has
 > paskened.
 
 I was hoping we could have a higher level discussion on this topic than the 
one
 on Artscroll.
 
 Let me mention a few factors. Rabbi Bleich has an excellent discussion in 
volume
 II of his Contemporary Halachic issues chapter 15.
 I don't think too much is gained by pointing fingers and blaming elitists vs
 egalitarianism.
_______________________
I don't perceive this as an issue of gain or blame, there may well be 
compelling reasons for the elitist position re learning but I do think the 
originally articulated bias against mentally handicapped, which starts at a 
much higher level than shoteh, is at least partially based on this.  Do you 
see much bias against lefties versus righties?
________________________


 This world is a finite one - with finite resources. Decisions
 have to be made as to how to divide the pie. Not every time can there be a
 win-win situation. Halacha argues against sacrificing your life for another. 
On a
 broad level - we can say that a person who is severely handicapped in 
performing
 mitzvos whether because he is retarded or psychotic or whether the halacha
 excludes him (e.g.,  a cheresh or is blind) has a lower standing (BTW the 
Raavad
 says that a person who is made a cheresh receives full compensation because 
he is
 repulsive to others and can't get a job.) There is thus a hierarchy of value
 based upon - at least the theoretical ability to perform mitzvos.
______________________________

Again, without getting to the level of one who is excluded from a mitzvah, 
would you argue that one who has a less emotional personality has a lower 
standing because he can't get as emotional about a mitzvah (e.g. aveilut)?

________________________
 As opposed to
 this the Catholics hold that the only issue is whether the person has a 
neshama
 that can be saved from eternal damnation. The Catholic organization are quite
 willing to accept any child - no matter in what condition because the highest
 values is to save a neshama - this is one of the reasons why they are so 
strong
 against abortion.
 
 Social reality: A family with a handicapped child is in fact treated 
differently.
 It is harder to get shidduchim. The children have a harder time having 
friends.
 Often the siblings get less time with parents - or the parents are more
 frustrated and take it out on them. Same for the family of a member who is
 mentally ill. (Same for Baalei tshuva and Sfardim and Americans living in 
Israeli
 society.) Not everyone has the ability to deal with a handicapped child - 
many
 find it overwhelming dealing with normal ones. It is not uncommon for 
marriages
 to breakup because one of the parents wants to devote his/her life to that 
child
 and sacrifice the rest of the family and the other parent does not. Ditto for
 dealing with the aging and elderly - especially senile parents or senile in 
laws.
 When I worked in nursing homes - it was not uncommon to find that one child 
was
 the dutiful one. In fact - in Italian families it seemed that one daughter 
was
 designated not to get married and was expected to sacrifice her own dreams 
for
 that of the parents. The dutiful child is often constantly criticized by the
 parent(s) while the absent children are praised for their sacrifice of 
showing up
 once a year. It is hard to deal with such injustice.
 ______________________________
All true, but I'm not sure how this addresses the point regarding our focus 
on learning. To clarify the point I was making, if we weren't so elitist 
about learning, at least less than very severe learning disabilities would 
not be a big issue. How many people do you know who have turned down a 
shidduch because the choson is not capable of hitting a 15 foot jump shot 
with consistency but exercises to keep fit?
_____________________________________  
 Of course it is not always negative - adversity can be beneficial. Some 
people
 start living for the first time when they find they have a year to live. Some
 learn to appreciate things like a hug because they have an affectionate Downs
 syndrome child - and the whole family benefits. A rav has to take into 
account
 the reality that exists now. There are those like the Novominsker Rebbe who 
have
 made great efforts to educating and sensitizing the community about these 
things
 - but it is not easy.
 
 
 Regarding the original query regarding mental illness. In Israel much has 
changed
 in recent years. I don't think it is as advanced as America but there is 
solid
 progress in many communities. There is now a program (in Bnei Brak) to teach
 avreichim to be social workers (program by Bar Ilan University). It has the
 support of the chareidi establishment because of the awareness that there are
 problems that need a religious counselor. The Amshinover Rebbe actively
 supervises a program based at Sharei Tzedek for psychotherapy. Many if not 
most
 of the rabbonim do send their followers to psychologists and psychiatrists 
(even
 non religious ones). The followers - however -  do not always listen. Several
 years ago there was in fact a public campaign against going to 
psychotherapists.
 Upon investigation it turned out to be merely against people going without 
first
 checking whether the therapist was competent and was sensitive to religious
 issues. Finally - many issues that people go to psychotherapy can in fact be
 dealt with as religious problems. Dealt with a case recently of a young lady 
who
 had been put on prozac and had had many hours of therapy with another 
therapist
 when all she needed was a one hour lecture on emunah and bitachon.
___________________
Are these the majority or is it more often the case that mental problems are 
dealt with as religious ones?
____________________


 As Dr. Abraham
 Maslow used to say - "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems 
look
 like nails".
_______________
This has always been one of my favorite quotes, but I never knew who it was 
attributed to - thanks!
_______________ 
                          Daniel Eidensohn
  >>

KVCT,
Joel Rich


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 >