Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 221

Monday, December 27 1999

• Orthodoxy and the Return of Land
• RE: Orthodoxy and return of land
• Re: Slap in the Face
• Re: Net Access
• RE: Orthodoxy and the Return of Land
• Re[2]: Orthodoxy and return of land
• Re: nogeah
• Re: Orthodoxy and the Return of Land
• Re: nogeah
• Re: Avodah V4 #219
• Re: Orthodoxy and the Return of Land
• Re: Kollel and sustenance
• RE: Orthodoxy and the Return of Land
• a humble pixel
• Re: Orthodoxy and return of land
• Re[2]: Orthodoxy and the Return of Land

In a message dated 12/27/99 11:30:49 AM US Central Standard Time, 
TROMBAEDU@aol.com writes:

<< This entire exchange is a reflection of the political orthodoxy that 
orthodox 
 Rabbi's are presumed to hold. I respect RYGB for holding to his highly 
 nuanced views, and I would say I probably agree with most of them. Since 
 those frum people on the right in the political spectrum will dismiss my 
 qualified support for the peace process as typical Galus American naivete, I 
 have found it fruitless to try and use any kind of logic, military 
knowledge, 
 historical knowledge, moral acknowledgment of the ways in which we have 
 served the Palestinians poorly, both in deed and attitude, or cold blooded 
 political analysis to prove my point. Part of being an adult, and part of 
 being a mature political entity, is the realization that we don't 
necessarily 
 get everything to which we think we are entitled right away, and that 
 sometimes we have to take steps back to go forward. >>

Thus far I've been reluctant to weigh in on the Avodah line on the Great 
Debate over giving up EY territory to the Palestinians. But I agree 
wholeheartedly that RYGB's thinking on the subject is "highly nuanced." It's 
also really gutsy. Not all of us have his courage.

I've noticed in the thread of argument on this subject, a disheartening 
cynicism -- even contempt -- for the role Ehud Barak's military background 
might have played as he developed his positions on peace negotiations. Many 
of the RW think of him as a sell-out who never understood the issues in the 
first place, or was willing to compromise his understanding to the highest 
bidder. This sort of thinking is enormously depressing. Barak is a highly 
intelligent fellow (he has a Stanford graduate degree in something like 
engineering logistics) who headed the most sophisticated military operation 
in the world. The IDF does not tolerate the sort of loose thinking in which 
the rest of us get to indulge. As a general Barak was the guy who kept the 
subtle things going, more of a Grant than a Patton. He wasn't allowed to make 
any major mistakes -- Sharon was allowed to do that, at enormous cost, but 
only because of his immeasurable ego and his folk-hero status among the RW. 

Some Israelis think they're entitled to have unlearned opinions about 
anything 
affected EY, because they live there and are bearing the load for the rest of 
us. But unlearned opinions are just that. I'd rather listen to Barak on 
security issues than to listen to any of the Gedolim who wouldn't know the 
difference between an F-15 and a paper kite. Overall protectionist issues are 
still paramount. The end-goal is still the survival of EY as an integral 
state. This remains largely a matter of who can beat whom when guns are 
drawn. To that extent, the despised "peace process" is a matter of military 
diplomacy, not RW versus LW polemics. If American Jews want to study the 
practical issues that will really make or break Israeli security, they should 
go to West Point, not Lakewood.

I've also noted the blood hatred for Palestinians even among the more 
soft-spoken Avodah contributors. I don't have an opinion on this: I don't 
live there, and I don't see what they see and fear what they fear. I am still 
very suspicious of any political strategy based on hatred. Historically, 
these strategies don't have much of a track record, at least not where 
humanistic (i.e., Torah-like) values are held dear. Who wants a Jewish state 
premised on oppression? Why even have a Jewish state premised on oppression?

Finally, I agree entirely with RYGB's comments on a "piece of dirt." The 
Temple 
will be rebuilt when HaShem wills it, and I cannot imagine that that will 
happen amid the current squabbling over symbolic gestures that many of the RW 
(and LW, for that matter) substitute for concrete thought. Jews have survived 
because Torah is utterly portable. It teaches us to dream of the Promised 
Land, but it seems to have worked best, at least during the past millenium, 
when carried on the backs of Jews migrating from one hostile place to another 
in Europe and the Middle East. Judaism has thrived in golus. Torah Judaism is 
experiencing a virtual rebirth in the American golus. Maybe we'll get what we 
deserve when we prove to HaShem that we deserve it. That proof will come from 
what we do in golus, not EY.

In the meantime, the only way EY isn't going to eaten alive by its Arab 
neighbors is if Israelis trust people like Barak and the soldiers who used to 
be under his command. These men and women think dispassionately, they plan 
precisely, and if they fail, they die or suffer the guilt of letting other 
Jews die. The rest of us get to talk, talk, and talk. 

David Finch

> Perhaps the
> philosophical and emotional roots of the Arab outlook (even
> the Palestinian
> outlook) are more cogent to EY's situation than, say, Western
> political-economic theory. Maybe our Arab cousins remain
> closer to the roots
> of emotional Semitic reality than, say, a European-educated Jew.

I'd go farther than "maybe". I think it's a certainty.

Which is why the West cannot understand the situation here.

>
> Sometimes the Romantic eye sees more than the "realist." T.E.
> Lawrence's
> "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" is not irrelevant reading matter in
> this debate.


It should be *required* reading. As well as "The Arab mind" by Raphael
Patai.

Akiva



===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

Indeed as I see it this is the ROOT cause.  It's too late to have the simple 
emnuna of turning things over to Hashem and all will be well.

IMHO we HAD that opportunity to take the most agressive stand we could in 1967, 
and during that spirtual revival to see Yad Hashem as fully manifest.  At that 
point, we all believed that this was a Neis.

It was then fumbled in 1967, and we now pay the price.  This is analgous to 
Bnei Ysiroel not finishing off the Knaanim during Kibush ho'orez and they 
became sikkim l'einiechem...

Rich Wolpoe





______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>.

We COULD have thrown the Arabs out in 1967 - I don't think that's 
much of a secret. For example, the Mufti of Chevron came to 
Moshe Dayan in 1967 and said, "give us 24 hours to leave." 
Dayan's response, "no, we don't want you to leave." Lack of emuna 
IMHO....

But this is 1999, not 1967, and we can't throw them out. 
<snip>

-- Carl

I don't see how you've answered my concern.

Gershon

On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:42:36 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
> In the meantime, if only a "kosher" ISP is availabe, we need not 
> worry about 
> where they surf - at home.
> 
> Rich Wolpoe
> 
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> _________________________________
> <snip>
> 	Once ISP's become free,  why should kids use the kosher one 
> if they can 
> use whatever they want?  
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Gershon
> 
> 

> I'd rather listen to Barak on
> security issues than to listen to any of the Gedolim who
> wouldn't know the
> difference between an F-15 and a paper kite. Overall
> protectionist issues are
> still paramount.

True -- but there are at least as many military experts (i.e. generals) who
oppose his actions as there are who agree with them.

> I've also noted the blood hatred for Palestinians even among the more
> soft-spoken Avodah contributors.

You have? I haven't. Distrust, yes, based on past actions. Hatred, no. Could
you point out the "hatred" (off-list if you wish)?

> humanistic (i.e., Torah-like) values are held dear.

humanistic and Torah-like are *not* the same thing, no matter how PC that
idea may be today.

> Who wants a Jewish state
> premised on oppression? Why even have a Jewish state premised
> on oppression?

I'm sure the Canaanim weren't oppressed during Yehosua's conquest of EY. :-)

> Judaism has thrived in golus.

80% of Jews are non-observant -- they have a >50% intermarriage rate -- any
you think that's thriving?

>
> In the meantime, the only way EY isn't going to eaten alive

And I thought the only way RY woudn't be eaten alive is through observance
of Torah and Mitzvos -- seems to me that's what the posuk says.

> by its Arab
> neighbors is if Israelis trust people like Barak and the
> soldiers who used to
> be under his command.

But not to trust Sharon and the soldiers who were under *his* command? Why
is Barak more trustworthy than Sharon?


> These men and women think
> dispassionately, they plan
> precisely, and if they fail, they die or suffer the guilt of
> letting other Jews die.

I'd rather not be one of their "victims", thank you very much.

Akiva

===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

Agreed. And the FASTEST road to "peace" is to see the Arabs as they are and to 
see ourselves as Jews and not simply as "am bein ho'amim" and to approach this 
from a perspective of reality.

And to respect the Arabs AS THEY ARE not as we wish them to be and to SUSPECT 
them as they are and not as we wish them to be!

It is foolish to expect a dog to behave like a cat or vice versa.

The root obstacle to peace is that Jews pretend to be goyim and perceive the 
Arabs are Western Euorpeans.  Both are dangerous delusions!

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________



[a very non-PC opinion follows.]

My Anthropology professor used to say that the biggest mistake an 
anthropologist can make is to look at, interact with, and interpret a 
society through the bias of the observers society.

The biggest mistake we can make in this situation is to assume that the Arab 
Mind is identical to the Western Mind -- that we think alike, feel alike, 
and that we respond to circumstances in the same way.

We don't.

Ask any Sephardic Israeli with first-hand experience of living in an Arab 
culture -- and be prepared for a *long* discourse on the subject.

Akiva

: Supposedly Barak takes his positions because he honestly believes in
: them. You are essentially saying that Barak thinks all his deals are
: bad for Israel...

No, I was just making a statement about ne'emanus. Barak lacks ne'emanus as
a nogei'ah bidavar. I wouldn't ask my she'eilos to a rav who is nogei'ah, and
without necessarily thinking he is being dishonest. Simply the chance that he
is even somewhat fooling himself disqualifies him.

I don't claim to be reading another's mind.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 27-Dec-99: Levi, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 90a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Would you have done to the Arabs what was done to the Cana'anim?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: Orthodoxy and the Return of Land

> I'm sure the Canaanim weren't oppressed during Yehosua's conquest of EY.
:-)
>

We have gone down this road before with the Chazon Ish on shochad. Often
Rabbonim are nogei'ah on the YD she'eilos they pasken and the hashgochos
they give. a Rav's position may be contingent on his acceptance of an eruv,
of  Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut, etc.

Nogei'ah is only a pesul in a dayan. Other nog'im ba'davar do not lack
ne'amanus as a result. A woman who would like to be permitted to her husband
is believed to say she is a tehora. Etc.

----- Original Message -----
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: nogeah


> : Supposedly Barak takes his positions because he honestly believes in
> : them. You are essentially saying that Barak thinks all his deals are
> : bad for Israel...
>
> No, I was just making a statement about ne'emanus. Barak lacks ne'emanus
as
> a nogei'ah bidavar. I wouldn't ask my she'eilos to a rav who is nogei'ah,
and
> without necessarily thinking he is being dishonest. Simply the chance that
he
> is even somewhat fooling himself disqualifies him.
>
> I don't claim to be reading another's mind.
>
> -mi
>
> --
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 27-Dec-99: Levi, Shemos
> micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H
> http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 90a
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
>

Thanks to the wonderful Rabbi Ben Dahan -- Mazkir Batei
HaDin HaRabbaniyim, problems that were famous in Israeli
Batei Din 12 and 15 years ago are no longer present.  It's
not perfect, but there are solutions when problems come up.

The number of people who go to them not only for Ishut
matters but for Mammonot issues is growing.

Also, there are now new Batei Din Mammonot, among them those
headed by Rav Ya'akov Ariel (Chief Rabbi (ashkenaz) of Ramat
Gan, and another headed by Rav Arrussi, Chief Rabbi of
Kiryat Ono, and many more -- they have an excellent
reputation and many courts have taken to sending cases to
these courts for Pishur and "out of court settlement".
They have a convention every year, and I'll try to remember
to post when it comes around this year.

The Batei Din have recently taken a stance on the issue of
the Heiter Iska in Israeli banks.  The result was that the
banks have written up a new Heter Iska (under rabbinical
supervision) in most banks.  I would recommend that anyone
with banking problems check the date of the bank's Heter
Iska and compare it to when they signed the relevant bank
papers.


Shoshana L. Boublil


----- Original Message ----- >
> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:25:40 +0200
> From: "Shlomo Godick" <shlomog@mehish.co.il>
> Subject: re: Batei dinim
>
> I find this discussion of batei dinim in the U.S.
fascinating.  Having
> lived in Israel since 1979, I was unaware of these
phenomena.
>
> My question is: to what extent do these problems appear in
the
> batei dinim in Israel...
[del for bw]

In a message dated 12/27/99 1:30:52 PM US Central Standard Time, 
atwood@netvision.net.il writes:

<< there are at least as many military experts (i.e. generals) who
 oppose [Barak's] actions as there are who agree with them >>

Maybe. But you guys elected Barak. Give him a fair chance and the benefit of 
the doubt.

<< humanistic and Torah-like are *not* the same thing, no matter how PC that
idea may be today.>>

Right. But they aren't entirely different, either. Shas is full of concern 
about how Jews  in positions of power treat goyim in their presence. Shas 
does not condone oppression in circumstances analogous to the present, 
nitpicking about certain Talmudic rules aside.

> Judaism has thrived in golus.

>>80% of Jews are non-observant -- they have a >50% intermarriage rate -- any
you think that's thriving?<<

No. But in America Agudath Israel, the Orthodox Union, and even the 
Conservative movement have been working to turn that around, with rather 
encouraging results. The American legal system has assisted this effort by 
outlawing even minimal secular interference with the exercise of Jewish (and 
other) religious belief -- the courts over here are real serious on this 
point. Anyhow, is Torah Judaism thriving in Israel, outside of the usual 
conclaves? Is Tel Aviv a holy city? I've heard it said that the Israeli 
secular authorities are far more intolerant of observant Judaism than are the 
non-Jewish secular authorities in America. I can believe it, given the fierce 
American attachment to religious freedom. What do you think?

<<Why is Barak more trustworthy than Sharon?>>

Character. Outlook. Self-control. Degree of self-absorption. Degree of 
narcissistic disregard for pluralistic concerns. Extent to which personal 
ambition is treated as HaShem's Holy Plan. Have I missed anything?

David Finch

Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes:
: I think the Chazon Ish spent much of his time in Europe closeted in 
: his own home learning.

Reading this and the earlier comment about the Gra lead me to the same
conclusion mentioned later by Akiva Atwood. I'm not sure Yeshivos produce
gedolim. All the stories that come to mind (including RYBS) involve learning
in a one-on-one situation.

Perhaps this is also part of the riddle as to why the US hasn't produced its
share of native gedolim. With universal education, fewer people have reason
to resort to that kind of one-on-one setting.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 27-Dec-99: Levi, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 90a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

>
> Would you have done to the Arabs what was done to the Cana'anim?

Of course not -- and I didn't suggest it.

The only justification for what was done to the Canaanim is that it was done
"Al Pi HaShem". By any "humanistic" standard it was genocide.

My comment was in response to:

>>> Who wants a Jewish state
>>> premised on oppression? Why even have a Jewish state premised
>>> on oppression?

The PC view today is that Bnei Yisrael's entry into EY was one of many
genocides committed by the Israelites. The survivors were oppressed in the
PC opinion.

"Oppression" is a loaded word, with strong PC connotations. We have to be
careful as to it's usage, to avoid falling ito the PC trap.

Akiva

=================================
"Help! Help! I'm being oppressed"
Monty Python and the Holy Grail



===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

David Finch wrote:

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 10:30:37 EST
From: DFinchPC+AEA-aol.com
Subject: Re: a humble pixel

In a message dated 12/25/99 10:19:39 PM US Central Standard Time,
nwitty+AEA-ix.netcom.com writes:

+ADwAPA- My question is: +ACI-If that is a true statement of existence, what is it
exactly that obligates Jews to obey the Torah?  It's all imaginary anyway.+ACI-
+AD4APg-

Torah isn't imaginary. HaShem isn't imaginary. You are.

David Finch

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

Micha Berger's probably more correct response appears in Avodah Vol. 4, +ACM-
213.  Not only does your response not address my question, Mr. Finch, it's
tone is
insulting and, to my mind, violates DN rules applicable here.  On the other
hand, since one or (possibly) both of us is imaginary, why should I care how
insulting
a critter you are.

Noach Witty

Can we at least leave alone the "political correct" and
"news-reporters" terminology and use jewish terminology:


f
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
>  To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
>  Sent: Sunday, December 26, 1999 7:23 PM
>  Subject: Re: Orthodoxy and return of land
[del for bw and for partial lack of accuracy. this is not
the place to discuss it]

> On the other hand, my heart aches every time I think of
giving back the land,

_Giving Back_????

Since when did they own it?

Jewishly -- it belongs to Hashem and is now (based on the
first Rashi in Bereishit) a Pikadone in our hands.

Historically -- until the jews came and settled approx. 100
years ago (or going back to Talmidei HaGr"a) this land had
jews in the cities and christians and moslems of all sects
in small groups, and bands of nomads and very little other
population.  It was barren in some areas and had swamps in
others.  When the arabs in the neighboring lands saw that
there was work to be had in Israel -- they came and settled
here right beside us.

Legally -- It has been stated by respected American jurists
that Israel has more of a claim on Yehuda and Shomron than
any other legal entity.

So, at least, let us realize that not only the Arabs can
talk about Holy Land and "our land".  We have just as much
a right (and probably more).  So let's at least acknowledge
what is being thrown away before doing so.

Please forgive me if the language sounds strong, but as a
former resident in Yamit, who saw her neighborhood torn
down, and had to remove a Mezuzah from a house in Eretz
Yisrael, I have a right to my opinions.  What I couldn't
stand then, or now, is the ignorance and apathy:  people
would come and tell me "but Yamit wasn't intended to be part
of Eretz Yisrael" never having even checked a map to see
that it was some kilometers North of the southern borders of
Israel -- even according to the most minimalistic
approach!!!  A similar situation exists in Ramat HaGolan
where people are confusing questions of Kedushat Ha'aretz
for Shmitta (kedusha Rishona and Shniya etc.) with the
borders of Brit Bein HaBetarrim.

> and I get angry when I contemplate some kind of
Palestinian political entity
> in the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. But I will
not stand in the way
> of it if I think it is the best possible solution for the
time.
>
> Jordan

Shoshana  L. Boublil, Israel

I would have stated in 1967 that this is a JEWISH state.  Anyone embracing 
Judaism is welcome, and anyone who cannot personally embrace Judaism, BUT can 
embrace supporting a Jewish state is also welcome as a 2nd class citizen of 
sorts.

However, anyone embracing a mationalism that contradicts the ideas/ideals of a 
Jewish state is welcome to leave.  Just as Cuba's Castro makes no bones about  
him being a communist - and has exiled thouands of Cubans - a Jewish state 
should make no bones about it being for teh furtehrance of Judaism. PERIOD.

Technially Saudi Arabia exludes all non-Moslems INCLUDING Xtian Arabs!

We don't have to execute the modern day knaanim, sending them outsde the land 
into golus is ok by me.

And we can look at the partition of India/Pakistan as analogous; there they 
separate Hindus from Moslems, here we separate Jews from non Jews.  

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Orthodoxy and the Return of Land 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    12/27/1999 2:54 PM


Would you have done to the Arabs what was done to the Cana'anim?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> 
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 1:29 PM 
Subject: RE: Orthodoxy and the Return of Land

> I'm sure the Canaanim weren't oppressed during Yehosua's conquest of EY. 
:-)
>

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


[ 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         ]