Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 165

Friday, March 23 2001

• Re: Us vs. Them
• Re: Us vs. Them
• Re: Kapparah
• Voss Iz Der Chilluk #5: MC vol. 2 p. 65
• L"H on meisim
• RE: L"H on meisim
• RE: L"H on meisim
• RE: L"H on meisim
• Rambam, Karaites, and Jewish unity
• Re: Pesach
• RE: Areivim on Hol HaMoed
• Cholent
• RE: Areivim on Hol HaMoed
• RE: Areivim on Hol HaMoed
• water on Pesach
• Sepharadim must check kitnios 3 x ?
• Fwd: Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #5: MC vol. 2 p. 65
• Birchas Hagomel/Kaddish mid PD'z
• after sof zman tefila
• Kapparah
• Articles on Modern Orthodoxy- my response- Shma website down

I wrote:
> IIRC, R. Yisrael Salanter says this about all midos. We should demand 
> good midos for ourselves - patience, forgiveness, generosity, etc. - but 
> treat others as if they had none of these. In other words, don't think 
> "Oh, it doesn't matter because he's supposed to be patient and forgiving" 
> even though he really is. We can only demand that of ourselves.
     
This morning, I came across two mareh mekomos that have similar ideas.  The 
Semak in mitzvah 8 writes that we should be makpid on other people's kavod but 
not necessarily our own.  The Orchos Tzaddikim (sha'ar ha'ahavah) writes that 
you should try to give hana'ah to others but not take hana'ah from others.

Gil Student

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:35:57AM -0500, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: The Semak in mitzvah 8 writes that we should be makpid on other people's
: kavod but not necessarily our own. The Orchos Tzaddikim (sha'ar ha'ahavah)
: writes that you should try to give hana'ah to others but not take hana'ah
: from others.

I heard two similar notions besheim R' Yisroel Salanter. He asserted that
every middah can be used litov.

Apikursus. How can it be used litov? As we've been saying -- for me and
mine, I can have bitochon. On yenem's cheshbon, one needs to be an
"apikoreis" and not rely on Hashem's help.

Krumkeit. The person who thinks farkumkt has the ability to be dan likaf
zechus no matter how open and shut the story seems to the rest of us.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In a message dated 3/22/01 9:43:41am EST, atban@inter.net.il writes:
> Therefore, we see that the shoresh k-p-r means to wipe clean.

See Igeres Hatshuva (3rd part of Tanya) Perek 1 "Ki Kaparah Hu Loshon Kinuach 
Shemikaneiach Lichluch Hacheit"

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

This question is actually taken by RCPS from a Poilish source, the Shu"T of 
the Chiddushei HoRi"m (first Gerrer Rebbe) OC #7 (vaguely related to VIDC #4!):

In the first perek of Sukkah we learn  that if a Sukkah is higher than 
twenty amos and you place pillows and blankets in the Sukkah in order to 
diminish its height and are "mevattel" them there (let's call this BKK - 
Bittul Karim u'Kesasos) that this is halachically invalid, "battla da'ato 
eitzel kol odom" - no one, normally, is mevattel these objects in such a 
manner - yet, Bittul Chometz, according to Rashi and the Rambam is a 
process by which the chometz becomes battel like dirt and a non-substance. 
The difficulty is: When the chometz is very expensive and valuable [single 
malt scotch?], why do we not say by BC as well "battla da'ato eitzel kol 
odom". If you propose that the mitzvos of Tashbisu and Bal Yeira'eh 
underlie a distinction, why should the mitzvah of Sukkah not work in a 
similar fashion by BKK?

Voss Iz Der Chilluk?
What Derech have you used to resolve that Chilluk?

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

RCS writes:
> You and I have been through the issue of whether or not there can be
> Lashon Hara on Meisim a long time ago. I believe that I showed you a
> Rabbeinu Yona in Brachos (11a? in the Rif dapim) that indicates quite
> clearly that there is an issue of Lashon Hara on Meisim.

no need to go that far back. as was also pointed out some time ago
(at least i did the pointing during the MM wars - and BTW note with
retrospective satisfaction that none of the opposing (majority)
side seemed to have a response) the chofeitz chaim (sec 8 i think)
specifically enjoins l"h on the departed.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 588-7424
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com		H:  (301) 593-3949
michael.Frankel@osd.mil

From: Michael Frankel [mailto:mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com]
> no need to go that far back. as was also pointed out some time ago (at
> least i did the pointing during the MM wars - and BTW note with retrospective
> satisfaction that none of the opposing (majority) side seemed to have
> a response) the chofeitz chaim (sec 8 i think) specifically enjoins l"h
> on the departed.  

But it is important to understand the source--which clearly indicates that
it's d'rabbanan at best. As a result, we don't have to be as machmir.
For example, the CC wants to be machmir regarding apei t'sala because
LH is a deoraisa issue. Not so for LH on meisim.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Michael Frankel [mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com]
> no need to go that far back. as was also pointed out some time ago(at
> least i did the pointing during the MM wars - and BTW note 
> with  retrospective satisfaction that none of the opposing (majority)
> side seemed to have a response) the chofeitz chaim (sec 8 i think)
> specifically enjoins l"h on the departed.  

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> But it is important to understand the source--which clearly indicatesthat
> it's d'rabbanan at best.  As a result, we don't have to be as machmir.
> For example, the CC wants to be machmir regarding apei t'sala because
> LHis a deoraisa issue.  Not so for LH on meisim.

naniach that l'h on meisim is a d'rabbonon. Indeed this is surely so and
RMF is unquestionably correct to assert that it is. however it reminds
me of the maiseh related to me by the husband of the secular studies
principaless of our local yeshivoh high school, who told me that when
he was young and a lot more chutzpedik he had asked RYBS (they all lived
in boston) whether covering air was a d'oraisoh or d'rabbonon, at which
point the rov, in his description, kind of fell back with some gesture
of clasping his forehead as though he were in pain and responded with
something like "and for d'rabbonons we don't have to pay attention?".
 and while this is a d'rabbonon the CC certainly did not, and we may
conjecture would never ever qualify it with "at best".

Initially -- back in the MM days -- i had merely wished to point out
that for those who take the CC as the last word as many in the litvish
world do -- especially in matters related to l"h -- one must at least
reckon with his negative opinion of the matter. But since the notion of
"chumroh" has been introduced it is as well to point out that the CC is
merely quoting the shulchon aruch which unqualifiedly -- no demurrals
from the remoh -- assurs l"h on meisim (orach chaim 606:2) referencing
a taqqonas qadmonim. to call following an explicit and unchallenged
p'saq of the shulchon oruch a "chumroh" seems off. As well, usage of
"chumroh" is normally employed as a descriptor of actions which in
themselves do not seem to bear any moral freight, e.g. being "machmir"
on waiting for tzais, or ashqanazim being "machmir" about qitniyos or
waiting six hours. here, speaking ill of the departed, would seem to
comprise intuitively objectionable behavior from which one recoils and
"chumroh" is not required before one refrains from indulging in such.

Mechy Frankel                   W: (703) 588-7424
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com    H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

From: Michael Frankel [mailto:mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com]
> But since the notion of "chumroh"
> has been introduced it is as well to point out that the CC is merely
> quoting the shulchon aruch which unqualifiedly - no demurrals from the
> remoh - assurs l"h on meisim  (orach chaim 606:[3]) referencing a taqqonas
> qadmonim.  to call following an explicit and unchallenged p'saq of the
> shulchon oruch a "chumroh" seems off. 

You completely misunderstood my post. Please read it again. I didn't say
that not speaking LH on meisim is a chumrah. I said that not speaking LH
regarding a matter which is public (apei tlasa) is a chumrah. (That was
the subject of previous posts.) I then reasoned that one reason that the
CC recommends being machmir WRT to apei tlasa is the deoraissa nature of
the issur LH. Consequently, I reasoned, there is no reason to be machmir
WRT to *apei tlasa* in the case where the "LH" is about meisim.

QED.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

PS: My use of the words "d'rabbanan *at best*" was not meant to make
light of the issue. On the contrary, according to the Avodah archives,
I wrote at least 6 posts on the issue of Lashon Hara about meisim.
The point of "at best" is that it is not clear that it is d'rabbanan,
as opposed to cherem kadmonim, and that it is not clear that it applies
to LH as opposed to motzi shem ra.

From my v03n174 post:
========================
Carl Sherer wrote:
> Lashon Hara does apply to the dead. See Chafetz Chaim Hilchos Lashon
> Hara Clal 8, S'if 9 [translation mine]: "And know also that even to
> disparage and curse the dead is also forbidden (citing Mordechai in
> Bava Kamma Letter 82), and the poskim have written that there is a
> regulation and cherem of earlier generations not to speak ill of and
> besmirch the dead. And this even if the subject is a boor, all the more
> so if he is a Talmid Chacham, certainly one who disparages him commits
> a crime and should be excommunicated for this as is paskened in Yoreh
> Deah 243:7. And the issur of disparaging a Talmid Chacham applies even
> if he is disparaging him personally, and certainly if he is disparaging
> his Torah.

In contrast, R. Eidensohn wrote:
> The gemora Berachos 19a: Rabbi Yitzchok said, Who ever speaks disparingly
> about someone after his death is as if he spoke about a stone. Some say
> because the deceased is not aware of the comment while others explain
> it is because the deceased is aware of the negative comments but doesn't
> care.

I looked up these sources last night. It seems to me that the Chofetz
Chaim did not prohibit speaking lashon hara about the dead. Rather, he
prohibited (a) disparaging & cursing and (b) being motzi shem ra (which
is what the Mordechai says). Lashon hara, in contrast, is speaking the
truth, and not necessarily in a disparaging way.

With regarding to m'vazeh talmid chacham: it makes sense that this should
be forbidden after death, as it is a din in kavod hatorah.

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> R. Yonason Eybeschutz in his Kereisi uPleisi (YD 2) points out what
> is obvious to us. The Karaites are not Tzadokim or Baytusim either.
> They have different views and are offended by the equation.

Sevaral tangential points

re:  Tzadokim:
Bekitzur: At least one professor pointed out that they too had mesoros,
that they did not reject TSBP in general, just the one we know and love.
Exactly what the Tzadokim were I do not know, they rejected certain
normative rabbinical beliefs such as techiyas hameisim. But that does
not imply they rejected TSBP completely. They definitely believed
in authority, the authority of the mikdash seems obvious. Aiui they
petered out davka because the Churban destroyed any basis they had for
existing. With the kehunah gone, so were Tzadokim.

re: Karaites
I looked at a Karaite web-set about a years ago - and that Karaite
web-site denied taking Tanach literally. Rather they simply reject the
AUTHORITY of our masorah. As I understand it, the Karaites see nothing
binding since the origins of Rabbinical Judaism which occured post
Churban at Yavneh under RYBZ

In this sense, Karaites ascribe to an extreme form of the Graetz model
of post-churban Judaism, that once there is no mikdash there is no
authority to rabbis. No they don't say this - just that it dovetails
real well with there philosophy.

In a sense the Churban created a Reformation of Judaism, no karbanos etc.
Nevertheless it is fair to point out that RYBZ was intent on preserving
via Mesorah and rabbinical authority what had originally been preserved
by Bes Din haGadol (BDG) before the Churban. It is indeed unfair to make
RYBZ into a reformer when he really was a "conserver" or "preserver".

Now imagine Judaism w/o RYBZ and Yavneh! Imagine it is 70 CE and you have
a Judaism whose daily praxis that has been nullified by the destruction of
the BhM. You would have a Judaism without a central authority. You would
have an ish kol hayashar b'einav yaase "anarchy". You WOULD have Tanach,
but you would have NO rav to explain it or pasken from it.

In effect that is Karaism, that since the churban there is NO authority
except Tanach itself.


re: Reform and Karaism
If my simple model here works, then Reform is very much in harmony
with Karaism. The only difference is that Reform accepts TSBP but NOT
as binding. So Reform says, there is zero authority, rabbis have no
authority. Tanach has no authority and TSBP has no authority. Karaism
says the Tanach is authoritative. But that's it because each individual
is master of his own destiny, and therefore neither Mesorah nor rabbis
have authority over the individual.

re: Rabbinical Judaism 
We accept Mesorah and the power of poskim to interpret that Mesorah.
There are different philosophies WITHIN "Rabbinism" as to who has which
power and how much. The Rambam did set up a minimum set of ikkarim. AIUI,
once those ikkarim are accepted one must still observe Halachah but is
free to believe as individuals. It seems from the Introduction to the
Choreb that the EXPERIENCE of Mitzvah observance is an individual
thing. I would add that the feelings and beliefs are personal,
too. "hanistaros Lashem..." What is hidden, iow what is in one's heart,
is a matter of opinion. However, haniglos lanu - what is open and public
is enforceable by society. A society can execute a Mekoshesh eitzim
befarhesya. OTOHO a society has no right to execute someone who FEELS
that being mekoshesh eitzim on Shabbas is ok. That person's feelings
are none of our business. It is only our business if a person acts on
those feelings. Preaching is kind of a borderline. Speaking can be
a gray area, speaking in opposition of the 13 ikkarim is certainly a
no-no. That much minimal belief is aiui in the public domain and that
is what the Rambam was emphasizing.

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
(at Information Builders)
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

"Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> wrote in Avodah V6 #163:
>AFAIK every Badatz EC Hashgacha here includes - for several
>weeks after Pesach - hashgacha that any baked goods were made
>with flour that was ground after Pesach.

Yes. So what happens is that for several weeks after Pessah you find
products on the shelves labelled that they are made with flour ground
after Pessah.

And then, after a while, the products that are from before Pessah begin
appearing.

Mark Burack wrote:
> Why would you not be causing an electromagnetic change when you send email?

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com [mailto:Gil.Student@citicorp.com]
> Why should it matter?  An iggeres shalom is mutar to write and send on Chol 
> Hamoed.

That's true, but I think just about anything you do on a computer will cause
an electromagnetic change. 

Besides, I'm not sure that a "electromagnetic change" is RSZA's worry. 

Check out SSKH Vol. 2 Chap. 66 footnote 211. It quotes RSZ as saying:
Saving to a diskette is osur on Chol Hamoed if it's not for the moed or
davar ha'aved, due to Boneh, because a disk has no value any only by writing
to disk "nivnah ha'diskette". 
Rav Neuvirt then refers you to 2 other footnotes, one about film another
tape. Ayen Sham. 

David Riceman
> IIRC the special problem about not eating cholent is that one might be
> suspected of Karaism.

That's right!
Ayen Baal Hamaor Shabbat 16b Bdapei haRif, at the very bottom. It also
rhymes very nicely.
K"T,
Amihai.

From: Menachem Burack [mailto:Mburack@emiltd.com]
> Check out SSKH Vol. 2 Chap. 66 footnote 211. It quotes RSZ as saying:
> Saving to a diskette is osur on Chol Hamoed if it's not for the moed or
> davar ha'aved, due to Boneh, because a disk has no value any only by writing
> to disk "nivnah ha'diskette". 
> Rav Neuvirt then refers you to 2 other footnotes, one about film another
> tape. Ayen Sham. 

That's exactly how I remembered RSZ's psak. But I interpreted "nivneh
ha'diskette" as causing an electromagnetic change to the diskette so
that it's "built." Can you think of any other way to interpret "nivneh?"

In my discussions with rabbonim about this psak, which IIRC is essentially
against Rav Moshe's psak WRT film and cassette recorders, rabbonim
agreed with my severah that building which is not nir'eh l'ayin should
not be forbidden on Chol Hamoed. I don't recall whether I said this to
the rabbonim, but would turning on lights on Chol Hamoed be forbidden
(if not l'tzorech hamoed) according to the Chazon Ish who classifies
the use of electricity on Shabbos under boneh (completing a circuit)?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Menachem Burack wrote:
> Why would you not be causing an electromagnetic change when you send email?
     
I wrote:
> Why should it matter?  An iggeres shalom is mutar to write and send on Chol 
> Hamoed.
     
Menachem Burack wrote:
> That's true, but I think just about anything you do on a computer will cause 
> an electromagnetic change. 
     
> Saving to a diskette is osur on Chol Hamoed if it's not for the moed or
> davar ha'aved, due to Boneh, 

True, but writing is also assur. However, writing an iggeres shalom,
even if it will not be read until after yontev, is considered tzorech
hamoed and is muttar. If it makes you feel better, I once talked to
R. Tzvi Reichman about this and he agreed with this sevara.

Gil Student

> I know people who put water in tanks before Pesach - at least for drinking.

I have never understood this chumra. Maybe there is chometz in the air
and when we open our mouths it will come in. So we should only breathe
with our noses on Pesach and not with our mouth. Is there any indication
in Chazal or Rishonim that they did not drink water from a river because
someone may have put in Chametz upstream from them?

Does "mashehu"on Pesach literally mean one part per billion etc
is prohibited? I would suspect that all foods have some level of
contamination from the outside world unless they are done under vacuum.

Eli Turkel

From: Phyllostac@aol.com "Mordechai"
> Many (some?) Sepharadim (and anshei eidos hamizroch presumably) do not eat 
> kitnios on Pesach because they must check it three times to make sure that 
> there are no (sometimes similar looking) chomeitz grains mixed into it which 
> is too laborious, etc.

I heard that this was davka for rice, and therfore there were those from
edot hamizrach who DO eat kitniyot but not rice - because rice davka
requires this tedious inspection.

I also heard that those Edot Hamizrach who do check, have an assembly line
and are quite proficient in checking many many grains in a short time.
IOW since they kept this Mesorah alive they developed an expertise in
how to do it effciently.

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

From my cousin, R' Mani Diena:

> From: "Diena" <ediena18@home.com>
> To: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #5: MC vol. 2 p. 65
> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:00:52 -0500

>>of the Chiddushei HoRi"m (first Gerrer Rebbe) OC #7 (vaguely related to 
>>VIDC #4!):

>>In the first perek of Sukkah we learn  that if a Sukkah is higher than 
>>twenty amos and you place pillows and blankets in the Sukkah in order to 
>>diminish its height and are "mevattel" them there (let's call this BKK - 
>>Bittul Karim u'Kesasos) that this is halachically invalid, "battla da'ato 
>>eitzel kol odom" - no one, normally, is mevattel these objects in such a 
>>manner - yet, Bittul Chometz, according to Rashi and the Rambam is a 
>>process by which the chometz becomes battel like dirt and a 
>>non-substance. The difficulty is: When the chometz is very expensive and 
>>valuable [single malt scotch?], why do we not say by BC as well "battla 
>>da'ato eitzel kol odom". If you propose that the mitzvos of Tashbisu and 
>>Bal Yeira'eh underlie a distinction, why should the mitzvah of Sukkah not 
>>work in a similar fashion by BKK?

>>Voss Iz Der Chilluk?
>>What Derech have you used to resolve that Chilluk?

>At first glance I was thinking that there could be an obvious 
>"Chilluk".  Let us assume that the Mitzvah can "shaf" the "Daas", this 
>logic can operate perhaps on a similar basis as the Rambam's halacha by 
>Gittin where we can beat the husband to give a Get because a person's 
>real desire is to fulfill what the Torah wants. Therefore by BC even 
>though logically a person would not ordinarily want to be "Mevatel" an 
>expensive bottle one could hear that the Mitzvah can create the accepted 
>"Daas".  However by Succah first you require the BKK, where we have the 
>problem of "Battla da'ato" which really has nothing to do with the actual 
>Mitzvah, then once we would say that the Karim uKesasos are "Botel" 
>"memaile" the succah would be  a Kosher Succah. This is not really a case 
>of the Mitzvah creating the "Daas" as there are two separate steps and 
>the Mitzvah is only a "Yotzeh Poal" of the Bitul.

2 Questions.

1) Does anyone have a source for when the last Oleh Letorah (shlishi
weekdays, sh'vi'i/achron on Shabbos) says birchas hagomel? Before or
after Kaddish?

2) Any sources re an ovel holding mid- psukei dezimro, if he may say
kaddish yosom/derabonon?

Shlomo B Abeles

R' Noach Rothstein wrote:
> This isn't really l'maaseh ... However, I know that there are those who are
> machmir not to say birkas krias shema after z'man tefilah, even b'dieved
> and I am curious about what I asked just above.

I learned that after sof zman tefilah *a woman has no heter* to daven
any of the brachas before and after Shma- bircos Ohr, Shma or Goel.
A man has the heter, from the Biur Halacha if I remember correctly,
because of his differing obligation in Tefila. A woman who davens
shacharis should check a lu'ach and her watch!

From: Amihai Bannett <atban@inter.net.il>
> There is a Gemara in Gittin 56a, about Neron Keisar, who saya that HKBH
> wants to destroy his house, but wants to "Le'chapurei yadei be'hahu gavra",
> which means that HKBH would wipe his hands on me. Therefore, we see that the
> shoresh k-p-r means to wipe clean.

Is Rash"i on Bireishis 32:21 ('achapra ponov'), where he explains the meaning 
of kapparah, not relevant / helpful in this discussion? Perhaps I missed 
something....

Mordechai

    As an alumnus of both NCSY ,YU and its law school, I read all of the
articles with great interest. Nonetheless, the portrait displayed is
incomplete in all of the articles.

A. The Future of Modern Orthodoxy

This article is noteworthy for its assumption that there has been
an adequate demographic portrait of American Orthodoxy. In fact,
the demographers have ignored the Orthodox communities as of this
date. Therefore, the conclusion that Orthodoxy is declining cannot be
supported in the presence of new yeshivas, seminaries and restaurants.

Further, there is no leadership crisis in YOU. Rabbi Soloveitchik
provided many disciples who head the kollelim and who teach on the RIETS
faculty. It is to Rabbi Lamm's credit that RIETS has the widest variety
of Roshei Yeshiva and that its Batei Medrash are packed with students
seeking the most formidable Talmudic education available while managing
a college education that ranks in Business Week's Top 25. Despite Rabbi
Liechtenstein's comments, there are GedoleiYisrael on the RIETS faculty
who are sought for their scholarship and reputation as teachers through
out the Orthodox world in a variety of settings.

Indeed, the Chareidi world has filled the gap via ArtScroll of providing
Judaica in the vernacular and teachers. While one can disagree with the
philosophical thrust of ArtScroll, its work has opened up Talmud to many
whose last exposure to Talmud was in high school. Its sitter and matzo
are "user friendly."

Despite the alleged brain drain, more Modern Orthodox Jews are eschewing
Israel for the material benefits of America. One need only travel as
far as the Five Towns or Teaneck to verify this fact.

While there are areas of dispute with the Chareidi world over issues
such as the theological importance of Israel, women's study and ritual ,
the overwhelming numbers of Jew in the Modern and Chareidi communities
are concerned with quality of life issues such as teens at risk, drug
and spousal abuse. The example of Nefesh is an important one because it
consists of Orthodox professsionals who park their ideological baggage
at the door and work for the improvement of the entire Jewish community.

Yes, scandals cannot be covered up. Yet, despite the scandals , NCSY is a
powerful force for Jewish continuity . Nevertheless, the dispute over the
tapes of Rabbi Soloveitchik is not as simple as Profeesor Sarna paints it.

B.The Ideology of Modern Orthodoxy

Rabbi Berman's article was disturbing. At the outset, there was no
discussion as to the centrality of basic concepts such as Avodat HaShem,
Ahavat HaShem, YiratHaShem, Shabbat observance or tzniut.Instead,
the reader is faced with a straw man of sorts contrasting the charedi
ideology and lifestyle and Modern Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the core
elements set forth by Rabbi Berman do not withstand scrutiny.

1.TorahUmaddah ( TUM)- Is TUM the only valid approach? How does working
on Wall Street, Park Avenue or in Hollywood contribute to Ahavat HaShem,
Yirat HaShem or Ahavat HaShem?Where is the emphasis on a fixed daily
schedule of Torah study?

2. Jewish Diversity- Reform has not shiftyed from its position that
halacha is not binding on its members. It is to be applauded for exploring
certain elements of tradition which make no serious demands such as the
reintroduction of Hebrew and the Kipa.Nevertheless, it is a club that has
no requiements for membership. Conservatism has an elasticity that leads
its serious members to adopt Orthodoxy and its more liberal adherents
towards Reform. Therefore, while it is worthwhile to work together on
certain common causes ( "Klapei Chutz"), there can be no cooperation on
any cause which threatens the identity of halacha( " klapei pnim").

3.Medinat Yisrael- While we differ with the Chareidi world on whether
the Medinah has theological significance, when the Knesset or the High
Court rule against the Halacha, we should be out in the streets with
our brethren. Clearly, Elokei Yisrael must take precedence over Medinat
Yisrael

4. Women and halacha- Why should there be change for the sake of
change? The power issues of study, ritual and ceremony are irrelevent
when compared with the overall issue of the quality of the Jewish
family. Prenuptial agreements are in force. The poskim of this and of
all prior generations have wrestled with Agunot, albeit not in a manner
which will increase mamzerut.

5. Daat Torah- While every Orthodox Rabbi is the halachic authority for
his congregation, he is not the repositority for answers to inquiries
which are beyond his expertise.The principles of Emunat Chachamim and
having a Poseik for policy questions and the most difficult of queries
should be applauded, rather than circumscribed.

6. Chumrah- The Torah provides for Chumrot in areas such as sexual
prohibitions, chametz on Pesach and the possible violation of most
Biblical probibitions, as opposed to a Rabbinic prohibition. Moreover,
there is an ethical principle of "sanctifying the permitted" . Where
does Modern Orthodoxy view itself in its understanding of the mitzvot
as a means of refining man?

7. Outreach- Do Modern Orthodox Jews believe that by exposing a Jew
to Shabbat or the study of Torah that the person might become a Shomer
Mitzvot? Where is the authority for the proposition that Kiruv is limited
solely to the notion that "Im Jewish, You are Jewish and the details of
observance don't count"?

8. Jew and Gentile- As part of our receiveing the Torah , we were
told that by accepting the Torah and the mitzvot that we would be a
" Mamlechet kohanim ugoy kadosh" that would render us distinct from
the non Jewish world.While it is correct that Jew and Gentile were
created in the image of God, they do not have the same level of kedusha,
which is defined by the degree of obligation to the mitzvot. Certainly,
there is no license to cheat either a Jew or Gentile. Moreover, neither
halacha nor sociology require the Halachic community to recognize the
notion that a mixed marrriage is " raising their children as Jews." Such
a statement is halachically disingenuous and a sociological misnomer.

9. Holiness in Productivity- Before any Jew can expound on the concepts
underlying the Torah, he must "sweat the details". It is futile to
discuss the beauty of Shabbat without knowing what is permitted and
forbidden. It is meaningless to discuss the power of prayer without
knowing the meaning and the laws of prayers.Throughout Jewish history,
Jews have studied Torah and supported their families. In the exigencies
of a Jewish comminuity that is largely illiterate in its own texts,
should not we applaud the movement towards intensive Torah study ?

Differences and cooperation- For those who were not present at the last
Siyum HaShas, we were inspired by the presence of Rabbi Lamm and many of
the Roshei Yeshiva of RIETS with the chareidi world's representatives. For
any Jew, the Gemara and the Shulchan Aruch are the binding ties despite
philosophical differences. Let us not lose sight of the vast number of
that which unites us with the Chareidi world.

C Orthodoxy, Modernity and the Future

Professor Joseph's article reiterates much of the pluralist, feminist,
secular and Zionist critiques that were posed by Professor Sarna. I will
not belabor my observations further in this regard.

D. Educating for Modern Orthodoxy

Ms. Mayer's article amply sets forth the issue of the lack of an
ideological basis for Modern Orthodoxy. While the answers are not simple
, there are certain absolutes which should be emphasized. For instance,
Chumash ( especially Breishit, Shemot , Vayikra and Devarim ) with Rashi,
Ramban and Hirsch are still the best tools for teaching the drama of the
Avot and Imahot, The selection of Moshe Rabbeinu, the liberation of Am
Yisrael and the Divine Selection by HaShem of His Chosen People. More
emphasis on character building could be introduced by the use of the
teachings of Chassidut and Mussar. If we could demonstrate that Bikur
cholim is a real mitzvah that is not delegated to the Rabbi, but rather
the priority of a busload of Jew every Sunday, we would be making vast
strides.

                                      Steve Brizel
                                       Zeliglaw@aol.com
    

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


[ 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         ]