Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 270

Monday, January 10 2000

• Re: Nixon/McGovern
• Re: Nixon/McGovern
• Re: Is techeles m'akev a Talis Katan?
• Re: Avodah V4 #269
• How is Rav Soleveitchik ztzl considered modern Orthodox?
• Re: atarah
• Re[2]: Conservatives
• Re[2]: Nixon/McGovern
• Re: New Modern Orthodox Rabbinical School
• Re: Conservatives
• Re: How is Rav Soleveitchik ztzl considered modern Orthodox?
• Re: How is Rav Soleveitchik ztzl considered modern Orthodox?
• Re[2]: techelet
• Re: How is Rav Soleveitchik ztzl considered modern Orthodox?
• re: New Modern Orthodox Rabbinical School
• Re[2]: Conservatives
• Re: Conservative Daf Yomi
• Registry
• Re: Conservative Daf Yomi
• Conservative/Reform/Orthodox/Whatever - Who cares?

And even mong those rabbonim who supported Nixon many said:

"lo mei'ahavs mordechia elo misin'as homon" was Nixon considered a friend.

Rich Wolpoe 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Nixon/McGovern 
<snip>

Nixon's actions in authorizing arms shipments in 1973 were 
not caused by philo-semitism, but by his fervent anti-communism 
which was stronger than his anti-semitism. He saw the Arabs 
as tools of the communist conspiracy and acted accordingly.



__________________________________________________________________
Claude Schochet                                claude@math.wayne.edu        
                                        www.math.wayne.edu/~claude
Mathematics Department                        313-577-3177        office phone  
Wayne State University                            313-577-7596        
departmentfax
Detroit, MI 48202

Funny, many Orthodox Jews felt that way in 1972,were they clairvoyant?

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip> 
In 1972 it was not at all evident that McGovern's views would lead him 
to ally himself politically with Arabs in the US. For that matter, the 
US Arab community was inactive politically then.

Definition of "time":  that which keeps events from happening all at once.

__________________________________________________________________
Claude Schochet                                claude@math.wayne.edu        

I heard that Briskers were makpid to wear a tliis Koton that was NOT made out of
wool.  I don't recall how the lomdus works with non-woolen garments being 
different legabei the ikkuv of  techeiles, but that was the  upshot.

Of course the "velt" asked what about Tallis Gadol?  Nobody - not even Briskers 
- wore non-wool tallis gadol?

To me that was the upshlug althou I am glad to find out at least there is a 
Rishon (i.e. Baal Hamaro) who paskens the way Brisk does!

And now can I be someich on the Baal hamaore to me meva'eir chometz ereve Pesach
with achilo <smile>?  


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

R' Harry Maryles wrote <<< I do not use the Chicago Eruv and will not 
wear a Talis in the street for Hotzo'ah reasons.  Being a Talmid of R. 
Aaron, I follow his (and I assume all Brisker's) logic on the issue. 
Since they hold that a lack of T'cheles is MeAkev the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, 
then wearing those fringes sown to the beged sans T'cheles serve no 
purpose and it amounts to Hotzo'oh. Since one is not required to wear a 
beged of Dalid Kanfos, one simply doesn't.  Otherwise there would be a 
D'Oraiso Violation of Shabbos. It seems to me that even if one does not 
subscribe to the view that T'cheles is MeAkev (which I believe is almost 
the universal view), it would be prudent to be choshesh for this view. 
>>>

Would I be correct in presuming that those who follow the logic above 
also avoid wearing a four-cornered tallis katan even during the week? For 
lack of t'cheles, that shita would say it's assur, no?

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________ 

In a message dated 1/10/00 10:40:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, Harry Maryles 
writes:
<< If women DO have more kavanah when they
 Daven,  Why is that so?  Is it because they are Aino
 Metzuveh VeOseh? And Why would that be a reason? >>

The Gemorah and meforshim explain that a metsuva veoseh is greater because he 
has a greater yetser hara opposing him. Not that the gemorah needs my 
haskomo, but as a sociological observation this definitely seems to be true. 
It is much easier to  do something on your own free will then if you are 
forced to do it. From my own experience, my mother used to criticize me that 
I would run all over to do chesed instead of staying home and doing what she 
asked me. Of course, she was right. It was much easier to be a hero and do 
voluntary chesed, than to help my mother which felt like an "oyl" -- a yoke 
and obligation.

Neither myself, my husband or any of are family are talmidim of Rav Joseph 
B. Soleveitchik ztz'l.

We have always been lead to believe that Rav Soleveitchik is the 'Father of 
American Modern Orthodoxy.

We all just finished reading the two-volume work  “The Rav : The World of 
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik” by Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff.

After completing the biography, none of us could find anything that could 
lead us to indicate that Rabbi Soloveitchik was in any way, shape or form, 
supportive of what is colloquially termed “Modern Orthodox”.  If anything, 
Rabbi Soloveitchik held tight to mesora.

Given that, how can Rabbi Soloveitchik be called the father of modern 
orthodoxy? Or is such a title a misnomer?

/aviva

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

How about if one's wife is NAMEd Atara? <smile>

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: atarah 
.
> 
I where an atarah croucheted (sp?) by my wife, is that better?

Eli Turkel

Probably from the WEB <smile>!

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Conservatives 
<snip>
On the other hand, I've meet a number of recent JTS graduates who are 
extremely sharp academically, and who are familiar with more Orthodox 
esoterica than you'd think. I don't know where they picked it up -- maybe 
from other Jews. 

<snip>

David Finch

And many of us sensed if McGrvern would not stand up to the communists in 
Vietnam  -which was fighting the USA itself,KV he wouldn't stand up agains 
Communist Arabs on behalf of Israel.

FWIW In 1968 I heard the following - (possibly apocraphyl)

After the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, Gene mcCarthy said that was NOT a 
crisi for the US.  When asked what was - he asnwerd when they invade France! 

Here is another cute anecdote.

When Golda Meir came shopping for militray hardware in the US, Bella Abzug 
pleaded with Henry K - can't we give them one of these advanced systems?

And Henry K. retorted, but Bella you voted against EVERY ONE of those systems 
yourself?

The tzad hashove is, how can Israel feel secure wehn backed by pacificists (even
those sypathetic to the Median? and KV,  re: those who are soft on Communism, 
"liberation movements, terrorism etc.

Rich Wolpoe




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


The radical left cannot be aligned with Israel by definition, because 
Israel discriminates (or is supposed to discriminate) in favor of 
Jews. 

-- Carl

I would guess that it's purpose is that of any other yeshiv; to teach Torah
and produce talmidei chachamim.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <jerosenb@hcs.harvard.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 9:56 PM
Subject: New Modern Orthodox Rabbinical School


> > Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:37:37 -0500
> > From: j e rosenbaum <jerosenb@hcs.harvard.edu>
> > Subject: Re: New Modern Orthodox Rabbinical School
> >
> <<On Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 12:59:49AM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>   What is the purpose of this new school?
> >
> > i get the sense that it will be similar in outlook to the hebrew
> > institute of riverdale.  it would be interesting if the traditional
> > conservatives joined somehow, though i've not heard that they would
> > take any part.>>
>
> I did not ask its orientation;  I asked its purpose.
>
> Gershon
>

R. Backon wrote (V4 #269) regarding the beliefs of the Conservative
movement:
<<they believe that...Ezra wrote the Torah from accumulated sources>>

The way I have seen this explained it is not so straightforward as
that.  See Weiss-HaLivni's monograph "Revelation Restored," if this is
the shita that is in fact adopted (and not adapted) by the Conservative
movement.

Sincerely, 
David Eisenman

In a message dated 1/10/00 9:54:12 AM US Central Standard Time, 
aviva613@hotmail.com writes:

<< Given that, how can Rabbi Soloveitchik be called the father of modern 
 orthodoxy? Or is such a title a misnomer? >>

His thinking was strongly informed (if perhaps even influenced) by his 
studies im derech eretz, particularly the sort of High Epistemology popular 
in German academia early in the century. He empathized with observant Jews 
who valued secular learning. He was exceedingly brilliant, and could compete 
intellectually in this territory. That's why he was considered Modern (as 
opposed to Not-Modern) Orthodox.

David Finch

Additionally, the Rav Z"TL did not demand perfect observance to be welcomed
by him, as opposed to many more right wing groups.  He accepted people on
their own terms and was willing to relate to them on their own level.  When
faced with an iverwhelmingly non-observant American Jewish community, the
Rav took a more minimalist approach and did not begin by demanding total
Halachik observance, but rather allowed many kulot so as to design a Jewish
ritual practice which would be palatable to the critical mass of the Jewish
community.

----- Original Message -----
From: <DFinchPC@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: How is Rav Soleveitchik ztzl considered modern Orthodox?


> In a message dated 1/10/00 9:54:12 AM US Central Standard Time,
> aviva613@hotmail.com writes:
>
> << Given that, how can Rabbi Soloveitchik be called the father of modern
>  orthodoxy? Or is such a title a misnomer? >>
>
> His thinking was strongly informed (if perhaps even influenced) by his
> studies im derech eretz, particularly the sort of High Epistemology
popular
> in German academia early in the century. He empathized with observant Jews
> who valued secular learning. He was exceedingly brilliant, and could
compete
> intellectually in this territory. That's why he was considered Modern (as
> opposed to Not-Modern) Orthodox.
>
> David Finch
>

Or perhaps the Rebbes ignored the metzius in its "cientific objective" form and 
went for a manifestation fo Techielss in a more spiritual/mystical/halachic 
manifestation.

So it's not that the rebbes are necessarily right/wrong, perhaps they simply 
were not speaking from a "physcial plane" persepective.

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: techelet 

----- Original Message ----- > : Why would anyone today use the techelet of 
Radzin after research has shown
> : that its color comes from the dyes added and not from the chilazon? 
>
> I can't argue this one very well, as I wouldn't. However, the color comes 
from
> the nitrogen in the original fish combined with the other chemicals. This 
means
> that it *does* use the proposed chilazon. The problem is that the same 
process
> would extract the nitrogen and make a dye out of nearly any other 
chemical --
> not just a single kaleh ilan.
>

Because they are Chassidim. Chassidim do not always do things because they 
are right, but because the Rebbes did them and emulating the Rebbes is a 
path to kedusha. They often cite, in Lubavitch, for example, the Gemara in 
Sukkah by Hadas Shoteh of "Ho'il v'nafak me'puma d'Rav."

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

funny you should ask because I was drafting the following to post on Avodah last
Friday...
>>So far I have idientified 4 issues that are "litmus" tests for MO vs. RW. This
is a request for more.  Here goes what I've got: 

1) Pro secular education and worldy culture
2) Liberal wrt mixing of genders at social events 3) Pro-Zionism, Pro-Medinah   
4) Liberal wrt dialogue with Non-Orthodox institutions - at least wrt 
non-theological matters.

I would say YU is 4 for 4.

and I would say TIDE Breuer's is pro #1 & #2 and con #3 & #4<<

Certainly for a Rosh Yeshiva to attend the U of Berlin circa 1929 was considered
somewhat a break with tradition.

Also, I am sincere in expanding this list

Also, I heard that Chaim Berlin allows mixed seating at their annaul dinners. 
Can this be confirmed?

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: How is Rav Soleveitchik ztzl considered modern Orthodox? 
A
Neither myself, my husband or any of are family are talmidim of Rav Joseph 
B. Soleveitchik ztz'l.

We have always been lead to believe that Rav Soleveitchik is the 'Father of 
American Modern Orthodoxy.

We all just finished reading the two-volume work  "The Rav : The World of 
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik" by Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff.

After completing the biography, none of us could find anything that could 
lead us to indicate that Rabbi Soloveitchik was in any way, shape or form, 
supportive of what is colloquially termed "Modern Orthodox".  If anything, 
Rabbi Soloveitchik held tight to mesora.

Given that, how can Rabbi Soloveitchik be called the father of modern 
orthodoxy? Or is such a title a misnomer?

/aviva

In recent days, R' Bechhofer posted a press release about Yeshivat Chovevei
Torah, and R' Dubin asked what the purpose of this new yeshiva is.

I am confused. It is not unusual for a new yeshiva to open. What makes this
one different, that an announcement was posted, and that people are
wondering what its purpose is?

Does someone have legitimate reason to suspect that its purpose is something
other than the purpose *any* yeshiva is started, such as L'hagdil Torah
Ul'haadirah?

Proudly naive,
Akiva Miller

.

I think Halivni's shito is a bit of a hybrid or synthesis.

From what I am told, he DOES concede revelation at Sinai.

His point vis-a-vis Ezra is that  - accordgin to him - the Torah was not 
preserved during Bayis Rishon and it was up to Ezra to re-assemble the pieces 
together and reconstruct the original Torah as best as he could.  This is what I
would call an extreme for of lower criticism which makes the Torah legit, but 
the document we have as being flawed by transmission errors.

The kasah I have is wrt to the Samaratian Torah.  If Ezra - an arch-enemy of the
Samaritans - redacted the Torah, how come their Torah is so similar (ok there 
are SOME discrepancies).

Halivni's apporach is a bit different that syaing there was NEVER a maadma har 
Sinai.  what he is syaing is there is a Torah miSinai but we fumbled it (simlar 
to the first luchos) and Ezra and others were picking up the pieces.

while I myself do concede the possiblity of textual flaws (such as de'uel and 
re'uel) to creep in, to attribute wholesale mishandling of the Torah on a grand 
scale goes to far - imho.

Rich Wolpoe





______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Conservatives 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    1/10/2000 11:16 AM


R. Backon wrote (V4 #269) regarding the beliefs of the Conservative 
movement:
<<they believe that...Ezra wrote the Torah from accumulated sources>>

The way I have seen this explained it is not so straightforward as 
that.  See Weiss-HaLivni's monograph "Revelation Restored," if this is 
the shita that is in fact adopted (and not adapted) by the Conservative 
movement.

Sincerely, 
David Eisenman

--- DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> 
> On the other hand, I've meet a number of recent JTS
> graduates who are 
> extremely sharp academically, and who are familiar
> with more Orthodox 
> esoterica than you'd think. I don't know where they
> picked it up -- maybe 
> from other Jews. (I know one soon-to-be-graduate
> from UJ teaches a Daf Yomi 
> at a small Orthodox shul near where he lives in L.A.
> I don't know whether 
> he's told anyone there about where he goes after
> Shacharis.) They believe in 
> halacha, and have learned to see the world through
> halacha, whatever 
> theoretical nonsense might be "taught" to them by
> their Conservative masters. 


Daf Yomi? In an Orthodox Shul? What are the greater
implications of this? Do we now do Yichus (credential)
Checks on our Magidei Shiur in order to make sure that
no Apikursus filters through their Shiurim?  How is it
possible for an Orthodox Shul to be so deluded?  Are
they just a bunch of ignoramuses?  Are they extremely
Left Wing Orthodox? 

What are we to make of these Rabbis? Why are they so
Orthodox in their practice and their learning while
all the while attaching themselves to an institution
so antithetical to Torah Judaism?  Are they just being
academic in their study of Torah, studying and
teaching it as they would ancient mythology? Or are
they, as David suggests spiritual people that sought
Judaism from a state of complete ignorance through a
random encounter with the Conservative movement?
(Maybe they went to camp Ramah as a child or teen) 
Perhaps because that was their initial contact with
Judaism... through the Rabbi of their Parents Shul who
guided them into JTS and now, they find themselves
looking for more?  Have their views been corrupted by
Conservative Doctrines? Are we to view these Rabbis,
with all of their knowledge, corrupted that it may be,
as Tinkos Shenishbu?  Or perhaps they are not as
corrupted by the drivel that passes for theology as we
think they are.

What about someone like Rabbi Vernon Kurtz, Rabbi of
North Suburban Beth El who is a very knowedgebale
Conservative Rabbi (He was Gene Siskel's Rabbi)? Where
would he fall in the hierarchy of Torah Hashkafa?

Interesting footnote:

There is a weekly Jewish newspaper called The Chicago
Jewish News, whose editor  and publisher is an
Orthodox Jew and whose backers are prominamnt Orthodox
philanthropists.  This paper has been strongly
critisized and even condemed for regularly having the
weekly Parshas HaShvua column being "darshened" by
Rabbi Kurtz. The editor defends himself by stating
that he wants his paper to have the broadest possible
appeal and that the column never had anything written
in it that was even slightly heretical.

As far as I know, Rabbi Kurtz is still a featured
contributor to the column.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

The proposed registry raises some interesting issues. 
1) In general, we hold that we do not now  have the power to decree new
gzerot or takanot for all of klal yisrael.  While individual communities
have had such takanot or pinkasim for their communities, where is the
precedent for a global takana?  After all, the presumption that I think is
correct that the purpose of the registry is to register all Jews.

2) The article by R Mertzbach really shows that the problem is not new.
Intermarriage was very common in Western Europe before the war.  As others
have suggested, this may be proof by silence against such a proposed
takana.

3) RYGB has suggested that this issue is off limits, as a gadol such as R
Elyashiv has spoken. B"MKT, I find this somewhat strange.  We discuss on
avodah the psakim of many gdolim.  If Rav Elyashiv has come out with a
psak, say, that crockpots are assur to use on shabat (with far less global
consequences), would this also be not subject to  discussion, and would it
therefore also be mandatory for all of us?
	I suspect that RYGB meant was that whether or not this suggestion
should be adopted is up to the gdolim, who must have considered all the 
issues, and the discussion of the peons
here is therefore irrelevant.  However, here too, let me raise the
following issue.  The notion of ein gozrim gzerah she'eyn hazibbur yachol
la'amod ba implies that in some ways, the gzera of even a gadol
shebigdolim such as Ezra is subject to ratification by the peons.  Why is
this any different?

4) Rightly or wrongly, much of dati leumi and hiloni world view that much
of the haredi community (with a few notable exceptions) is primarily
interested in their own world, rather than in the general community - what
Rav Soloveitchik called brit sinai rather than brit avot.  The fact that
the haredi community is, however,financially dependent on the community
that it does not acknowledge is a source of much resentment.  This attempt
will be primarily viewed (regardless of the actual intentions)  as another
attempt to define hilonim as not Jews.  Unfortunately, it may therefore be
welcomed by them as a way of completely severing ties - there is little
risk now that their children will become hozer bitshuva, if the children
will not be accepted as Jews.  

5) Lawrence Shiffman wrote a book, "Who Was a Jew", arguing that early
Christians started being considered by the halachic community as non Jews
(rather than as Jewish minim) when the probability that a Christian was
halachically Jewish) diminished.  While this is a sobering precedent, do
we today have either the will or the power for such a drastic action? 

Meir Shinnar

In a message dated 1/10/00 10:55:41 AM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< What about someone like Rabbi Vernon Kurtz, Rabbi of
 North Suburban Beth El who is a very knowedgebale
 Conservative Rabbi (He was Gene Siskel's Rabbi)? Where
 would he fall in the hierarchy of Torah Hashkafa? >>

I know Vernon Kurtz pretty well, as I was (and I still am, at least 
officially) a dues-paying member of his shul, which is three blocks away from 
where I live and is thus a short walk on Shabbos. Rabbi Kurtz is very bright 
and very devoted. He's one of those Conservative rabbis who are very 
knowledgeable about all sorts of things you'd think they never heard of. I 
don't know where he falls in the hierarchy of Torah Haskafa. His daughters 
attend Ida Crown Academy, he's utterly Shomer Shabbos from anyone's point of 
view, he studies Orthodox responsa for relaxation. On the other hand, he 
really believes that women can be rabbis, that Torah should be subject to 
objectivist critical analysis, etc. 

This sort of mish-mosh is not unusual among devoted Conservatives, rabbis and 
lay people alike. It's okay to disagree with Conservative doctrine. I 
certainly do, and that's why I'm here, not there. But that doesn't mean that 
I'm required to think that all Conservatives are ignorant about Judaism.

David Finch

R. Akiva Miller writes:

>Me? *I* still cannot figure out what "Orthodox" Judaism is.
<snip>
> If someone's principles are violated by a
>real or percieved imbalance between the roles of men and women, what will
>you tell him? Why should he (or she!) be forced to attend the "Orthodox"
>service?
<snip>
>But it seems to
>me that this whole "three branches" concept would not exist if they had
>not accepted the name of "Orthodox". -- Why not just be Jewish?

R. Akiva has raised a number of very important questions.  Time
limitations require that they be answered briefly.

As our esteemed listowner has written, the term "Orthodox" was coined by
the early reformers in mid-19th century.  This parallels the development
of the term "mitnagedim" by hasidim in the 18th century.  I will
respectfully disagree with R. Carl, however; I am fairly certain that
the haredim chose that appelation term themselves; it is the English
designation "ultra-Orthodox" that was imposed from without.

But the terminology is not, in my view, the most interesting part of the
story.  The late great historian Jacob Katz (who was "Orthodox") and his
student Michael Silber (who is not) have pointed out that "Orthodox"
Judaism as a sociological category also developed in reaction to Reform.
 [Footnote: the word Judaism is a translation of the German Judentums,
which maskilim coined by analogy to Christentums. Ve-en kan makom
le-ha'arikh.]  Put another way, one can study the history of Jewish
theology, from Hazal through the Rishonim and Aharonim.  One can focus
on halakhic categories, such as mumar, or halakhic principles such as
'Yisrael af al pi she-hata Yisrael hu' (the topic of two fascinating
articles written by the aforementioned  Katz).  One can analyze
different shitot regarding ikkarei emunah.  And there was always a
problem of Jews drifting away from the community.  But the idea (some
would say myth) of an unchanging Orthodoxy dating from Sinai to the
present day was essentially born in the 19th century in response to
Reform.

That having been said, I disagree with R. Akiva's implied comparison of
Reform and Conservative principles to those of the halakhic community.
He is correct that, emotionally, a liberal Jew may be personally
offended by the presence of a mehitzah in a shul and may see separate
seating as a violation of his or her principles.  But what is the source
of these principles?  Only a vague, ill-defined morality derived from a
constantly changing zeitgeist.  In contrast, the principles of halakhah
are derived from a Divine text on the basis of revealed principles.
Even rabbinic enactments are incorporated into the system systematically
based on rules and precedents.  There is room for development and even
change, but, as with all legal systems, these occur in accordance with
the rules of the system.

This paragraph regarding the halakhic system is a perfect introduction
to my comments on the Conservative movement thread, which I will b.e.H.
submit separately.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

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


[ 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         ]