Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 388

Tuesday, February 22 2000

• Re[2]: Diyukim
• Re: Re[2]: besmirching frum sociopaths
• Re: Fascinating Digest from the Reb Shlomo List!
• Re: Marc Shapiro's agenda
• RE: 60 Minutes
• Re: Re[2]: besmirching frum sociopaths
• Negel Vasser, (was R. Shomo list)
• SE impressions
• Besmirching "frum" sociopaths
• Re: Lashon Hara L'Toeles (was re: SE/History)
• Eleanor Rigby
• Re: Besmirching "frum" sociopaths
• Re: melodies
• Re: Eleanor Rigby
• Re: Eleanor Rigby
• RE: 60 Minutes
• Re: Study of History
• Re: Study of History
• Re: Stirah in Artscroll siddurim
• Re: Study of History
• Re: diyukim

w/o seeing the machzor Vitri or the Rokeiach

her are some guesses:

Could Adir and Chazak be nouns instead of adjectives,

And then we have 2 mal'ochim one named Adir and one name Chazak and THEY are the
mashim'im kol?

And they may not be physical mal'ochim ,but rather kochos, the koach Adir and 
the koach Chozok are mashim'im kol?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Diyukim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/21/2000 6:53 PM


In a message dated 2/20/00 3:41:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:


>     The answer: 
>  the acronym av"c did not really mean "adir v'chazak", but rather 
>  "ofanim v'chayos", but was misinterpreted by the tzibbur.
>  It should have read:
>  
>  "Az b'kol ra'ash gadol, ofanim v'chayos mashmi'im kol,
>  misnas'im l'umas s'rafim, l'umasam m'shab'chim v'omrim." 
>  
>  (He emphasizes that he is not suggesting reverting back to this 
>  nusach -- it's too late, "adir v'chazak" has become the accepted 
>  nussach.)

Adir Vechazak is brought in the Machzor Vitri and it's explanation is found 
in the Rokeiach.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/22/00 9:02:20 AM US Central Standard Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

<< I don't want to defend "fruhm" sociopaths but....
 
 Have you ever ordered a double burger with an extra large order of 
 french fries, chocolate mousse for dessert and a diet coke? 
  >>

Sociopathic part is the *diet* coke. A double kosher burger is about 900 
calories. The extra large order of french fries (cooked in vegetable oil) is 
another 800 calories. Chocolate mousse (kosher, without milk or butter) is 
300 calories. A sociopath worries about saving another 100 calories by making 
his coke "diet." A normal guy wouldn't worry about it and order a regular 
coke. 

David Finch

> not getting up in
>  > the morning without washing negl wassr. accordingly
>  > always had the basin underneath the bed.

However the water for Negel Vasser should not be under the bed.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On 21 Feb 00, at 15:42, Harry Maryles wrote:

> In any case I belive you are as intellectully honest
> as you say you are and, again, please do not be
> insulted by my previous postings. 
> 
> Once again I ask you to stay on Avodah and contribute
> to it's postings.

I know it's not netiquette, but I second RHM's request.

-- 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

--- Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> > Last night on the CBS program sixty Minutes there
> was
> > a segment about the Israeli "war" between Charedim
> and
> > Chilonim. The hate that secular society has for
> > religious society is enormous.
> 
> The hate a *small* segment of secular society has
> for religious society is
> enormous.
> 
> and since that segment controls the press they make
> it appear to be greater
> than it really is.
> 
> Akiva

How small is small?  And, how do you know that it is
"small"?

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

On 22 Feb 00, at 10:35, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/22/00 9:02:20 AM US Central Standard Time, 
> cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> 
> << I don't want to defend "fruhm" sociopaths but....
> 
>  Have you ever ordered a double burger with an extra large order of
>  french fries, chocolate mousse for dessert and a diet coke? 
>   >>
> 
> Sociopathic part is the *diet* coke. A double kosher burger is about
> 900 calories. The extra large order of french fries (cooked in
> vegetable oil) is another 800 calories. Chocolate mousse (kosher,
> without milk or butter) is 300 calories. A sociopath worries about
> saving another 100 calories by making his coke "diet." A normal guy
> wouldn't worry about it and order a regular coke. 

Actually, I thought I was describing something that appeared a wee 
bit hypocritical, so we could all see that we all do it sometimes, 
although hopefully not in as extreme a fashion as a "fruhm" 
sociopath.

-- 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.

Q: Isn't negel vasser ok under the bed if it's covered?

Fwiw, we were told in the Ner Yisroel dorm that  - legabei negel vasser - the 
Rosh Yeshiva held that the entire "house" was considered daldel amos for this 
purpose and that we could therefore proceed to the bathroom w/o violating the 
principle of walking daled amos before negel vasser.  This flexiblity re: 
considering the entire home is considered daled amos might have similarly been 
understood for tzitzis, kissuy rosh etc. by others. 

And fwiw, I consider this a typical "Litvisher" approach that saw certain 
principles as not being taken literally; that the daled amos -  while a valid 
principle - was not meant to be taken literally, rather idiomatically.



Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Fascinating Digest from the Reb Shlomo List! 

> not getting up in
>  > the morning without washing negl wassr. accordingly 
>  > always had the basin underneath the bed.

However the water for Negel Vasser should not be under the bed.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:17:16 +0200
> From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> Subject: Re: SE impressions

<<And while I have your attention, I would love to see the paper that was
rejected by the OF conference :-)>>

	So would I.  It will probably be posted here together with RYGB's paper
on the SE that we commissioned some time back.   :-)>

Gershon

> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:53:06 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re[2]: besmirching frum sociopaths 
 
<<Now here was a guy - convicted of crimes and sentensed to 10 years in
prison -insisting that it was "ossur" to even trim his beard, and he
fought  the state of New York on this matter.>>

	You are assuming that his refusal to trim his beard was really "frum"
i.e. that it stems from a heartfelt committment to this mitzvah,  which
is what is causing your dissonance.

	.  I long ago heard a shiur wherein the magid shiur made the statement
that "once upon a time, a religious Jew was known as an "ehrlicher"  Yid.
 Now he is "frum",  and that is all the difference"
	
	This criminal's refusal to trim his beard may have been frum,  but
ehrlich it's not.

Gershon

This is partly why I recommend historical fiction.  Then you can tell the story 
letoelles w/o naming names.

The avlah - afaik - w/ loshon horo is that it is degrading to an indiviudal.  
Remove that individual and then telling the story letoeles has merit.

Another benefit of fiction, is that it allows one to focus upon aspects of 
indiviudal w/o being accused of missing that person's totallity.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Lashon Hara L'Toeles (was re: SE/History) 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/21/2000 5:27 PM


Joelirich@aol.com writes:

> Interesting is whether a statement which will have toelet for a significant 
> public but not all would be over Lashon Hara.

I think not. In Clal 10 S'if 2 of Hilchos Lashon Hara, the Chafetz 
Chaim gives a list of seven conditions under which it is permitted to 
say Lashon Hara. One of them (number 5) is that he should do so 
l'toeles. But condition number 6 says, "Im hoo yachol lesabev es 
ha'toeles ha'zos gufa b'eitza acheres, shelo yitztarech le'saper es 
inyan ha'lashon hara alav azai b'chol gavnei assur le'saper." It seems 
to me that if there are people who are going to hear the 
Lashon Hara as a result of your "publicizing it" who are not going to 
have a toeles, then by definition, you had better find another way 
(which includes those people not finding out) to accomplish that 
toeles. See also Clal 10 S'if 14 and in the Beer Mayim Chaim there 
s"k 11.

-- 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

> I most certainly respect the SE. He was a Gadol. And I
> do not say that he was a lonely and bitter man.  On
> the contrary.  I would guess that most of the time he
> was probably a very positive individual who most
> certainly contributed enormously to Klal Israel. I was
> simply pointing out a mood that seemed to emanate from
> those letters .  My point was that this was THE
> IMPRESSION ONE GETS if his only source of information
> was the letters published in the TuM journal article.

And if he was indeed a lonely man all the time (not only when he was
writing letters), and just not upbeat at all, and if he were in fact (as
he may have been) chronically critical of most of what the Orthodox world
was pushing? I am not sure that these traits are vices, and some of them
may even be virtues.

Fwiw the convict quoted teshuvos to back his position.  he asserted it was a 
violation of his religious rights.  A rav was summoned as an "expert" witness to
contradict him.  The system was not picking on him, all beards had to conform to
a certain length for security purposes...

I don't know what was in hist heart, only what he said. 

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Besmirching "frum" sociopaths 


<<Now here was a guy - convicted of crimes and sentensed to 10 years in 
prison -insisting that it was "ossur" to even trim his beard, and he 
fought  the state of New York on this matter.>>

	You are assuming that his refusal to trim his beard was really "frum" 
i.e. that it stems from a heartfelt committment to this mitzvah,  which 
is what is causing your dissonance.

	.  I long ago heard a shiur wherein the magid shiur made the statement 
that "once upon a time, a religious Jew was known as an "ehrlicher"  Yid.
 Now he is "frum",  and that is all the difference"
	
	This criminal's refusal to trim his beard may have been frum,  but 
ehrlich it's not.

Gershon

From what I heard 2nd hand

One chazzan at KAJ ends his brochos in Chazoras haShatz on a high note DAVKA to 
cause the people to say amen AFTER his siyyum and not with it.

(admittedly the problem with omitting the amen before Modim is not addressed by 
this techinque)

Another solution would be to have a "chorus" say amen davka after the brocho is 
completed therby "nudging" the kehilla away from the habit of saying amen with 
the siyyum instead of following it.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

My pet peeve along these lines is the tune often used for "hamachazir 
sh'chinaso l'tziyon", which ends on a high note, inducing everyone to 
respond with "modim anachnu lach", and they omit the "amen" entirely. (If 
you don't know what I'm talking about, just pay more attention tomorrow 
morning, and you'll see what I mean.)

Almost every other bracha of the Shemoneh Esray ends on a low note, 
prompting the "amen", but this one is different. If I have not explained 
this well, perhaps someone more musically inclined that I can explain the 
phenomenon that I'm describing.

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________ 
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit: 
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

It is arguable that his criticism of Orhtodoxy might very well have come from 
the "mussar" movment hashkofo rather than the "modern" hashkofo.

Certainly R. Yisroel Salanter felt a need to bring about some introspection 
within frum circles.  The SE probably felt that same need to a higher level givn
the impending holocast - and its afermath.

I once heard besheim the Gra - sources are appreciated if avaliable - that he 
condmemed the maskilim of his generation.  Then some of his talmidim conquered 
how kind they wer, what great middos they had, adn the Gra said davka that's why
they are so dangerous, they are so nice and menschlich...

IOW-  as I see it - the haksala got a foothold because the "frum" world davka 
was "rough around the edges"; they were more refined.

R. Yisroel Salanter addressed this lack of refinement. The SE took it further. 
It remains a question whether he did so from a "mussar" based machshovo or a 
"modern" based machshovo.  I suspect zeh v'zeh goreim.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com






______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


> I most certainly respect the SE. He was a Gadol. And I 
> do not say that he was a lonely and bitter man.  On
> the contrary.  I would guess that most of the time he 
> was probably a very positive individual who most
> certainly contributed enormously to Klal Israel. I was 
> simply pointing out a mood that seemed to emanate from 
> those letters .  My point was that this was THE
> IMPRESSION ONE GETS if his only source of information 
> was the letters published in the TuM journal article.

And if he was indeed a lonely man all the time (not only when he was 
writing letters), and just not upbeat at all, and if he were in fact (as 
he may have been) chronically critical of most of what the Orthodox world 
was pushing? I am not sure that these traits are vices, and some of them 
may even be virtues.

In a message dated 2/22/00 10:55:36 AM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< It is arguable that his criticism of Orhtodoxy might very well have come 
from 
 the "mussar" movment hashkofo rather than the "modern" hashkofo.
 
 Certainly R. Yisroel Salanter felt a need to bring about some introspection 
 within frum circles.  The SE probably felt that same need to a higher level 
givn
 the impending holocast - and its afermath. >>

I'm lost. Did R'Salanter leave his face by the door?

David Finch

>
> How small is small?

If we assume that ALL meretz and shinui members HATE charedim, then 10% or
so of the population. And since I doubt that ALL of their voters HATE
charedim, the number is probably smaller.

There are more who may not like all aspects of the charedi society and it's
relationship with the chiloni society, but they don't HATE charedim...

And there are probably MORE Israelis who hate the Likud (or who hate Labor)
than Israelis who hate charedim...

Akiva

(In Israel 18 years now...)


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

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

RChaim Wasserman wrote: <<
So, should history be shunned and not studied. Certainly not. It should be
read and studied with the understanding that history must be read with the
clear understanding of the bias and agenda of the writer. And there are
scores of examples that I can cite, but not for now.
>>

Let's not set up the question in monochromatic black and white.
I don't think anybody is claiming that history should be shunned.
(Although the prominent "scholar" Henry Ford once declared
that "history is bunk".)

General history should clearly be as truthful as possible.
The problem of l'shon hara exists chiefly in the area of
personal  biography.  Even there, one person's l'shon hara may be
another person's fascinating and  positive anecdote.
I recently read "My Uncle the Netziv" and appreciated the presentation
of the maskilim as a non-monolithic group, some of whom were even
shomrei torah u-mitzvos and ma'aritzei talmidei chachamim.
I personally found impressive the Netziv's ability to conduct a dialogue
with some of the more moderate maskilim, without compromising any
of his own principles.  I can understand how the Lakewood community
could disagree with me and regard these stories as unflattering.  (By the
way, we should not overlook the possibility that the Torah T'mima's
presentation may itself have been a bit tendentious and have overstated
certain aspects of the Netziv's conduct.  The Torah T'mima left
Volozhin, against the Netziv's express wishes, to become the
manager of a bank.  He himself may have had a TIDE agenda to push.)

But I think we can all agree that where there is a consensus that certain
information is unflattering or disgraceful for the person in question, or
where the deceased clearly would not have wanted the information
published, then we can, as RYGB says, make omissions in the historical
reporting to avoid l'shon hara.   As important as the ideal of Truth surely
is, it is not absolute.

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

In a message dated 2/22/00 11:12:15 AM US Central Standard Time, 
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:

<< But I think we can all agree that where there is a consensus that certain
 information is unflattering or disgraceful for the person in question, or
 where the deceased clearly would not have wanted the information
 published, then we can, as RYGB says, make omissions in the historical
 reporting to avoid l'shon hara.   As important as the ideal of Truth surely
 is, it is not absolute.
  >>

I wish I could agree with this, but I can't. The ideal of truth -- truth with 
a novelist's eye, gut truth, truth as HaShem has given us the power to see 
the truth, i.e., real emes -- is absolute. I'm been reading up on LH over the 
past couple of days, and have yet to see anything in the doctrine that would 
bar a serious historian or biographer from making a complete portrait by 
including superficially unpleasant details about his subject. 

David Finch

I believe RCMS and RRW are correct.  The instructions for "Breech Shmeh"
are identical in all Artscroll english (nushach ashkenaz) siddurim.

~ Aryeh
=============================================
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:58:03 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Re: Stirah in Artscroll siddurim

On 22 Feb 00, at 9:37, TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> I feel a little wierd defending Artscroll, but it is possible that the
> two Siddurim were edited for diferent groups. For example, the RCA
> Siddur is an Artscroll Siddur, but is edited by RCA people, so it may
> contain different Minhagim than one of the standard Artscroll
> Siddurim. I assume that there are a few different Siddurim out there
> published by Artscroll that are edited for different audiences, hence
> the different minhagim.

Huh? I thought the only difference between the RCA Siddur and the 
standard Nussach Ashkenaz Artscroll was the part that comes 
after Y'koom Purkan on Shabbos (tfilla le'shlom hamedina and IIRC 
mi sheberach for the IDF). In fact, IIRC, the page numbers are even 
the same with those pages numbered 580a and 580b (or whatever 
the page number is).

- -- Carl

On 22 Feb 00, at 12:19, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/22/00 11:12:15 AM US Central Standard Time,
> shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:
> 
> << But I think we can all agree that where there is a consensus that
> certain
>  information is unflattering or disgraceful for the person in
>  question, or where the deceased clearly would not have wanted the
>  information published, then we can, as RYGB says, make omissions in
>  the historical reporting to avoid l'shon hara.   As important as the
>  ideal of Truth surely is, it is not absolute.
>   >>
> 
> I wish I could agree with this, but I can't. The ideal of truth --
> truth with a novelist's eye, gut truth, truth as HaShem has given us
> the power to see the truth, i.e., real emes -- is absolute. I'm been
> reading up on LH over the past couple of days, and have yet to see
> anything in the doctrine that would bar a serious historian or
> biographer from making a complete portrait by including superficially
> unpleasant details about his subject. 

Huh? See Chafetz Chaim Clal 1 S'if 1 (Lashon Hara includes the 
"truth") and Clal 10 (which describes the - very limited - 
circumstances under which one may speak Lashon Hara). Also 
see Clal 6 S'if 2 (I don't have the sefer with me) (which says that 
even *hearing* lashon hara may be an aveira), and subsequent 
paragraphs of Clal 6(?) which state that even if one hears Lashon 
Hara, in most circumstances he is only allowed to be choshesh for 
it and not to accept it as truth.

Oy, RYGB, time to start a Chafetz Chaim shiur!

-- 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.

Shlomo Godick <shlomog@mehish.co.il> wrote in v4n369:
: Another observation: the phrase "v'hisgadalti v'hiskadashti"  in 
: Yehezkel is not in the past tense, but in the future tense. 
: The vav is a vav hipuch and the two words are pronounced
: mil'ra.   So "yisgadel v'yiskadesh" is a *very* close paraphrase
: -- more like a third person echo of the first person phrase in 
: Yehezkel.

Close, but not identical. You assume that "amar" and "vayomer" mean the
same thing. I would not assume lashon hakodesh has such redundancies. I
therefore think "yisgadeil" and "hisgadilti" have some subtle difference
in meaning. More importantly in terms of the connection between the two,
Yechezkeil and Kaddish both refer to the same messianic fulfillment.

Genesius understands the vav hahipuch to be a misnomer, and that "vayomer"
is the past imperfect: ie "he was saying". The implication of vayomer is
that it was over a period of time. Important, as it is grammatical support
for the co-origin of Torah sheba'al peh.

I was told that Teimani masorah also makes a distinction. They believe that
the tense of the text was written from the perspective of the characters in
the naarative, not from the reader's perspective. So, "amar" means "he had
already said", while "vayomer" is "after that, he said". Which explains the
use of the vav for both hifuch and chibur. You are saying that it is only asid
(or avar) from the perspective of the previous -- an attachment of sorts.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17

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


[ 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         ]