Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 410

Friday, March 3 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:34:42 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Re: Learning schedule

On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:07:02 +0200 "Carl and Adina Sherer"
<sherer@actcom.co.il> writes:

<< IIRC MMG"H is the system of learning found in the Chok l'Yisroel
Chumashim. But what's RURT?>>

 	Gotcha!   Rampant Use of Roshei Teivos (Micha's coinage a few digests

Good Shabbos

Gershon Dubin

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:44:57 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Re: Avodah V4 #408

> I thought R. Tendler was an MD.  R. Michael Rosensweig and R. David Horowitz are
> two roshei yeshivah who have PhDs.  If you start looking at other faculty you 
> quickly find many more Rabbi Doctors.
Rav Tendler has a PhD in biology not an MD.
Story has it that he applied to several medical schools but was turned
down because he was Jewish so he went into biology instead.
He works closely with Dr. Rosner who has an MD.

Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:39:11 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Re: Avodah V4 #407

> Who at RIETS has a PHD, besides R' Tendler?
In my days, Rav Reichman and Rav Ginzburg had PhDs in math.
I have lost contact over the years.

Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:34:19 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Re: Avodah V4 #408

Subject: Jews

From this fridays Jerusalem Post:
from Zogby survey:

"By a wide margin, when compared to other ethnic groups Jews supported
euthenasia and were less likely to support notification if a daughter younger
than 18 sought an abortion. Jews also showed the lowest level of regular
attendance ar religious services"

Where did we go wrong?
"But if they (candidates) say they are for prayer in schools, for the
Ten commandments in public schools - and it might not be the Jewish
Ten Commandments, it might be the Protestant or Catholic versions - ..."

Pardon my ignorance but what are the other versions?
I thought everyone agreed on the text of the Bible.

Reminds me of a story I heard from Rabbi Feitman. He once gave a talk
in a catholic school about tehillim. Afterwards one of the nuns asked
that she was always bothered that each chapter ended with the phrase
"Hail Mary" (or something similar - I don't remember exactly) and
what do the Jews do about the proof. She was stunned to hear that it
doesn't appear in the Hebrew version!

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:39:25 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Re: Tephillah laMelech

On 3 Mar 00, at 8:26, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> I was always told, however, that the power needed to be one of life and
> death, and some people held that, given that abolition of the death
> penalty in the country, it was no longer appropriate.  Others held that
> powers of Royal Pardon (and possibly the in theory  right to reinstate
> the death penalty - although increasingly, given the powers of Europe,
> that may not be possible) was sufficient.

I thought that was the criterion for making a bracha on seeing a 
king (she'chalak mi'kvodo l'basar va'dam) and not for the tfilla 
leShloma shel malchus. FWIW, when Hussein was here a few 
years ago, the poskim said that anyone who saw him in person 
should make a bracha.

-- 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

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:39:15 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Re: Principles For Sale - Contact Shas

Now that I have hopefully calmed down a little since last night :-)....

On 2 Mar 00, at 18:57, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/2/00 4:24:10 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> << How do you justify the Law of Return if this is not a Jewish State? 
>  How do you explain giving Jews and only Jews an unfettered right 
>  to immigrate here without any quotas whatsoever, to decide to 
>  come at any time on a moment's notice? How do you justify all the 
>  tax breaks and other benefits that go with that right and only go to 
>  Jews? If it's not a Jewish State, and instead it's a Democracy, then 
>  we have to treat everyone equally - why should Jews be different? 
>  >>
> The issue isn't black or white. Israel must be a haven for Jews. To some 
> extent, its internal policies must reflect that it's a haven for Jews. It 
> must allow observant Jews to observe. Beyond that, Israel has a right to be 
> democratic.

I don't understand this at all. Either you discriminate in favor of 
Jews or you don't. You can't take a position somewhere on the 
slippery slope and try to hold your balance. At some point, Meir 
Kahane HY"D was right - there is an inherent conflict between 
being a Democracy and being a Jewish state and at some point 
you have to resolve that conflict in one way or the other. I'm not 
arguing for bringing back arba misos beis din - we couldn't do that 
before Mashiach comes (BBY"A) anyway, and hopefully by then 
we will all be tzadikim and not need punishments. But at some 
point along the way, I think being a democracy and being a Jewish 
state are irreconcilable, the Abarbanel and others who hold like him 

> I didn't say Gedolim don't make "honest" politicians. But today virtually all 
> Israeli political parties, right and left, carry out their dirty work through 
> politicians for whom honesty, in all its varied forms, isn't exactly a 
> priority. Same over here. I grew up in pre-Watergate America. I think most 
> American politicians are reasonably honest, some very much so, then as well 
> as now. But personal honesty isn't the issue. Institutional corruption that 
> tolerates personal dishonesty, and infects religion along with it, is the 
> problem. The inevitability and impact of institutional corruption is 
> unavoidable. Separation of church and state for the most part resolves this 
> dilemma.

I disagree. I don't think institutional corruption is unavoidable if one 
goes all out to maintain a high moral standard at all costs (as did 
each of the Gdolim I mentioned last night). Yes, at some point that 
may mean giving up money because of principle, and I think that if 
it proves the principle then it should be done. And if people want to 
be corrupt, they will be corrupt whether or not church and state are 

>  <<There's a tradition of free thought here too. There are secret ballots 
>  here too. And there are (I assume) fruhm Jews who disregard how 
>  the Gdolim tell them to vote. If there are less, it is only because the 
>  issues here are existential to someone who is fruhm.>> 
> That's *exactly* my point. Secular politics are vital to the survival of 
> Orthodoxy in Israel. That's why the Gedolim hold such secular influence. 
> That's why state and religion should be separated -- so that religious 
> observance would no longer be beholden to secular political gamesmanship.

Look, there is a school of thought here (and I heard it from a friend 
who heard it from a former Aguda MK) who said that the biggest 
mistake that the fruhm parties made was taking money from the 
State - something they did not do until 1977. I have heard frei 
people say that the only thing they have against fruhm people is 
that they are out for money. But were the same comments not 
made about Jews in Europe in the previous generations being 
money grubbers? Why is this different than the anti-Semitic claim 
that the Jews control (the media/politics/the banks - take your 
pick) that was often made in the States before political 
correctness. And suppose that you do separate church and state 
and go all the way like they do in the States - not just a freedom of 
religion clause, but also an establishment clause. Think of some of 
the American rules that would be logical absurdities in Israel:

1. You could not provide special education at state expense except 
in state public (i.e. non-religious) schools (to pick an issue that hits 

2. You could not have state funded or subsidized transportation to 
religious schools.

3. You could not ban work on Shabbos, which would mean that 
anyone who could not work on Shabbos would be placed at an 
automatic disadvantage in the job market (and if anything, the 
culture here now - at least in the business world - separates job 
from home much less than is the case in the States).

4. It is likely that most of the institutional cafeterias would become 
glatt treif within a short time - a serious issue for low salaried 
employees who are dependent on the free lunch that comes with 
their jobs.

I could go on. One of the things you learn quickly when you make 
aliya (or you don't last here) is that you can complain about it all 
you want, but the culture here is different, and saying that Israel 
should be like America and change itself to be like America is way 
too simplistic (anyone who has seen my stuff on tachlis is asked 
not to make comments from the peanut gallery at this point :-). 
There are ways in which I actually *do* think America does it better 
(a lot of ways in fact). But there are other areas where the 
American way just doesn't work here. This is one of them.

Unlike America, where fruhm people are a miniscule percentage, 
and where the percentage of children who go to parochial schools 
overall is quite low, in Israel some 30-35% of the country (at least) 
is one flavor or another of fruhm. The economic consequences of 
separating church and state, and redistributing all of the money 
that currently goes to religious institutions among secular ones 
(because they would never cut taxes far enough to match the 
savings) would result in most of the fruhm Jews in Israel being an 
economic underclass to a much greater extent than is the case 
today already. Not to mention that it would likely cause many of 
the weaker members to be chozer b'shaila as it is known here. Is 
that really something a fruhm Jew should support?

> I've been a lawyer for over 20 years, most of which were spent in large law 
> firms. 

You've beaten me but not by much. I was admitted to the New 
York bar in 1985, and until my current position, I too was in large 
law firms (except for four years in the government here). Of course 
large is very much a relative term here - a large firm here is just 
about any firm with over ten attorneys :-) 

I was a partner at McDermott, Will & Emery in Chicago, which, at the 
> time, was (incorrectly) thought by many to be echt-WASPy and vaguely 
> anti-semitic. 

I recall hearing stories like that in law school. I don't know whether 
the reputation was deserved at the time or not. I am reasonably 
sure it is not the case today (at least at that firm) because I know a 
fruhm partner in their New York corporate department.

> Things have changed rapidly for Jews in this environment. Jews hold very 
> powerful positions in many of the old-line firms that seemed quite 
> uncomfortable with us only ten years ago. 

Let's see what happens the next time there is an economic 
downturn.... The last 7-8 years have been a boom time for the 
American economy.... Of course, at this point, hopefully Jews are 
entrenched enough to weather any storm....

But I notice you say "Jews" and not fruhm Jews. Saying that Jews 
have made it is no longer a kuntz. A Jew who is not observant can 
fit into any situation with a goy unless the goy is overtly looking to 
discriminate which, you are correct, is not often the case today. 
Being a *fruhm* Jew is much more difficult. I recall a story I heard 
in the name of Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor and 
formerly (at least) fruhm) about his first day as a summer associate 
at Paul Weiss. (For the non-New Yorkers and non-lawyers, Paul 
Weiss is a large law firm in New York which in its early days was 
very much a *Jewish* firm. It was started by people who were 
barred by discrimination from the Cravath's, Sullivan's, Davis's and 
Simpson's of the world - the old line white shoes firms). It seems 
that Dershowitz announced on his first day of work that he would 
be departing early on Friday and not working on Shabbos because 
he was Orthodox. He was called into Simon Rifkind's office (the 
firm - at least then - was called Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & 
Garrison so Mr. Rifkind was a pretty important guy), and asked 
about the comments that had been attributed to him. He confirmed 
them. Rifkind looked at him and said something like, "son, we don't 
have room for that here." Dershowitz did not get an offer to return at 
the end of the summer.

I'm not sure it's as bad as all that today. But I can tell you that type 
of discrimination was rampant in many (but admittedly not all) firms 
when I left New York in 1991. And New York had more observant 
lawyers than anyplace else....

> Agonizing over one's personal experiences with discrimination in law firms, 
> brokerage houses, etc., is a waste of time. 

I stopped agonizing over it the night I got onto the El Al flight to 
Israel. That's not the point. Your words were "freedom of religion is 
sacrosanct" in America. My point is that it is not. Lip service is 
paid to freedom of religion in America because it is politically 
correct to do so. But it's not truly sacrosanct.

I've been on the receiving end of 
> it myself. If some guy gums up your career because he doesn't like Jews, 

I did not have - and none of my friends had - any career problems 
because we were Jewish. We had problems because we were 
fruhm. Big difference there. Discrimination is much more subtle and 
much more difficult to prove.

> walk into his office, shut the door, and tell him what you think. Use direct, 
> colorful langauge. Don't be subtle. Don't talk abstractly about "fairness": 
> instead, if necessary, explain your position more concretely, with lashon 
> hora of the worst type. Get in his face, and then lean forward. If you're too 
> dependent on him economically (or psychologically) to tell him off, well, 
> then you've got your corrective work cut out for you. Position yourself so 
> you can tell him off. And then do it -- or don't do it, but don't blame 
> America for his idiocy.

Much easier said than done. I don't recall ever NOT feeling 
dependent economically on an employer. And you and I both know 
that the rule in the business world is not to burn your bridges, 
which is what you do by telling someone off. I left my first law firm 
in 1988. In 1996, a firm in Tel Aviv was talking to me about joining 
them, and without clearing it with me, they called that first law firm 
and actually reached someone who had worked with me during my 
first two years there (1984-85). Fortunately, the reference was a 
good one (they davka reached one of the people I would have 
chosen to send them to). Just imagine that they had called the 
partner who had it in for me when I was there and I had told him 
off.... Telling people off is usually not realistic. You never know 
when you might need them.

>  <<Orthodox Jews who have to go out into the non-Jewish world to 
>  support themselves know that they are not free. They know that 
>  they would rather be home with their wives and children with a 
>  Gemara open on the table than sitting in some cheesy bar with a 
>  pitcher of beer and three half drunk Irishmen, one of whom happens 
>  to be the Boss. But they're too beholden to Buck to ever admit it.>>
> That's just not my experience or that of more observant Jews I know who also 
> work in the non-Jewish world. The more I see of the rest of the world 
> (including, alas, Israel), the freer I feel in America. 

You and I may live in different communities (and now I am not 
referring to where I currently live which is obviously vastly different 
from where you live, but to where I used to live, a community with 
which several people on this list are familiar). Most of the observant 
Jews that I know feel some discomfort with goyish waspy society. 
My wife used to claim it was because we grew up in Yeshivas with 
a respect for authority that is not de rigeur in the goyish world 
today. She may have something there. But while I had and have 
some goyish and non-observant friends with whom I feel 
comfortable, I have always felt more comfortable in the company of 
fruhm friends. Undzerer mentchen. Maybe it's that famous Jewish 
guilt complex....

Anyhow, I *like* 
> hanging around cheesy bars with pitchers of beer and half-drunk Irishmen, 
> Poles, Italians, Slovaks, and Slovenes. These guys make up most of my hockey 
> team. They know I won't play on Shabbos, and that I won't eat the pepperoni 
> pizza they order after we play a game. I don't think they care. We're a team; 
> we all give each other a break, just as most Americans do when you come right 
> down to it. And the beer is good.

I've been known to drink a beer or two myself from time to time. But 
if the business world is a team, it's a team on which individual 
statistics count for much more than they do in hockey. And not 
playing on Shabbos doesn't give you any penalty shots to catch up 
on those individual statistics. Unless of course you're the goalie....

-- 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

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:09:49 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Rav Ovadia Yosef and halachic status of the Golan

On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 10:19:00PM +0200, BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
:>: Indeed, Rav Ovadia Yosef does NOT accord any halachic status of Eretz
:>: Yisrael to the Golan. I believe this was also the shitta of Rav Goren.

: > Why not? It had such status in David haMelech's day.

On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 12:57:41AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: I think it was Suria. Not the same kdusha (kibbush yachid). 

Understood. And so I assumed, which is why I said David and not Yehushua.
Still, that is different than not have "*any* halachic status of Eretz
Yisrael" (emphasis added).

Is it an issue of only Bayis Sheini being possibly kudshah lisha'ata vikushah
li'asid lavo, and we didn't hold the Golan during Bayis Sheini?


Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Feb-00: Shelishi, Vayakhel
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 2a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:12:41 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: TIDE v. TuM -- RSRH on headcovering, teachers of secular subjects

On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 07:25:00PM -0500, Eli Clark wrote:
: Note that Hirsch employed non-Jewish teachers.  And that the person he
: asked to remove his hat was R. DZ Hoffman, who became the posek of
: German Jewry, not a merely a "frum secular teacher."

That's why I invited corrections. Thanks. I knew the version I heard was

Back to the point, it's still clear from the story (as REC writes) that
RSRH did employ non-Jewish teachers, contrary to RYGB's and my expectations
for a TIDE institution.

My guess is that there just wasn't enough yarei shamayim who could do the
job to staff a school.


Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Feb-00: Shelishi, Vayakhel
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 2a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:37:06 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Shas, the Media, Motzi shem Ra and Lashon Hara

I didn't think I'd have to write this in public as I wrote a number of
contributors to this discussion privately, and RYGB commented in public
already. However, since that didn't squash the debate...

Yes, a talmid chacham needs to be concerned not only with what he is, but
also with how he looks. Mar'is ayin is a real issur. But more relevent to
the case at hand, a talmid chacham isn't allowed outside in dirty garments.
There is a real issue of avoiding chillul Hashem even if you aren't doing
anything wrong.

However, unless you are actually going to wash those garments, or are informing
said T"Ch that the garments are dirty for him to do so, what's the point in
discussing it? I'm not even sure it's possible, since the observer is also
the one slinging the mud. Let me repeat that: I'm not sure it's possible for
Shas to avoid their appearance from being a chillul Hashem, as they have
little control over that appearance.

Cham got cursed for pointing out that the emperor had no clothes bilee to'eles.
If you really want to help, contact Shas and offer your services.

(In general, I find that a lot. We often spend more time and effort arguing
about a subject than we would expend on trying to resolve it.)

Writing about it here is pointless.

Aside from all that, the subject line stunk. (I changed it in this email.) It
appears to presume guilt that no one assumed in the body of their email.


Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Feb-00: Shelishi, Vayakhel
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 2a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:04:55 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Re: Avodah V4 #408

In a message dated 3/3/00 6:56:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

<< Also
 "But if they (candidates) say they are for prayer in schools, for the
 Ten commandments in public schools - and it might not be the Jewish
 Ten Commandments, it might be the Protestant or Catholic versions - ..."
 Pardon my ignorance but what are the other versions?
 I thought everyone agreed on the text of the Bible.
They break them up differently than we do! I can get the specifics if you 

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich(honorary graduate of our lady of perpetual health in Richmond Hill, 

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:08:07 -0500
From: gil.student@citicorp.com
Re: Tephillah laMelech

Chana Luntz wrote:

>>I was always told, however, that the power needed to be one of life and death,
and some people held that, given that abolition of the death penalty in the 
country, it was no longer appropriate.  Others held that powers of Royal Pardon 
(and possibly the in theory  right to reinstate the death penalty - although 
increasingly, given the powers of Europe, that may not be possible) was 

Do you know of a source for what you were told?

The Mishnah (Avos 3:1) says that the reason for the tefillah is that fear of the
malchus deters murders.  It has yet to be proven that the death penalty is more 
of a deterrent than life imprisonment.  So, even the power to imprison seems 
enough to merit the tefillah.

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:44:06 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Re[2]: Just what is Torah uMada

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Just what is Torah uMada 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate 
Date:    3/1/2000 11:51 PM

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:07:35 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<Here is what Torah UMada means to me:

1) When R. Moshe consults biologist of other scientists in order to 
better understand the mechanics of an issue, that is one case.  Torah and

psak peering into mada to understand what is going on.

===> accordgin to the shlah in maseechos Shvuos is this ok?

2) (this is also TIDE).  when my frum dentist gives me an antibiotic and 
I ask can I take this on tisha b'av; he immediately consults his rav and 
asks him a sh'eiloh.>>

	Neither of these,  IMHO,  have a thing to do with TuM.

===> accodring to torah only is a frum person ALLOWED to beocme a dentist? 

<<3) while being a professional or a scientist and being shomer mitzvos - 
as in the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists>>
	Do you mean that as a shomer mitzvos you are also a professional,  or a 
professional and also a shomer mitzvos,  or do you mean membership in said 
organization?  Again,  this is not about the interface between T and M, 
only their co-existence.  My impression of TuM was that it was 
specifically about the interface.

===> not necessarily TuM is studying Torah AND Madda and syntheisizing it 
in real life.  Just as a shochet synsthesizes halacha and anatomy  to know 
wher to shecht and a bodeik sysnthiesizes hlaahca and phsyiology to 
understand if a sircha is treif etc.

<<4) Seeing the Yad Hashem in the various aspects of the brio.  EG 
looking into a  forest and saying ma noeh ilan zeh (but not while 
learning Torah!)>>

	See after (2) 

<<5) Believing that IF Torah is indeed emes, then it should be 
independently verifiable by any objective investigator.  therefore there 
is a presumption of harmony between Torah and science>>

	What happens in the situation of an apparent disharmony?

===> simple we realize that we neither udnerstand the torah to the nth degree 
nor sicence? 

<< 6) Believing that Torah is strong enough to hold its own and that 
learning secular culture will not necessarily cause one to run away from 
Torah and to become Reform.>>

	For all people in all situations?  Or are there people/groups of people 
who are perhaps more susceptible to running away and becoming 
Reform and should therefore not be exposed to secular culture (on which, 
BTW,  you owe us a definition.)

===> disclaimer I have always maintainted that TuM is NOT for everybody, and all
I am saying is that Torah only should not think of itself as THE exclusive drech
<<7) We as a mamleches kohanim, have to be able to communicated and to 
influence the world for the sake of Tikkun Olam.>>

	This sounds like TuM,  but I question the priorities:  are we so secure 
in our own Torah and mitzvos, our bein adam lachaveiro,  etc. etc. that 
we are ready to take on the world?

===> we are taking on secular society in a HARMOPNIOSU way in a 
non-confrontational way. Can Sen. Lieberman handle himself? 

<< 8)That Gedolim NEED to be conversant in the entire spectrum of the 
universe to arrive at valid conclusions.>>

	How does this affect the curriculum for all of us?  Do we give all of 
our children massive exposure to "secular culture"  (see note above in 
(6)) in order to prepare them for Gadlus?  Might massive exposure to 
Torah only be better preparation for Gadlus?

===> TuM is for CERTAIN personality types etc. not for all chanoch 
lanaar al pi darko

	One final note:  please understand that this is not "lekanter";  as has 
been discussed on the matter privately,  I really cannot "put my finger" 
on a  satisfactory definition.

Gershon Dubin

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:44:08 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Re: Subject: Torah u Madda???

I don't get it.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Subject: Torah u Madda??? 

Thanks for showing us all why the Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshivos 
ban the Internet (and the need for moderating this list).

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:45:48 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Re: TIDE v. TuM - I Think I Got it

I would say that while Riets was/is more-or-less TuM but Bernard Revel Graudate 
school is not.

And to the extent that W-T pentrates JSS and IBC those schools are also not 
quite true TIDE for more TuM or the TIDE Berlin school as opose to TIDE 
Frankfort school

Truly I was NOT addressing the med school, law school etc.

Also realize that I attended YU 1971-1976 and again in 1981 (to finish 
incompletes) so my information might be dated of outdated.

Certainly Professors Feldblum, Regeur, Ziv, etc. were TuM but NOT TIDE.

RYBS was above the fray as mcuh as I can see it, but was open to W-T.

I specfcially asked R. Dr. Kanarfogel yersterday, was RYBS pro-W-T?
His answer to me was when it made sense he bought it and when it didn' he 
rejected it. He furtehr stated taht as PhD in U. of Berlin he could not exactly 
say he was not at least somewaht into that school.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: TIDE v. TuM - I Think I Got it 

Now, the reason why RRW is describing what he is calling TuM, 
and RGD and I keep saying it's TIDE, is because RRW is not 
describing YU (as he apparently thinks he is). He is describing 
RIETS, which is only one part of YU. RIETS is TIDE. But YU is not 
TIDE. Some of YU is TIDE, some of it is TuM, some of it is in 
between, and some of it (the law school, for example) is essentially 
secular. RRW is trying to fit the rest of YU into RIETS, but it 
doesn't fit, and that's what RGD and I keep pointing out.

Slapping bricks onto that firewall.....

-- Carl

Glossary of abbreviations: 
RRW - R. Richard Wolpoe
RGD - R. Gershon Dubin
RMB - R. Micha Berger
RYGB - R. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
TIDE - Torah Im Derech Eretz
TuM - Torah u'Mada
RIETS - Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan Theological Seminary 
YU - Yeshiva University
IMVHO - In my very humble opinion
RYBS - Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik zt"l 
RAL - Rav Aaron Lichtenstein shlita

Go to top.


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >