Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 228

Wednesday, December 29 1999

• The Logical Response
• Re: Moshe Rabbeinu's Free Will
• Mah Shimo?
• kosher salt
• Bes Din
• Re: Jews of yesteryear and wigs
• Modenity
• Re: Ramban on Eretz Yisrael (was re: Orthodoxy and the Land of Israel)
• Kollel support
• Israel
• Re: Israel
• Re: Moshe Rabbeinu's Free Will
• Re: Ramban on Eretz Yisrael (was re: Orthodoxy and the Land of Israel)
• Ramban on Eretz Yisrael
• Re: School visits/inspections
• Rav Dessler's Shita on Kollel

Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> writes in v4n218:
: Ghandi's call to the Jews of europe to commit mass suicide as a statement
: against the Nazi oppression was an intellectual "assessment". Keeping Pesach
: in Auschwitz was not.

I'm not sure of either claim. Ghandi's attachment to passivism was not
necessarily an intellectual assessment. A smaller violent act can prevent
a greater one, and therefore be ethically justified. (We know the gemara's
opinion of people who allow the wicked to thrive. Mercy for the meek
includes knowing when to use violence.) And suicide?

OTOH, keeping a chiyuv in a she'as hashmad is a halachic question. Briskers
can get pretty cerebral about those. No?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-Dec-99: Shelishi, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 90b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote: 
>  Simlarly, Moshe Rabbeinu was deprived of Bechira.  Not that he was a 
robot, 
>  rather if he introduced any deviation on his own, he would face 
> instantaneous  negative feedback, (remember Nodov and Avihu!)

One problem - it wasn't instantaneous, at all!
Of course, you could respond that the Jews needed Moshe to bring them to the 
edge of Eretz Yisrael.


Mordechai
Cong. Ohave Shalom, YI of Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf

Sh'mos 3:13-14:
    Moshe said to the E-lokim, "Here I am going to B'nei Yisrael and I
    will tell them that the G-d of your forefathers sent me to you. They
    will say to me 'What is his name?' What will I say to them?"
    And E-lokim said to Moshe, "E-hyeh asher E-hyeh." And He said, "So
    shall you say to B'nei Yisrael, "E-hyeh sent me to you."

What was Moshe's question? Didn't he just call HKBH "E-lokei Avoseichem"?
Wouldn't that serve to tell the B'nei Yisrael?

Second, there's the well known aggadita about "E-hyeh" being a sign that
B"Y already knew. The moshi'ah will call HKBH "E-hyeh". If this was known,
why wouldn't anyone trying to claim the title just make a point of using
that particular name? And if so, how can that serve as a proof of anything.

According to the Maharshah (as well as linguists) Hebrew has 4 labials,
letters whose pronounciation requires the lips: beis/beis, vuv (w),
mem, pei/fei - a/k/a BooWMa"F. Moshe Rabbeinu was an "aral sefasaim",
IOW, he couldn't clearly pronounce these letters. (Assuming that HKBH
wasn't talking "mitoch gerono" yet.)

That rules out sheim havayah (which has a vuv), "E-lokim" (mem), "E-lokei
Avoseichem" (also ends in a mem). I want to suggest that Moshe was asking
HKBH for a sheim that he could pronounce.

Then, think of the effect on Klal Yisrael. They had a mesorah to expect a
man calling G-d "E-hyeh" to be there moshiah. And here is Moshe, who is
pretty much forced to use that name. And so the test did uniquely identify
the moshiah in a way they could only know after the fact.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-Dec-99: Shelishi, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 90b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

> As for the tendency of modern secular scholarship to sink into obscurantism 
> and the never-ending search of the "new approach," well, we have to take that 
> with a big grain of salt. But it can be Kosher salt.

Since Gil Student is kind enough to recommend my review essay in the last
Jewish Action, let me blow my own horn by referring to the opening chapter
of Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations
(Jason Aronson, 1997) [this chapter previously appeared in Tradition] as
well as "To Get the Better of Words: an Apology for Yirat Shamayim in
Academic Jewish Studies" (Torah uMadda Journal 2).

> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:40:49 -0500
> From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> Subject: Re: Bes Din

<< Indeed it would seem that way.  This poster however ignores the
awesome responsibilty placed on dayanim.  When that responsibility is
abused, even in one instance, the entire inwitution becomes
contaminated.>>

	Let's see.  One lawyer is dishonest.  One doctor commits malpractice. 
One nursing home owner cheats Medicare.  One right wing Israeli shoots
Yitzchak Rabin.  Even if you replace the "one" with any number you like, 
you have no right to drag  *all*  botei din through the mud for the
misdeeds of the one,  ten or a hundred.  To make a statement that all are
corrupt or contaminated is hotza'as shem rah and, certainly, 
counterproductive.
  
<<That can be accomplished only if both the entire Jewish community
demands it>>

	Which cannot happen until the Jewish community is aware of it;  your
pronouncements notwithstanding.  Facts are required for that to happen
and we've seen precious few here.

<<The "dragging all batei din trough the mud" maybe can be understood as
two things:  1.  An expression of intense frustration with the status quo
and>>

	This may certainly be understandable;  that doesn't make it right.

<<2. A sucker punch to the batei din to improve.>>

	Without the "entire Jewish community"  demanding it?  You said yourself
it won't work.

Gershon

Rich Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> wrote:
: 1) *Head* covering is d'oraiso as it is ipmlicit in uforah es rosha, implying
: a woman's head is covered by default

: 2) *Hair* covering is dependant upon minhag hamokom, and in a place where all 
: hair is covered it would be ossur and coudl be a d'oraiso extesnion of the 
: above.  

: 3) When poskim refer to women's hair instead of head, it is imho, because 
: typically all of the hair was covered and therefore there was no need to make 
: the distinction  between hari and head.
...

Actually, #1 and #2 suggest that #3 is false. Head covering is di'Oraisa,
and therefore unfathomable. Hair covering is defined by tzenius. I could
therefore understand the position that a wig that is indistinguishable from
her own hair doesn't satisfy tzenius. However it does follows the (lack of)
parameters of head covering as per the d'Oraisa.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-Dec-99: Shelishi, Shemos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 90b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

>The more Arabs are extracted from their primitive and
>insulated world through contact with the world outside
>of Islam, the more that tolerance will be come a way
>of life.




Do you really believe this?!

Has history not shown us that "halacha limoshe misinai - eisav soneh et 
ya'akov" is a truism?

I'm not advocating paranoia. The gemara's statement that in every generation 
we will have at least one nation backing us has been shown to be accurate, 
but the hagada's "shebichol dor vador..." has been shown to be at least as 
true.

Is hatred of the am hanivchar something to be examined rationally. Sometimes 
yes. Byt usually no, and we all know that.

You've heard this a million times but it has the same purpose as bidvarav 
the Ramchakl's introduction to the Messilat Yesharim:  The Germans were the 
most civilized (as in contrast to primitive) nation on planet earth in the 
1930s. My friend's grandfather left Romania in the 20s to escape 
antisemitism - he went to Germany. 40% (approximately) of Germans involved 
in The Final Solution held Doctorates. Should I go on, you know all this 
already.

So please, don't fool yourself that our problems will be solved if only the 
Arabs became less primitive.

Moshe
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

In a message dated 12/28/99 4:30:19 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< 
 Real estate? Is that all Eretz Yisrael is?
 
 Yes, most emphatically, I think the Ramban is referring to Eretz 
 Yisrael. Because unlike many Rishonim who may or may not hold 
 that Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is a d'oraysa bizman hazeh, the Ramban 
 fairly clearly does hold that way. See the Ramban on Bamidbar 
 33:53 (S"V v'Horashtem) and in his Hasogos to Sefer HaMitzvos in 
 Mitzva 4 "Harei nitztavenu b'kibush b'chol hadoros" (four lines from 
 the bottom of Page 245 in the Mossad HaRav Kook edition), and 
 "Im kein mitzvas asei l'doros mischayev kol yochid mimenu 
 V'AFILU BIZMAN HAGALUS KAYADUA BATALMUD B'MKOMOS 
 HARBEI" (top of P. 246).
 
 Sounds to me like he's pretty worried about the "real estate." 
  >>

My apologies if you took my reference to "the real estate that comprises 
Israel" as a suggestion that EY has no halachic or spiritual meaning beyond 
mere real estate. I really didn't say that. I didn't imply it. I certainly 
don't think it.

Ramban's position on the Jewish obligation to settle EY is, as you say, 
unequivocal. He was the first of the Gedolim to make this obligation a 
positive commandment for all future generations. Nevertheless, his commentary 
on Bamidbar 33:53, which you cite, does not appear to suggest that the 
mitzvot of those who do settle in EY weigh more in the process of redemption 
and the restoration of the Temple than the mitzvot of those left in golus. He 
certainly did not suggest in this commentary that Jews should settle in EY, 
oust other inhabitants, and the proclaim the restoration of the Temple as a 
military or political act (i.e., a vote of the Knesset -- doubtless a close 
one -- or the annihilation of Arab East Jerusalem). To the contrary, he based 
the commandment on our inheritance of the land, not on any right to proclaim 
unilaterally what remains in HaShem's control, based on His judgment.

(In fact, the Ramban [unlike Rashi, at least according to some narrow 
interpretations] appears to accept the notion that Jews can observe the 
commandment to settle EY while permitting non-Jews to live alongside them. 
The Ramban treats the reference to "l'sikim" in the next verse more as a 
warning against the enticements of false idols than as symbols of inevitable 
war. So Jews should settle the land and live in peace with their neighbors, 
so long as the Jews remember HaShem. Ramban did not guarantee that this 
process would lead to redemption and restoration of the Temple. That's a 
different matter.) 

<<
But as far as getting schar individually for doing mitzvos, from the 
Ramban at least it seems that schar comes only for mitzvos done 
in Eretz Yisrael.
>>

I read your references, and don't understand your conclusion. It seems a 
pretty big leap to me. I wonder what they would think about that in Boro Park 
or Lakewood.


<<< As I understand the term, Yiddishkeit is an historical phenomenon. It 
describes the way of life that evolved within Ashkenaz, the intellectual 
foundations of which owe just about everything to the pain and yearning we 
suffered in European golus. >>>

>>Don't tell the Sphardim that.
<<

Why should this bother the Sephardim? They would be the last to want to take 
the "Yid" out of "Yiddishkeit." I'm sure the Sephardim would also agree that 
the intellectual foundations of Ashkenaz are based on the emotions generated 
by the European golus. At most they'd say is that those foundations aren't 
worth as much as the undiluted contributions of Rambam and his Sephardic 
successors. The Sephardim, after all, aren't the ones who dress like 17th 
century Polish noblemen. They have no nostalgia for Yiddishkeit, as opposed 
to their own, possibly broader historical experience.

David Finch

> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 12:32:14 -0800 (PST)
> From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Re[4]: Kollel support (was problem kids)   

<<Sometimes the troublemakers are the ones to succeed.  I suspect the
reason might be that those"troublemakers' are often very bright>>

Kol she'aino boh liydei chometz aino boh liydei matzoh.  Beshem godol
echod.

Gershon

David Finch wrote:

>I am unaware of any teaching to the effect that HaShem will reward >us with 
>the rebuilding of the Temple on the basis only of the >conduct of Jews 
>living in EY.


To which Carl Sherer responded:

>See the Ramban al HaTorah in numerous places (...)
>where he says that keeping mitzvos anywhere other than Eretz
>Yisrael is only for practice.


Rashi Dvarim 11:18  VISAMTEM ET DVAROY ELEH AL LIVOVCHEM: Even after you are 
exiled you are commanded to keep the mitzvot. Put on Tfillin and make 
Mizuzot SO THAT THESE THINGS WILL NOT BE NEW TO YOU when you return [to the 
land] - as it says: Make road markers for yourself... Yirmiyah 31:20


Moshe




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

In a message dated 12/28/99 10:37:47 PM US Central Standard Time, 
mosherudner@hotmail.com writes:

<< Rashi Dvarim 11:18  VISAMTEM ET DVAROY ELEH AL LIVOVCHEM: Even after you 
are 
 exiled you are commanded to keep the mitzvot. Put on Tfillin and make 
 Mizuzot SO THAT THESE THINGS WILL NOT BE NEW TO YOU when you return [to the 
 land] - as it says: Make road markers for yourself... Yirmiyah 31:20
  >>

Yes. Let's use Ramban, as R'Sherer did. To Ramban, Devarim 11:18 
distinguished the commandment of wearing tefillin from obligations that apply 
to the ground, such as heave-offerings and tithes. It's a question of 
portability. Tefillin are portable. The Chumash is portable. Kavanah is 
portable. But duties relating strictly to the land -- dare I say real estate? 
-- are not, particularly if they relate to taxation, which is a function of 
the state or other governing authority. This is common sense. I can't see 
what it has to do with the relative merits of mitzvot committed in EY versus 
golus, especially when it comes to redemption or other Holy judgment.

David Finch

R' Mordechai's problem with the Meshech Chochmo, achar ha'iyun, is a serious
one.The MC denies MR had bechira at any time after Ma'amad Har Sinai.

I believe we might propose that Moshe Rabbeinu's lack of bechira was like
that of Adam kodem ha'chet, ie.e, he could choose intellectually to take a
certain path that would prove wrong, as a result either of enticement or a
mistake, but he had no internal yetzer ho'ra.

There are other possible explanations as well, but, I concede b'peh maleh,
the MC cannot be explained by saying that his bechira was rescinded only
when Hashem spoke to him.

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

On 28 Dec 99, at 23:19, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/28/99 4:30:19 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> 
> Ramban's position on the Jewish obligation to settle EY is, as you say, 
> unequivocal. He was the first of the Gedolim to make this obligation a 
> positive commandment for all future generations. Nevertheless, his commentary 
> on Bamidbar 33:53, which you cite, does not appear to suggest that the 
> mitzvot of those who do settle in EY weigh more in the process of redemption 
> and the restoration of the Temple than the mitzvot of those left in golus. 

BTW - that should have been 32:53....

See th Ramban on Dvarim 11:18 "umahem nilmod l'chol hamitzvos 
shehem chovas haguf shechiyuvan b'chol makom v'sheniyhe pturim 
b'chutza laaretz machovas hakarka... AVAL IKAR HAKOSUV 
BA'ARETZ." See also the Parshas Drachim in Drush 22 which is 
brought in the footnote in the Mossad HaRav Kook edition, and the 
Rashba (brought there - I don't have a cite for it) where the Rashba 
says (or seems to be saying - a little difficult to be sure without the 
original) that were it not for the passuk of "v'samtem" (Dvorim 
11:18) I might have had a hava amina to say that ALL mitzvos only 
need to be kept in Eretz Yisrael, but since it says v'samtem, we 
should also keep mitzvos in chu"l so that they are not unfamiliar to 
us when we return BE"H to Eretz Yisrael.

He 
> certainly did not suggest in this commentary that Jews should settle in EY, 
> oust other inhabitants, 

We didn't oust anybody except in defensive wars. Are you arguing 
for the three shvuos still being in effect? (It's a Gemara in Ksuvos 
110b)? Because if you are there are plenty of answers to that one.

and the proclaim the restoration of the Temple as a 
> military or political act (i.e., a vote of the Knesset -- doubtless a close 
> one -- or the annihilation of Arab East Jerusalem). 

I don't think anyone on this list has argued that we can restore the 
Temple, although we are certainly capable as a nation of bringing 
about its restoration by Hashem if we act properly. I think it is clear 
to everyone on this list that the Beis HaMikdash cannot be rebuilt 
as a military or political act. I leave the rest of the argument, 
because Micha asked that it be dropped.

To the contrary, he based 
> the commandment on our inheritance of the land, not on any right to proclaim 
> unilaterally what remains in HaShem's control, based on His judgment.

How are you defining inheritance? Wasn't there "kibbush" in the 
times of Yehoshua? Is that inheritance in your mind? That war was 
much more deadly than the wars of the last fifty years, and 
displaced a lot more people. Are you saying that it's prohibited to 
move to Eretz Yisrael today? Because that (to me at least seems 
to be) the logical conclusion of your argument (i.e. I can only get 
land in Eretz Yisrael if I "inherit" it from whomever was living on it or 
if Mashiach comes). 

> (In fact, the Ramban [unlike Rashi, at least according to some narrow 
> interpretations] appears to accept the notion that Jews can observe the 
> commandment to settle EY while permitting non-Jews to live alongside them. 
> The Ramban treats the reference to "l'sikim" in the next verse more as a 
> warning against the enticements of false idols than as symbols of inevitable 
> war. 

He does? "v'char kach 'vtzoriru eschem' SHEYILOCHAMU 
BACHEM V'YAVEU ESCHEM BAMATZOR (sure sounds like a 
war to me) v'ani agaleh eschem mipnahem galus shleima." Why do 
you think that Ramban would let us live alongside the non-Jews in 
Eretz Yisrael?

So Jews should settle the land and live in peace with their neighbors, 
> so long as the Jews remember HaShem. 

Not how I read that Ramban.

Ramban did not guarantee that this 
> process would lead to redemption and restoration of the Temple. That's a 
> different matter.) 

So you're arguing the three shvuos? Your essential argument is 
that it is assur to live here without permission from the goyim, you 
argue that we don't have permission from the goyim, you argue that 
living in Eretz Yisrael today is no better than living anyplace else, 
and you argue that we should not make any hishtadlus of living in 
Eretz Yisrael to bring Mashiach? Is that a fair statement?

> <<
> But as far as getting schar individually for doing mitzvos, from the 
> Ramban at least it seems that schar comes only for mitzvos done 
> in Eretz Yisrael.
> >>
> 
> I read your references, and don't understand your conclusion. It seems a 
> pretty big leap to me. I wonder what they would think about that in Boro Park 
> or Lakewood.

I never asked them in Boro Park or Lakewood. But see what I wrote 
above on the Ramban in Dvarim 11:18, and see the Parshas 
Drachim and the Rashba (if anyone has a real cite for that Rashba, 
please post it) brought in the footnotes there. I don't think - AT 
LEAST LESHITAS HARAMBAN - that doing mitzvos in Chutz 
LaAretz is at the same madreiga as doing them in Eretz Yisrael.

> 
> <<< As I understand the term, Yiddishkeit is an historical phenomenon. It 
> describes the way of life that evolved within Ashkenaz, the intellectual 
> foundations of which owe just about everything to the pain and yearning we 
> suffered in European golus. >>>
> 
> >>Don't tell the Sphardim that.
> <<
> 
> Why should this bother the Sephardim? They would be the last to want to take 
> the "Yid" out of "Yiddishkeit." I'm sure the Sephardim would also agree that 
> the intellectual foundations of Ashkenaz are based on the emotions generated 
> by the European golus. 

The foundations of Ashkenaz, yes. But the term Yiddishkeit means 
Judaism and that includes the Sphardim.

At most they'd say is that those foundations aren't 
> worth as much as the undiluted contributions of Rambam and his Sephardic 
> successors. The Sephardim, after all, aren't the ones who dress like 17th 
> century Polish noblemen. 

No, but some of them still dress the way they did in Yemen. Ever 
been in a Taimani shul?

They have no nostalgia for Yiddishkeit, as opposed 
> to their own, possibly broader historical experience.

I think what you mean to say is that they have no nostalgia for 
EASTERN EUROPEAN Yiddishkeit and that is true. They didn't 
live it. But the Sphardim are much stronger than are the 
Ashkenazim at keeping their own minhagim, partly because they 
never had the Chasidic - Misnagdic schism that the Ashkenazim 
had. In fact, I had a friend in the alter heim who was the son of 
Iranians who went and asked a shaila and became an Ashkenazi in 
his minhagim. He once told me that if you tell the average (non-
religious) Sphardi that it is assur al pi din to marry a shiksa, he 
won't listen to you, but if you tell him that it's a minhag not to marry 
a shiksa he will listen to you. Probably an exaggeration, but the 
point is well taken.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In a message dated 12/29/99 12:20:25 AM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< Why do 
 you think that Ramban would let us live alongside the non-Jews in 
 Eretz Yisrael? >>

I don't know. It's just the way I read that Ramban. He seems much more 
concerned about Jews allowing themselves to be polluted by goyishe practices 
than he does about ridding EY of its occupants as a precondition to 
settlement, which he sort of dismisses out of hand. (As I mentioned, some 
commentators say Rashi sees it differently; others don't.) The Ramban's 
language is strikingly non-political on this point, as it is on various 
others. Perhaps it's the mystic strain within him. 

One other point: I don't understand "Yiddishkeit" to be a synonym for 
Judaism. Yiddishkeit is a Yiddish or German word based on the root "Yiddish" 
or "Yidd'n," which connotes Ashkenaz and nothing else. When American Jews, at 
least, talk about "Yiddishkeit," they aren't talking about Yemenite robes and 
desert tradition. They aren't talking about "Torah," either: it's "Toyrheh," 
and you'll get plenty of stares if you pronounce it incorrectly. 

This is not a minor point. RW Judaism in America doesn't seem to be the 
melting pot you describe it to be in Israel. From what I can see, American 
Yiddishkeit is thoughtful and dynamic, but it still yearns for the shetl (as 
Norman Rockwell would've painted it, anyhow) and the old European Jewish 
theocratic structure. Israel, naturally, has produced is own versions of 
piety far more removed from the world Hitler destroyed. I agree with many 
that the Israeli version is more authentic, in the long view. Hopefully it 
will continue to evolve into the natural society that we hope to earn back 
from HaShem. 

In the meantime, those of us in golus have our memories as well as our 
dreams. The former are more concrete. That, to me, is Yiddishkeit, if it is 
ultimately not Judaism itself.

David Finch

RDFinch: << Rambam is all about the integration into his thinking of Greek,
Roman, and Christian concepts that today might be assured entirely.  >>

Please name some Roman and Christian concepts that Rambam
integrated into his thinking.

RDFinch: << I can't help but thinking that if we turn our back on the
Western
thought generally, we will lose the intellectual edge that, as much as
halacha
itself, has kept us going all this time. We might also lose the capacity
meaningfully to understand those concepts that are mutar in the eyes of even
the most RW educators. >>

What do you mean by intellectual edge?  Knowledge of Western schools
of thought, or the ability to critically analyze, understand,  and
synthesize
information?  If the latter, can you think of any activity that hones the
human
intellect better than limud hatorah?

KT,
Shlomo Godick

On 28 Dec 99, at 21:01, Eli Turkel wrote:

> > I agree with you. I don't think there is one correct route to produce
> > a Gadol. But much of Israel and many quarters of the States are
> > sold today on the Desslerian philosophy (or so it has been
> > characterized here - does someone have a cite? Is it in the
> > Michtav?) that 1000 go in for each one that comes out as a
> > justification for not making a selection at some point in time.
> > 
> 
> I find it hard to accept that that is the justification.
> Even if one accepts Rav Desler it is obvious at some age
> (lets say 30 though probably much earlier) who has a chance of 
> becoming a gadol

I found it hard to accept too. But I just read the letter (and there are 
actually two of them) inside the Michtav (it's in Volume 3 starting 
on page 355), and Rav Dessler zt"l specifically cites a Maamar 
Chazal (source not given) that 1000 go in and one comes out.

But he goes much further. From what I can gather (and there are 
no names so you can't tell what institution was involved), he was 
apparently asked about setting up some sort of a seminary which 
would teach people how to be teachers. At first they wanted the 
seminary to grant academic degrees, but he vetoed that. Then he 
told them that they had to make a tnai with the bochrim who 
learned there that they would not pursue academic degrees while 
they were learning there, and that they could only take bochrim 
who might otherwise go straight to university. Finally, in the second 
letter, he tells the people who wanted to open the seminary that he 
discussed it with the Chazon Ish and that the Chazon Ish said they 
should close the seminary even at a monetary loss to the people 
who proposed to open it and to those who had enrolled.

What is more striking is the reason given. The reason he gives (and 
I had heard it before without attribution from the Mashgiach of one 
of the Yeshivos here) is that if the questionners were to open such 
an institution, it would tempt people who might otherwise stay in 
learning and who might otherwise become talmidei chachamim to 
leave learning and go get academic degrees. He says explicitly 
that those who leave the Yeshivas should better become 
storekeepers and not have professions, because if they had 
professions it would be too tempting to others to leave the 
Yeshivas. He even admits that Frankfurt, because many of the 
bochrim did go to college in a fruhm environment, produced fewer 
people who went off the derech, but he also argues that it also 
produced fewer talmidei chachamim. He argues that better 
someone should go off the derech than that we should miss the 
chance to produce a talmid chacham. Powerful stuff....

I continue to believe that there are other shitos (notably RSR 
Hirsch) that argue otherwise and are supportable. I also think R. 
Dessler's shita can be attacked as not applicable today because 
the percentage of the fruhmmer velt that was in Kollel in his time 
was so much smaller than it is today, and therefore it had to be 
guarded more zealously and it did not face the economic realities 
that we face today. But I don't think it's possible to deny that R. 
Dessler's shita was (and is) as it was characterized on the list a 
few days ago.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

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


[ 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         ]