Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 334

Thursday, February 3 2000

• Re: Mendelssohn
• Administrivia (was Re: schools in Israel - handicapped)
• Re: Cause of formulation of TIDE
• Re: Smoking Ban
• Re: Smoking Ban
• Re: Cause of formulation of TIDE
• Wine
• re: Mendelssohn again?
• Netiquette Request
• informing relatives of a death
• mixed vs. separate seating at weddings
• smoking
• mixed vs. separate seating at wedding ceremonies
• Re: Mendelssohn
• Re: smoking
• Re: Smoking Ban
• Re: smoking
• Re:smoking ban (long)
• Re: Smoking Ban
• Re: smoking

: I am sitting at the Rav's computer and I wonder why you have not posted his
: note from this past Motzoei Shabbos. I am attaching below in case it was not
: received.

I intentionally didn't (which you knew was a possibility), and therefore
would have preferred you ask me WITHOUT CC-ing the list. I presume this was
a mistake.

The fighting over MM was one of the reasons I closed Avodah. I figured when
things get *that* heated that a figure out of history like Mendelsohn
becomes the subject of vehement arguing and mudslinging, we needed to take
time to cool down.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 04:49:01PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: We have been informed that it is not netiquette to say I agree. Nevertheless
: let me strongly agree with Carl.

It isn't netiquette to send an email to a list just to say I agree. People
don't want to get flooded with "Me too". However, if you're sending a
substansive letter, as Eli did, it's proper to acknowledge points of agreement.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

I would guess that HM might be referring to the 19 letters of Ben Uziel which 
seemsto be a "throwing down of the guantlet" to those seeking answers in the 
haskalah

(PS The metaphor of "throwing down the gauntlet" refers to a medieval practice 
of challenging a rival to a duel or joust by literally throwing down one's 
guantlet, which means" "Let's fight".  As I mean it here, RSR Hirsch was not 
afraid of confronting either haskalah or its potential adherents, rather he 
sought to challenge them and refute them.

Rich Wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Cause of formulation of TIDE 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/3/2000 7:48 AM


On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 08:11:24AM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: ... by the time (he) [RSRH] established (it) [TIDE], Haskala was the clearly
: defined enemy and he was better equipped to deal with it. If I am not mistaken
: TIDE was designed to counteract Haskala.

(RSRH- R SR Hirsch; TIDE - Torah im Derech Eretz, in Hirsch's sense of the 
expression.)

I disagree. I think the connection of Haskalah to TIDE is not that of 
action - reaction, but rather one of sharing a common cause. TIDE was a 
logical response to the new opportunities of ghetto-less life.

TIDE somewhat fits (albeit imperfectly) my understanding of Yahadus during the 
Golden Age of Spain. There too the world of DE was open to us, and many sought 
the opportunity of giving that chomer the Torah's tzurah (to paraphrase the 
S'ridei Eish). It would therefore seem that TIDE-like tendencies are a natural 
consequence of having both T and DE available.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim 
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

>>What I am asking is how come we have rabbis preaching, screaming, and 
instigating mass hysteria and social
pressure about the dangers of the internet, while the dangers of smoking have 
basically been ignored. Even
without a "gzeira," the rabonim would be able to instill enough social pressure 
so that at least those
who are not addicted to tobacco will be less likely to start smoking.>>

Maybe because the rabbis believe that the internet has the power to draw a 
generation of youngsters away from yiddishkeit and will affect their and their 
descendants' neshamos while smoking affects only the smoker (forget about 
second-hand smoke for the moment) and it is only physically.  The rabbonim are 
worried about the destruction of their communities and with good reason.

Micha Berger wrote:



> of course, for our sake. But from the moment we broke for lunch, R' Alpert
> would open a window, sit near it and smoke. And when we returned for shiur,
> the room stank. (I presume because of the price of good cigars vs the amount
> we pay rabbeim.)


Actually, the better a cigar (or pipe) tastes, the worse it's likely to
smell. And vice versa.



---sam

Me:
>             I think the connection of Haskalah to TIDE is not that of
> action - reaction, but rather one of sharing a common cause. TIDE was a
> logical response to the new opportunities of ghetto-less life.

RRW:
: I would guess that HM might be referring to the 19 letters of Ben Uziel which 
: seemsto be a "throwing down of the guantlet" to those seeking answers in the 
: haskalah

RSRH fought German Reform. To do this, he had to present O as a reasonable
alternative. Getting them to leave R without getting them to join O isn't
kiruv. RSRH's Orthodoxy was TIDE, so yes, he held that out as a better
choice for "Israel's Thinking Young Men and Women".

But that's no indication that such was TIDE's reason for being.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:08:17 +0200
> From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> Subject: Beit Yosef Wines
> 
> > Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:40:05 -0500
> > From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
> > Subject: Re: Bet Yosef Wine
> > 
> > Most wines are not diluted at all.
> > In california it is illegal to add water.
> > In NY it is not done.
> > Certainly no place adds up to 50%.
> 
> Do you have a source for this statement? I recall when I lived in 
> New Jersey hearing in the name of the Mashgiach for one of 
> America's largest Kosher wineries that if you added ANY water to 
> the wine (or grape juice for that matter), you could not say Borei Pri 
> HaGefen, because it was already diluted to the absolute limit.
> 
> - -- Carl
> 
Perhaps dillution has nothing to do with the percentage of actual  water 
added, but the amount added in relation to the amount needed to make it 
drinkable.

We see throughouth Shas that wine was always diluted and without this it 
was not drinkable.  I would imagine if that is because of the different 
growing /irrigation techniques that result in jucier grapes and 
winemaking techniques that result in less evaporation.

Eithere way I don't  think things would be diluted to the absolute 
limit.  People to put a drop of water into wine frequent before kiddush 
and always before returning  wine to a bottle.Since this is such a known 
practice I would be shocked if the supervising agencies would allow the 
wine to be diluted to the exact limit.

It is true that California law prhoibits diluting wine and still calling 
it wine., but that applies only to wine produced in CA.  I know Rashi 
make something call wine p;roduct which is diluted and thus has a much 
lower alchol percentage.

(that all begs the question of how any bracha could be made on that stuff 
as it is not even raui leachilat kelev)

Harry

Despite the cooling-off period, people are still finding time to sit in
judgment of whether Mendelssohn was frum or not. I am curious as to WHY you
find this to be a worthwhile endeavor.

You are free to read his works or to ignore them. Enough already! Please
either cease this conversation, or let's please shift the focus to the
practical results which might ensue if one side would ever concede to the
other.

Akiva Miller

"Remember, you are unique.
- Just like everyone else."



.

My email software strips the email addresses off of the postings.

Therefore I am issuing a reqeust for posts to be signed off thusly:

Rich Wolpoe 
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 08:26:12 EST
> From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> Subject: re: informing relatives of a death

<<R' Gershon Dubin wrote: <<< We learned Hilchos Aveilus in shiur some
> months ago, and without specific sources, or having seen either the G"H
> or the P"B, the conclusion was quite clear that there is no chiyuv to
> tell someone,  particularly if there are extenuating circumstances as
you
> describe.  What I would do with conflicting psokim, I am at a loss. >>>

<< Is this a situation where the word "psak" is relevant?>>
	
	I lost you here.  The conclusion came out lehalacha,  from learning
Yoreh Deah Hilchos Aveilus inside. It was not an off the cuff decision,
lema'aseh.  What I meant by conflicting psokim was in specifically the
lema'aseh case which was described.

<< But from my point of view, all these factors are secondary to the main
question, which is: "Would this person *want* to be informed? What will
his reaction be if he is told? What will his reaction be if the news is
hidden?">>

	Why is this the main question,  if the halacha is otherwise?

Gershon

> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:21:50 EST
> From: MIKE38CT@aol.com
> Subject: mixed vs. separate seating at weddings

<<Is it possible that we virtually always have separate seating at the
chuppah more for psychological comfort than for halachic reasons?>>

	I'm not sure there is any more of a halachic issue for chuppas as
opposed to dinners,  with the exception of the dancing issue,  which is
not specifically relevant to the seating (i.e., you could have mixed
seating with a mechitza for dancing.)

	That is not to say that there is not (or that there is!!) a halachic
issue.

	That said,  I think most people are more comfortable sitting "mixed"
around tables than on chairs in rows.  Also,  what difference  
(does/should)   it make whom you sit next to if you're going to be
absolutely silent during the chupa anyway?

Gershon

R. Richard_ Wolpoe writes
> Subject: Re: Smoking Ban 
> 
> There is a simple answer, although we may not agree with it.
> 
> wrt smoking, the Surgeon General has already alerted us.  IOW there are plenty 
> of outspoken critics of smoking.  Rabbonim would hardly {feel that they} add any
> weight to that side of the issue.
> 
> OTOH, there are few taking up the cudgesl against the Internet, so they feel the
> need to step into the breach. Bemokom she'ein ish...
> 
  Carl Sherer responds

> I don't buy that. Most people here have never heard of the Surgeon 
> General or his report, and Israel is a good twenty years behind the 
> US in anti-smoking. If Rav Elyashiv, Rav Scheinberg, Rav Wozner, 
> Rav Kanievsky and a few others got together tomorrow morning and 
> said that it's assur to smoke, I can guarantee you that you would 
> not be able to buy a cigarette in my neighborhood from then on out.
> 
I (again) strongly agree with Carl. I attend a shiur on halacha and medicine
for doctors. I have tried several times to get the rav to discuss smoking.
The answer I consistently get is that he will prohibit it in private but
will not discuss the issue in public.
Some oncologists have approach him saying that they could use a prohibition
from R. Eliashiv for education of their charedi clientele. We consistently
are told that a public prohibition will not be discussed.

Eli Turkel

Michael Feldstein asks about mixed seating at the huppah.

The Gemara (Kiddushin 81a), as explained by Rashi, describes attempts by
Abaye and Rava to separate men and women during a huppah or a derashah.

In the context of the wedding ceremony, R. David ha-Levi (Taz, Even
ha-`Ezer 65:2), in discussing the mitzvah of hakhnasat kallah, states
that men should escort the groom, rather than the bride, because the
bride is usually surrounded by women and one should not mix with them.
R. Yehiel Mikhel Epstein (`Arukh ha-Shulhan, Even ha-`Ezer 65:4) adds
that, if there are women also surrounding the groom, one should abstain
from escorting him as well.

The issue of mehitzah at a wedding ceremony is also addressed by the son
of the Hatam Sofer, R. Abraham Samuel Benjamin Sofer.  Responding to an
inquiry regarding the propriety of the "ancient custom" of holding the
wedding ceremony in the synagogue courtyard, given that men and women
may intermingle there, R. Sofer states (Ketav Sofer, Even ha-`Ezer, no.
47 ): "One should not seek nor should one check for blemishes among the
great ones of the world; rather, see how the people conduct themselves,
and no one has questioned this [practice]."  He distinguishes between
between the dinner, where people eat and drink and the yetzer ha-ra is
sholet, and the huppah, where this concern does not exist.

R. Hayyim David Halevi (Aseh Lekha Rav III, no. 40) rules that men and
women should be separated by a mehitzah during the wedding ceremony, but
sets forth an explanation why such separation is not observed: "But at
that time confusion and disorder reign, and it is extremely difficult to
enforce [separation], because everyone is pushing to greet the bride and
groom.  Similarly, [the ceremony] takes a short time, and there is no
possibility to erect mehitzot for that [brief] period alone.
Apparently, that is the reason that people are not scrupulous about
separation during the ceremony." 

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

>>>Additionaly, we must keep in mind that Rambam (Teshuvah 3:8) says that not only is one who denies the Torah Shebal Peh a Kofer, but so too one who
denies the authority of the Chachmei HaMesorah.<<<

The Rambam refers 'makchish magideha, k'Tzaddok u'Beisus' - specifically a denial of the authority of Chazal.  I have no idea what you mean by chachmei hamesorah, but the analogy of Mendelsohn to Tzaddok and Beisus is a bit of a halachic stretch, no?  Perhaps a better quote would be from Ikkarim 1:2 - "One who upholds Torah and believes its ikkarimm but is led astray upon philosphical examination or reading of the pesukim to arrive at a distorted view of an ikkar, or to deny that the Torah demands that ikkar be upheld, or who comes to believe an non-essential belief is an ikkar, or who believes that the miracles of the Torah are not to be understood k'pshutan and believes this is consistant with Torah-belief, ain zeh kofer, aval hu b'chlal chachmei yisrael v'chassideihem (!), af al pi she-hu toeh b'iyuno, v'hu choteih b'shogeg v'tzarich kapparah." 

(See also the Ra'avad in Teshuvah 3:7.)

Ok let's put our collective heads together on this.

When do we last recall Gedolim going full-force on public pronouncements - 
excpeting those situation wherein they were the only ones protesting?

IOW, given that gGdolim might prohibit dialgoue with non-Orhtodox or prohibit  
the Internet becasue those are the kinds of issues ONLY they will take up,therew
are no others to become advocates.

OTOH, how many gedolim signed petitions to free Soviet Jews, or against the UN 
vote on Zionism/Racism, etc.

How many gedolim have taken stands on drugs?  Alcohol?

How many gedolim joined in with Ralph Nader to disccus the issue of sakanah and 
the Corvair?

What seems to be advocated is that the gedolim shfit their paradigms and become 
social activists advocating certain agenda.  Somehow I don't think that is going
to happen.  Generally, gedolim have refrained from speaking out on issues UNLESS
they are the only ones who WILL speak out.

Now I am NOT advocating that this is the way it OUGHT to be.  I am merely (at 
least in this post) illustrating the way it is, and the way it has been.

Rich Wolpoe




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: smoking 

> 
> There is a simple answer, although we may not agree with it. 
> 
<snip>
 I have tried several times to get the rav to discuss smoking. The answer I 
consistently get is that he will prohibit it in private but will not discuss 
the issue in public.
Some oncologists have approach him saying that they could use a prohibition 
from R. Eliashiv for education of their charedi clientele. We consistently 
are told that a public prohibition will not be discussed.

Eli Turkel

On 3 Feb 00, at 12:05, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
 
> Maybe because the rabbis believe that the internet has the power to draw a 
> generation of youngsters away from yiddishkeit and will affect their and their 
> descendants' neshamos while smoking affects only the smoker (forget about 
> second-hand smoke for the moment) and it is only physically.  

I don't buy this either. If R"L a yungerman contracts lung cancer 
and dies and leaves over an almanah to raise 10 or 11 kids without 
any means of support (the only way many Kollel wives manage to 
work is because the husband comes home for lunch and stays 
with the kids until the wife or a babysitter can come in the late 
afternoon), how does that only affect the children physically? Do 
you suggest that a father does not have a spiritual hashpoa on his 
children as well? Ask a single mother R"L that question....

The rabbonim are 
> worried about the destruction of their communities and with good reason.

That's a separate issue, and I do see the point. But WADR to the 
Gdolei haDor, I do not understand why they (apparently) do not see 
smoking as an issue. The only conclusion I can reach is that they 
believe that banning smoking is a gzeira she'ain ha'tzibur yachol 
la'amod bo, and if that's what they think then WADR I think they 
underestimate their constituents.

Agav urcha, my older son is asthmatic, and when the time comes 
for him to go to Yeshiva Gdola IY"H, I cannot see us sending him, 
or him wanting to go, to any Yeshiva in which there is smoking in 
the Beis HaMedrash.

-- 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.

On 3 Feb 00, at 13:40, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> OTOH, how many gedolim signed petitions to free Soviet Jews, or against the UN 
> vote on Zionism/Racism, etc.

Irrelevant. The Gdolim were not going to decree that their 
constituents take political stands. Most of them try to keep out of 
politics. Rav Elyashiv does not tell people how to vote.

> How many gedolim have taken stands on drugs?  Alcohol?

Most drug and alcohol abusers do not abuse drugs and alcohol in 
the open. While there is no doubt in my mind that there are fruhm 
drug and alcohol abusers, the fact that they do not do so in the 
open gives the appearance that this is less of a problem for us.

> How many gedolim joined in with Ralph Nader to disccus the issue of sakanah and 
> the Corvair?

How many fruhm Jews bought one? The magnitude of the problem 
was nowhere near the magnitude of smoking in the Charedi 
community. Not to mention that the Gdolim would never collaborate 
with someone like Ralph Nader on a personal level. Er is nisht fun 
undzerer.

> What seems to be advocated is that the gedolim shfit their paradigms and become 
> social activists advocating certain agenda.  Somehow I don't think that is going
> to happen.  Generally, gedolim have refrained from speaking out on issues UNLESS
> they are the only ones who WILL speak out.

Who else is speaking out against fruhm Jews smoking? 

--- 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.

----- Original Message -----
From: Avodah <owner-avodah@aishdas.org>
To: <avodah-digest@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 6:28 PM

As the topic has come up, I would like to say two things.  First Rav
Chaim David HaLevy ZT"L has a few related Shu"t in his Aseh Lecha Rav.
The first in aprox. 1978 is against smoking (vol. II of Aseh Lecha
Rav).
As he says at the end of the article (which discusses the halachic
aspects of the issue (transliterated Hebrew):
"VeLachen Barur U'Fashut La'aniyut D'ati, Sheyesh Issur BeIshun,
Ve'Chovat Kol Adam HaRotzeh Lishmor Al Bri'uto, Kdei La'avod Et Elokav
Bechol Melo Kochotav, Le'Himana Mei'Ishune.
Ve'Shomeh Lanu Yishkone Betach".

 In a later psak (~1983) he forbids a son from purchasing cigarettes
for his father.  There are a few more related shu"t.

Second, I recently came across the following court case from the
states:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT NUMBER 505
PATRICIA HENLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
Case No. 995172

This is an appeal in a case where  a tobacco company was held
responsible for the addiction and cancer of a woman who started
smoking as a teenager.

The issue is smoking.  Here are the important (IMHO) passages:

"One, that it has been known by Philip Morris for decades that the
overwhelming majority of adult smokers first begin to smoke while in
their teenage years, and that the large majority of long-term and
lifetime customers of the cigarette manufacturers are those who have
become addicted to nicotine as teenagers. According to the weight of
the evidence produced at trial, if a person is not a smoker by age 18
or 19, that person is not likely ever to become a substantial
smoker...
...Five, that Philip Morris has affirmatively misled the American
public by advertising that there was genuine and legitimate
controversy in the scientific community on the subject of smoker
health, when in fact there was no such controversy....
....A 1969 document prepared by Philip Morris' Vice President for
Research and Development states that the first cigarette is "a noxious
experience" to the beginner"; that [t]o account for the fact that the
beginning smoker will tolerate the unpleasantness we must invoke a
psychosocial motive"; that the beginning smoker is telling the world
that "'I am no longer my mother's child'" and "'I am tough'"; and that
"the act of smoking remains a symbolic declaration of personal
identity" until such time as "the pharmacological effect [of nicotine]
takes over to sustain the habit" (Trial Exhibit 7-5).....
......The teenage years are also important because those are the years
during which most smokers begin to smoke, the years in which initial
brand selections are made, and the period in the life-cycle in which
conformity to peer-group norms is greatest...
....The jury likely found that, to the contrary, the research efforts
were not objectively designed, performed or pursued, and that the
public was not told what was known by, and became known to, Philip
Morris about the health consequences of cigarette smoking. The
evidence supported such findings. ....."

I could go on, but you can find it on the Net:
http://www.callaw.com/stories/ex0407.html

I recall hearing once that in many circles children, and especially
teenagers are allowed to smoke on Purim.  As Purim is coming up, and
based on the above information, I would highly recommend that this
issue be raised in Shul on the next couple of Shabbatot so that we
save the next generation from this harmful addiction.

Shoshana L. Boublil

In a message dated 2/3/00 11:15:40 AM US Central Standard Time, 
gil.student@citicorp.com writes:

<< Maybe because the rabbis believe that the internet has the power to draw a 
 generation of youngsters away from yiddishkeit and will affect their and 
their 
 descendants' neshamos while smoking affects only the smoker (forget about 
 second-hand smoke for the moment) and it is only physically.  The rabbonim 
are 
 worried about the destruction of their communities and with good reason. >>

Is there any reliable Talmudic precedent on the basis of which a rabbi might 
rule that smoking contravenes Torah? If so, how does one account for the 
couple of hundred years that Jews have used tobacco, and have lost their 
health doing so, without rabbinic prohibition? Why do we ask rabbis to rule 
on questions like this? What does halacha have to do with problems of this 
sort, including ultra-high-fat diets (i.e., anything sold in a Kosher deli 
circa 1950), poor exercise, too much coffee, not enough sleep, over-reliance 
on prescription medication, etc.? If don't allow cigarattes, on what theory 
do we all gribenes?

David Finch

In a message dated 2/3/00 1:41:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< Ok let's put our collective heads together on this.
 
 When do we last recall Gedolim going full-force on public pronouncements - 
 excpeting those situation wherein they were the only ones protesting?
  >>
Hmmmmmm.  Otoh we(or a sizable group) believe in daat torah in a very broad 
form, otoh we don't expect gdolim to make public pronouncements on the broad 
issues of life?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

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


[ 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         ]