Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 460

Wednesday, March 22 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:28:00 -0500
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@hugheshubbard.com>
Subject:
Shalom u-lehitra'ot ba-Aretz


To the list:

After an association with this list dating back to 1998 (in its incarnation
as "Bais Tefila"), I am unsubscribing and bidding farewell to one and all.

The primary impetus for my departure from Avodah is my impending aliyah,
which has imposed upon me severe time pressures.  Although we are not
leaving until May, the hekhsher mitzvah involves a vast number of tasks
that, coupled with the continuing responsibilities associated with
employment, leaves little time for e-mail lists.  The secondary factor, one
I have noted before, is the degeneration of the list from what RYGB
originally envisioned as "high level Torah discussion" to chat.  While there
are still some occasional flashes of quality, the predominance of chat has
hastened my decision to unsubscribe.

But I want to publicly thank RYGB and Micha Berger for their efforts in the
harbatzat Torah of managing the list.  And I wish to be makir tov to them
and all of the listmembers, past and present, from whom I have had the
privilege to learn Torah, with whom I have had the pleasure to debate Torah,
and who joined in creating an intense and challenging atmosphere for
discussing and analyzing issues of Halakhah, hashkafah and avodat ha-Shem.

We know that "Ein Torah ke-Torat Eretz Yisrael."  Therefore, I hope that
many of you who have not yet made aliyah will find the motivation and
opportunity to do so, so that the collective yediat ha-Torah and ahavat
ha-Torah represented by this list will be elevated to the status of Torat
Eretz Yisrael.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:18:16 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re[2]: How can we condemn the church if we do not live up


This cannot be.

The truth is that the Nipponese - as the they were then known - converted to 
become Japanese so that they could be indistinguishable from the powerful Japs 
that were already running the world.

-Wally Cleaver



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: How can we condemn the church if we do not live up  
 

That's what happens when you ask an academic a simple question. You get a 
convoluted, superficially convincing, but ultimately nonsensical answer. 

The truth: The Japanese hated the Chinese. But there was something the 
Japanese couldn't understand: In every city of the world, the Jews quietly 
flocked to visit the Chinese at dinner time. In some cities, particularly 
Queens, Miami, Detroit, and Cleveland, Chinese restaurants had as many Jewish 
customers as Asian ones -- but few other ethnic groups would dare invade such 
precincts. Some Chinese offered a special dish called the "Early Bird," 
served at the odd hour of 4:00 p.m., and *only* Jews (particularly the older 
and thus wiser ones, held in great esteem under both Chinese and Japanese 
tradition) would show up.

*That's* why the Japanese feared the Jews: they couldn't understand the 
strange connection between the Jews and the Chinese, and were afraid that if 
they angered the Jews, the Chinese would rise up and rally to the Jews' aid.

Eddie Haskell


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:41:47 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Thoreau and Cleaver (was Takanos Redux)


> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:36:21 EST
> From: DFinchPC@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Takanos Redux
> 
> In a message dated 3/22/00 9:28:37 AM US Central Standard Time, 
> gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> 
> << My point is that not being aware of the fine points of Thoreau's
>  philosophy is not how the Torah defines dumb.  The Torah's definition
>  should be fine for us. >>
> 
> No, Torah doesn't require us to know anything about Thoreau. But Torah
> also doesn't permit us defiantly to equate Thoreau with Eldridge
> Cleaver on grounds that a Goy is Goy. Torah doesn't consider such
> sentiments to be particularly smart -- or particularly halachic,
> either. Torah permits us to turn our attention to some subjects (i.e.,
> the study of the wonders of HaShem) in lieu of other subjects. It does
> not, however, permit us to make embarrassingly uninformed
> pronouncements on subjects about which we've chosen to remain
> ignorant, on the theory that nothing a Jew says about the Goyishe Velt
> can be held against him.

Where does Torah say these things? Where does Torah say that it 
matters whether the originally posted statement ("if you're not part 
of the solution, you're part of the problem") was made by Eldridge 
Cleaver, Henry Thoreau or the Beav?

--- 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


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:41:49 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Eleanor Roosevelt (was How Can We Condemn Etc.)


> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:06:59 EST
> From: DFinchPC@aol.com
> Subject: Re: how can we condemn etc.
> 
> In a message dated 3/21/00 4:05:38 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> 
> << 
>  This is a complete and total shock to me. I have
>  always believed that Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the
>  most altruistic people in American history. And I
>  thought that there was virtually universal acceptance
>  of that view. Do you have any proof of this
>  "anti-Jewish invective"? >>
> 
> It has been discussed in a number of her more serious biographies,
> particularly two recent ones that quote at length from her letters to
> friends. Of course, the consensus on the Avodah line is that one
> shouldn't quote from such letters if they prove embarrassing. 

Actually AFAIK CDRG only applies to letters written by Jews, and 
the laws of Lashon Hara only apply to speaking about a Jew who is 
oseh ma'aseh amcha (although we are generally required to be dan 
le'kaf zchus regarding whether a Jew is an oseh ma'aseh amcha).

-- 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


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:41:50 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Diyyuk Redux


> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:19:13 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re[2]: Diyyuk Redux 

> 3) when German kehillos were overrun by non-Germans, they generally
> ousted the old German Minhagim evne tho' keeping the name and charter
> of the shul the same... IOW it was a big deal for a german Kehillo to
> change a minhag but not for the non-Germans who superceded them...

I can vouch for this one. In October I davened in the West End Shul 
in Frankfurt, which is still in the building that has housed it for 
several hundred years. The shul has been overrun by Polish and 
Russian immigrants, and now davens Nusach Sfard.

-- 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


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:41:51 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
How Can We Etc.


> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:30:08 PST
> From: "aviva fee" <aviva613@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: How can we condemn the church if we do not live up to at
> least the same standard
> 
> Carl:
> 
> We are on different wavelengths.

Well, at least we agree on something....

> You repeatedly condewmen the Pope for doing nothing, while stating
> that the Jews are to busy with their own causes to do anything.
> 
> Sort of like the guy who walks into a book store and says: I want a
> book on chutzpah and I want you to pay for it.

No. As I (and others now that I wasn't first on the draw all day) have 
said repeatedly, there is a difference between one Pope who has a 
billion Catholics hanging on his every word, and the Jewish people 
who have no such spokesman. There is a difference between a 
church of a billion people, that will always have someone to care for 
its needs if it tends to other matters, and a group that has no more 
than ten million Orthodox adherents today (and maybe less) whose 
interests will not be cared for by others.

> >>I am appalled at people like you and Finch who are willing to
> defend the virulently anti-Semitic Pope Pius. What a golus
> mentality!
> 
> I am not defending him, chalila, I am simply trying to understand why
> we ask him to do things we donít do, like support other causes.

Let's at least be honest. You're playing devil's advocate/defending 
him for his (and now I refer to the institution and not to John Paul II, 
whose individual record is much better than the institution's) 
inaction and worse during the holocaust.

> >>
> What wealth? We don't have any wealth to share! What are you
> suggesting? That I tell my neighbor who can't put a chicken on the
> table for Shabbos that I'm too busy protesting the treatment of women
> in Afghanistan to make sure his kids have something to eat? Whom have
> we ever schnorred from who is not a Jew except for asking the leaders
> in the countries to which we have been exiled to protect us just as
> they do their own citizenry? <<
> 
> Fine.  You can tyna aniyei ircha kodmim all you want.  But donít
> expect the nations in the golus to help out if you use that as your
> mantra.  That was my point.

But the Torah TELLS me that aniyei ircha kodmim, and as long as 
the Torah tells me that, I could care less what the nations of the 
galus think. 

> >>We take care of our own first. Then we can worry about others.
> 
> Funny, I think Pope Pius said the same thing.  I am the father of a
> billion Catholics.  Way too busy to help some Jews.

No. Pius never said that. He said, "I could care less about helping 
some Jews," and in many instances actually encouraged what was 
happening.

-- 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


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:41:51 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Golus Mentality


> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:50:35 -0500
> From: "Allen Baruch" <Abaruch@SINAI-BALT.COM>
> Subject: Golus mentality
> 
> The term "golus mentality" has been thrown around quite a bit lately.
> Mostly, it seems, as in "Who has it worse". As, b'avonoseinu harabim,
> Moshiach has not yet arrived I'd assume that there *is* a golus
> mentality that is right and proper. Perhaps Sherer, Atwood, Finch etc
> could explain what they mean?

I don't know what the others meant by the term, but what I meant 
by it was the following:

1. Doing things (or not doing things) out of concern for what the 
goyim will think.

2. Acting (or omitting to act) because it is not in the best interests 
of "humanity" even though it might be in the best interests of Jews.

3. Acting (or omitting to act) in ways that do not reflect (or that 
reflect a lack of concern for) the best interests of the Jewish 
people. 

4. Pandering to the Goyim generally (see RGD's post entitled, 
"Pope's Visit - Barf Alert").

-- 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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:50:02 +0000
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
Subject:
Re: Moshe Rabbeinu


In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>And the situation was unique in another way -- the Kohanim were geirim. I
>wonder what the din of a woman would be who is neither a gerushah, a nisu'ah
>nor a besulah, nor was bo'el anyone other than the kohein who is the husband-
>to-be.

Well this last case of course we have - take the case of a woman who was
raped or seduced by the cohen that then wants to marry her - in that
case she is neither a gerusha, nesuah nor besulah nor was bo'el anyone
other than the kohen who is the husband to be.

the rule is that, for a cohen gadol, he may not marry her, but if he
does, he is not forced to divorce her (Yevamos 59b, hilchos isurei biah
perek 17 halacha 16.  However that is not the case for a cohen hediyot
(as can be seen from the language of the Rambam there - where he states
that the cohen gadol is not permitted to marry her even if she was
forced/seduced prior to him being elevated to the status of cohen gadol,
so long as the marriage did not take place before his elevation).

>
>- -mi
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:57:29 -0500
From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
Subject:
Re: Takanos Redux


In Avodah 4#453, DFinch replied:
> ...especially since we like to blame the
world at large (instead of, Heaven forbid,
ourselves) for everything unpleasant that
happens to us? <
Pray tell, who would that "we" be?  I don't recall any member
of this chevra positing that, e.g., the Bais haMikdosh has
not yet been rebuilt because of the actions, or lack thereof,
of *non*-Jews; or, more to the point of recent discussion,
that HKBH is not behind the history of times both recent and
ancient, even though the players were human beings named
Roosevelt, Pacelli, etc.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:58:03 -0500
From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
Subject:
Re: Diyyuk Redux


In Avodah 4#453, Sam replied:
> R' Poppers answer was good for weekdays,
but didn't help me with Shabbat. <
As I wrote to you and RWolpoe privately on 17Mar, "The
reason only applied to weekday shacharis, probably because
the edict was only enforced at that time (i.e the guards who
left [before the minyonim 'snuck in' another k'dushah] never
came back for Minchah :-)."  Perhaps you didn't understand
the implication: we should _not_ be saying these verses out loud
on the days (including Shabbos) mentioned by Richard in
his original post.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 18:22:04 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re: Thoreau and Cleaver (was Takanos Redux)


Midvar sheker tirchak

Chosamaso shel HKBH Emes

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

Where does Torah say these things? Where does Torah say that it 
matters whether the originally posted statement ("if you're not part 
of the solution, you're part of the problem") was made by Eldridge 
Cleaver, Henry Thoreau or the Beav?

--- 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


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:01:08 +1100
From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject:
Hatzola


 richard_wolpoe wrote:
Subject: Re: Takanos Redux

>...If I choose to volunteer for the chevra kadishah, it does not mean I oppose
>hatzala because if is after all bad for business!  <smile>

Our Melbourne Hatzolo has a number of volunteers who also volunteer
for the Chevra Kadisha - often eliciting the query from the
patient: "Whom are you representing...?"

And  as one of these "double-serving letzim" in the group says:
"We always get them - one way or another!".

Biz 120...

SHLOMO B ABELES


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 18:54:26 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Shalom


"Talmidei chachomim Marim Shalom ba'olam"

Question is this meant to be:

1) Prescriptive

or 

2) Descriptive

If A, then to become a Talmid Chochom one is told "Go, and create shalom!"

If B then you can tell a talmid chochom by whether or not they are marbe sholom,
iow it becoems a litmus test. EG if ploni is marbe shalom he might be a Talmid 
Chacham but if he is not, we know he cannot be".

Are there any sources that discuss this?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:21:52 +1100
From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject:
wedding takanos


>TROMBAEDU wrote:
>Subject: Re: wedding takanos

>nwitty@ix.netcom.com writes:

>> HM should, in fairness to readers... his wife is in the catering business,
>and as such his comment arguably stems  from self-interest reather
>than altruism. In any case, those  who make their living in the Simcha
>business" is  a smaler demography than  the universe of those who are
>getiing married or parents of same.


>Harry has never hid the fact that his wife is in the catering business. .... reminding
>everyone point blank that one persons takkona is another persons downfall. After
>the takkonas are put into effect, please feel free to send your tzedakah checks to me.

Reminds me of a story I heard, when, many years ago, the Manchester Kehilla
decided to establish a "cost-price" grocery for the needy Kollel yungeleit etc.,
some storekeepers complained to the Rosh Bes Din at the time -
Rabbi Y Y Weiss zt'l (Baal Minchas Yitzchok) that this shop will
bankrupt them. He answered: "In that case, you will also be able to purchase there..."

S B ABELES


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:12:36 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Hatzola


In a message dated 3/22/00 6:48:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, sba@blaze.net.au 
writes:

> Our Melbourne Hatzolo has a number of volunteers who also volunteer
>  for the Chevra Kadisha - often eliciting the query from the
>  patient: "Whom are you representing...?"
>  
>  And  as one of these "double-serving letzim" in the group says:
>  "We always get them - one way or another!".
>  
Reminds me of the Gemara Hu Yetzer Horah etc. :-)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:46:44 EST
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Thoreau and Cleaver (was Takanos Redux)


In a message dated 3/22/00 4:49:01 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< Where does Torah say these things? Where does Torah say that it 
 matters whether the originally posted statement ("if you're not part 
 of the solution, you're part of the problem") was made by Eldridge 
 Cleaver, Henry Thoreau or the Beav?
  >>

Huh?

David Finch


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:47:28 EST
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Eleanor Roosevelt (was How Can We Condemn Etc.)


In a message dated 3/22/00 4:49:11 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< Actually AFAIK CDRG only applies to letters written by Jews, and 
 the laws of Lashon Hara only apply to speaking about a Jew who is 
 oseh ma'aseh amcha (although we are generally required to be dan 
 le'kaf zchus regarding whether a Jew is an oseh ma'aseh amcha).
  >>
 
What about Goyim who received honorary degrees from YU?

David Finch


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:55:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
re:takanos


--- sadya n targum <targum1@juno.com> wrote:
> When mention was made about takanos for minimizing
> wedding expenses,
> attention was called to those who are in the simcha
> business.
> 
> Aside from the fact that they are part of the
> problem (for example,
> photographers who force the parties to purchase
> parents' albums in
> addition to one for the couple, and the equivalent
> for caterers,
> musicians,etc.), we find that Rabban Gamliel made a
> takanah (still in
> effect today) about what is appropriate garb for
> burial. Certainly his
> takanah affected those in the burial clothing
> industry, but the public
> good had to take precedence over individuals'
> losses. This was true even
> if the problem was caused by the need people felt to
> keep up with the
> Schwartzes. The takanah barred even those who could
> afford it from being
> buried in expensive garments.
> Sadya N. Targum

I Like R. Sadya's... Targum.  

But why stop with weddings?  Why would anyone NEED a
private automobile.  Gasoline prices are so
exhorbident as well as all expenses related to the
automobile.  But keeping up with the Joneses demands
we not a car but a gas guzzling family VAN!!! Wouldn't
the public good be served by using public
transportation?  Think of all the resources that would
be available to fund Public Trans. if there was a
Takana against private ownership of automobiles. 

Have you considered the complete waste of money
jewelry is?  

Resteraunts? Humongous waste of money! 

Let's eliminate lawyers, or at least litigators. By
just mandating forced arbitration in litgation cases.
Equal representation will be acheived because neither
side will be represented.  Think of the savings.

We can save a fortune on bathroom fixtures (Now hasn't
THIS been a complete extravagance and waste.)  I think
a return to the outhouse of our great grand parents is
in order.  It was good enough for them and... it did
the job.  Think of the savings we could have on even
the most elementary plumbing fixtures.

Don't worry about the parnassah of restaraunt owners,
jewlers, plumbers, litigators, or automobile industry
imployees because... the greater good will be served. 


HM


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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:05:45 -0500
From: "Richard Friedman" <rfriedma@os.dhhs.gov>
Subject:
Jewish ice cream flavors


	Anent R' Richard Wolpoe's post from Monday about Jewish ice cream 
flavors -- this has been circulating on the Internet, but before that, these 
flavors (and about 70 more) were published in _Response_ magazine in its 
Winter 1975-76 issue.  Since a number of the flavors listed there were my 
contributions (including Balakberry, Molly Pecan, and Wailing Walnut, which 
were in his list, but also including Chocolate Ribbon Ha'olamim, and M'lo Kol 
Ha'aretz Avocado), I treasure the issue.

	The _Response_ article gave appropriate credit to the father of 
multiple flavors, namely the "Gaon of V'nila"; you should give due credit to 
_Response_.

		Richard Friedman


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:12:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Golus mentality


--- Allen Baruch <Abaruch@SINAI-BALT.COM> wrote:
> The term "golus mentality" has been thrown around
> quite a bit lately. 
> Mostly, it seems, as in "Who has it worse".
> As, b'avonoseinu harabim, Moshiach has not yet
> arrived I'd assume 
> that there *is* a golus mentality that is right and
> proper.
> Perhaps Sherer, Atwood, Finch etc could explain what
> they mean?

Let me have a stab at it.

Perhaps using an english first name is indicative of
the Golus mentality, especially if one lives in
Israel.

I use both as I, An American Jew who is also a Jewish
American (and a citizen of France)... am Bi-Mental.

HM



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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:29:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
RE: How can we condemn the church if we do not live up to atleastthe same s...


--- Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> > Farkert, I don't remember who I heard it from but
> he pointed out that:
> > Italian- American
> > African-American
> > Polish-American
> 
> Exactly my point -- these ethnic groups *maintain*
> their ethnic
> heritage/pride
> 
> > American Jew
> 
> "American" comes first.

"American" is the modifying adjective to the more
important noun, "Jew".

We all spin things to our own preconcieved notions,
don't we?

HM

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


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 >