Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 009

Saturday, October 3 1998

• Re: Avodah V2 #8
• Re: Avodah V2 #8
• Re: Avodah V2 #8 Shcheter Day Schools
• RE: Needing a gadol, mesorah/tekhelet
• RE: Reform and Conservative heresy
• Re: Avodah V2 #8 Psak
• RE: Needing a gadol, mesorah/tekhelet
• non-ortho rabbis
• Re: Needing a gadol, mesorah/tekhelet
• Re: Reform and Conservative heresy
• Re: Avodah V2 #8 Psak
• Re: Avodah V2 #6
• Re: Avodah V2 #8>strange bris
• Re: Avodah V2 #8
• Re: Our Brothers
• Re: Mesorah, Halacha v'Ein Morin Ken, Davar ha'Tamu'a la'Rabbim

     >>Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:08:08 -0400
     From: "Michael Poppers" <MPoppers@kayescholer.com>
     Subject: Re: "...v'nakeh lo y'nakeh..."
     
     Richard Wolpoe wrote:
     >  There have been a number of discssions among friends re: some of 
     these
          pesukim.
     
          Shmos 34, 7 vnakeh lo yenakeh,  seems to me al pi dikduk that the 
     lo
          goes on both halves and that this is an emphatic lo yenakeh - and 
     that
          the nakeh we use in the 13 middos is al pi drush only... <
     On the contrary, the ta'amei ha'mikrah reveal that "v'nakeh" is a 
     separate
     phrase, as it is graced with a ta'am mafsik -- the next ta'am mafsik 
     is the
     zakeif katan gracing "y'nakeh", leaving us with "lo y'nakeh" as the 
     next
     phrase.
     
                                              Michael<<
     
     Never Mind:
     
     Rashi clearly points out that indeed according to peshat it is one 
     phrase and that al pi drush the Chazal spearted into 2 distinct 
     phrases.
     
     Gut Yomtov
     Rich Wolpoe

David Glasner wrote:
> V'ani lo ahus al ninveh ha-ir ha-gedolah asher yesh bah harbeh mi-shtem
> esreh ribo adam . . .
> 
> Is anyone aware of any discussion of the clear textual contradiction of
> one of my least favorite drashot of Chazal "atem k'ruim adam v'lo umot
> ha-olam k'ruim adam" by this verse and the even clearer subtextual
> contradiction?

1. The derashah itself is generally understood as a reference to the
application of a specific word in a Pasuk, and not a statement as to their
humanity.

2. The Gemara Yevamos 61 asks your question, and responds that "Adam" ther
eis to distinguish from animals.

3. See also Tosafos Yevamos 61a "ve'Ein" for an interesting discussion of
this Derashah.

Mordechai

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HaMakor!  http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor   Torah Reference Library
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI: http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Dear List,
        My family was very invovled in the Hebrew Academy of Greater 
     Hartford,  I was quite appaled that a Solomn Schcechter Day School was 
     started in such a small community.  I thought it would take away 
     people from the "orthodox" day school and not leave enough for both 
     and other such considerations.
     
        I am not a poseik.  I will simply make several historical 
     observatins:
     
     1)  In the long run (maybe 2-3 years) the ortho HAGH did not suffer 
     from teh competioin from the SS.
     
     2) Non-Ortho still to to HAGH.  however, the most non-Ortho go to SS  
     Upshot, proably a more homogeneous HAGH, slightly more Orthodox.
     
     3) Again, from a non-psak perspective, the SS is vastly superior to 
     the Talmud torah education the non-Ortho's used to have.  I cannot say 
     they get more yiras shomayim I can say they are sginificantly more 
     learned.
     
     I now live in Bergen County.  SS has crawn non-Orto's from the 3 local 
     days schools.  All ai can say is that the 3 local days schools are 
     bursting at the seams and again, SS has left the other 3 in much more 
     homogeneously Orthodox.
     
     Given the overflow in those 3 schools, it is unliekly they would have 
     room foir many SS types. (Of course we can give the nefsh ahcas 
     argument)
     
     Again, without being a poseik, I think the SS schools are by and large 
     a net asset.  And I am vehemently opposed to most of their hshkofo re: 
     toah misiani and frumkeit.  I think they do promote certain heresies 
     and questionable hashkofos.  This MIGHT be a fatal flaw to a Godol.  
     From a pragmatic perspective, they've raised the level of Jewish 
     awaareness for otherwise largely assimilated Jews.  And many families 
     do not necessarily buy into the SS party line.
     
     And in genaral ,I wkno many baalei Teshuva who percolated their way up 
     by going through conservative and then Modern Orthodox instituttions 
     before attending Yeshivos.  
     
     I find it hard to believe we'd be better off without them.  On the 
     other hand, I don't think we should sit back and simply agree with 
     what they pass off as "emes".  We should assert our hashkofos 
     regardless of what they do.  yet we can apperciate the postivie side 
     also.
     
     Gut Yomtov
     Richard Wolpoe  

With reference to women's zimmun, R. YGB writes:

>The truth is that zimmun is less of a problem, because there is no shem
>shomayim l'vatala involved. But, yes, definitely, it does require a gadol
>to introdice this to the world of practical halacha. Perhaps the MB's psak
>here works adequately - but that does not exist in this area.

I am afraid that I disagree on the need for a gadol to re-introduce a
practice with an unassailable halakhic basis.  If a gadol would endorse
the practice, I would be thrilled, but I don't see it as necessary.
Moreover, I don't understand how a historical exigency can remove
something from the world of halakhah le-ma'aseh.  It seems to me you are
giving history a veto over Halakhah.  And I find that shocking, to say
the least.

On the issue of the existence of negative mesorah, you write:
>That is a good question. I think it can.

I wonder on what you base this view.  Moreover, I do not understand how
you can argue that women's participation in a certain activity simply
never occurred to generations of posekim (thus explaining the omission
of Ritva/Nimukei Yosef by Mehaber and others), then tell me that a
negative mesorah exists regarding the issue.  Surely a negative mesorah
has to be created consciously!

>No. But we *here* are not dealing with an unambiguous situation.

Well, I think we are, but I don't expect we'll agree on that.

>Firstly, techeles is a chumra, and one cannot lose by doing so, as one
>fulfills the mitzva of "lavan" with blue colored strings.

A number of aharonim would disagree with that last statement.  Also, if
it were true, why does the Gemara express such hostility toward kaleh
ilan and its purveyors?  If you do not lose by using the wrong dye, then
why was Hazal so fierce in its statements about using a wrong dye?

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

R. D.  Eidensohn writes:

>One final observation, the chareidi world especially in Israel is much more
willing
>to publicly describe Conservative and Reform as heresy. In contrast, the
Modern
>Orthodox are more concerned with what Rabbi Clark has described as hurting
people's
>feelings.

This is very true.  I think part of the reason is that the haredi
leadership are primarily addressing their own constituency.  In other
words, they have no interest in "softening" their message for an
Orthodox audience.
On the internet and in other forums in which much of the audience is
non-Orthodox, I think it wise to to be less blunt than in the Jewish
Observer or Yated (which have, I suspect a very small non-Orthodox
readership).  Rabbi Lamm and other Modern Orthodox leaders may craft
their statements with the knowledge that the wider world is listening.
In fact, while it is instructive to remind frum people that R and C is
kefirah, I am not sure what the point would be of telling a non-Orthodox
rabbi, "I think you are a kofer."  If he is aware of the fact already,
he probably doesn't care.  And if he isn't, I cannot see him renouncing
his beliefs because I have told him they are heretical.

>I don't think that Rabbi Clark is any more
>sensitive to Chilul Hashem etc than was Rav Moshe or the Chofetz Chaim.

Nor am I. But I may be addressing a different (or at least broader)
audience.

BDCohen writes :
>All too often, Shechter becomes the alternative, weakening the existing
Yeshiva
>Day School.

>Ask any Yeshiva Day School administrator and they will tell you, their world
>would be much better if Shechter Schools never existed.

I believe you may get a variety of responses from different
administrators.  In truth, the kids who are likely to switch out of an
Orthodox day school generally tend to be less observant and come from
less  observant homes.  Consequently, they are also the ones who are
likely to have a negative influence on the other children.  The issue, I
think, is a bit more complex than you describe it.

 Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

     >>Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:29:46 -0400 (EDT)
     From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
     Subject: Re: T'cheyles
     
     About theoretical discussions vs. actual p'sak...
     
     It may take us back to halachic pluralism vs. singular truth.
     
     If you believe that the job of a poseik is to find a singular correct 
     p'sak,
     then there should be no difference between theoretical discussions and
     rendering a p'sak. In both cases, you are trying to find what the 
     halachah
     truly is.
     
     However, once you introduce pluralism, the two differ greatly. A p'sak 
     is no
     longer entirely about ascertaining truth. Among the various opinions 
     found to
     be truly divrei Elokim, one is chosen to the exclusion of the others 
     and that
     now becomes The Halachah (in caps) for all involved.
     
     Again, I'm not sure that this metaphysical event can occur without a 
     true
     case on the ground.
     
     - -mi<<
     
     I confess to an avesrsion to paseking: here is a bit of haskofo on the 
     matter:
     
     A Psak is a halachically derived decision on an individual case.  
     analoguous to SHUT it is case law.
     
     Halocho psuka as in the Kitsur or other seforim is analoguous to legal 
     codes; the principles are there, they need to be applied judiciously 
     and sometimes there are mitigating principles or circumstances.
     
     Discussion with regard to psak is lehagdil Troah ulhaadiro.  It is 
     stil in the truth seeking stage.
     
     When a posek paskeins he is deciding correctly for that one 
     circustance and binds the shoel.  Tath same posek may decide another 
     case differntly (even just becaue he changes his mind.)
     
     A psak is sort of ad hoc.  How about a moshol?  When a beis din is 
     matir a neder they don't give carte blanche reshus to violate nedorim. 
      The systme of neder stands; a heter is grandted AD HOC.
     
     So we can have a Halocho pesuko don't daven in a shul where certin 
     dinnim are ignored.  We can debate WHICH dinnim are me'akve and which 
     are only lechatgichilo.  A Poseik can decide and individual case via a 
     psak and say certain shuls are forbidden but Reuven may go to shu lX 
     and shimon may not go to shul Y.
     
     Good Shabbos, & Gut Yontof
     Richard Wolpoe 

R' YGB writes:
> Firstly, techeles is a chumra, and one cannot lose by doing so, as one
> fulfills the mitzva of "lavan" with blue colored strings.

And Eli Clark replies:
: A number of aharonim would disagree with that last statement.  Also, if
: it were true, why does the Gemara express such hostility toward kaleh
: ilan and its purveyors?  If you do not lose by using the wrong dye, then
: why was Hazal so fierce in its statements about using a wrong dye?

In the very least, buying kaleh illan would be a waste of money, and you
wouldn't be yotzei (part of -Rambam) a mitzvah d'Oraisa that you could
otherwise be performing.

But even if the Tif'eres Yisrael (and maybe the Rambam) is right, perhaps
kalleh ilan isn't colorfast. In which case, you still wouldn't be yotzei.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5938 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 2-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

peripheral to the conservative issue, please explain to me the cherem issued
in the fifties of coop wi non orth  rabbis.

1--did the RCA/OU rabbis have an altenative psak?

2--are they bound by that psak, or do we say this is a gemeindishe issue,
i.e.  only aguda-yeshivishe people are bound by such apsak---similar to if
the eida chareidit gives a psak , it wouldn't be chal on a mizrachist, or a
satmar psak isn't chal on a different branch of chasidut

chag sameach--shabat shalom

In a message dated 98-10-02 14:35:24 EDT, you write:

<< it were true, why does the Gemara express such hostility toward kaleh
 ilan and its purveyors?  If you do not lose by using the wrong dye, then
 why was Hazal so fierce in its statements about using a wrong dye?
 
 Kol tuv,
 
 Eli Clark >>
I think kaleh ilan is a much different issue-as I understood the issue it was
much cheaper than true tchelet and allowed its wearer to pretend to frumkeit
withour paying the price(tocho lo kboro). Unfortunately the generic problem of
tocho lo kboro seems to reappear with great frequency-perhaps this accounts
for chazal's antipathy.

Shabbat shalom
Joel Rich

In a message dated 98-10-02 14:52:18 EDT, you write:

<< 
 I believe you may get a variety of responses from different
 administrators.  In truth, the kids who are likely to switch out of an
 Orthodox day school generally tend to be less observant and come from
 less  observant homes.  Consequently, they are also the ones who are
 likely to have a negative influence on the other children.  The issue, I
 think, is a bit more complex than you describe it.
 
  Kol tuv,
 
 Eli Clark
  >>
I agree you would get a variety of responses. The problem with the negative
influence issue is that it also means that those "less observant" are denied a
positive influence and the 'more observant' are given the message to "stick to
your own kind". This may be the message the school wants to give but
eventually the definition of less observant may become you(fairly or not)! The
proper balance is a very difficult one and continues  in a state of dynamic
tension( L"ad). 

Shabbat Shalom
Joel RIch 

              >>>Discussion with regard to psak is lehagdil Troah
              ulhaadiro.  It is stil in the truth seeking stage.When a
              posek paskeins he is deciding correctly for that one
              circustance and binds the shoel.<<<

              At the risk of repeating an earlier point, Richard Wolpoe's
              accurate assessment returns us to the question: how can
              precedent for every psak be demanded when every circumstance
              and shoel presents unique twists and considerations?  While
              YGB's point is relevant for public policy, it does not
              address the kallah who has innocently invited a female friend
              to sheva berachos to serve as panim chaddashos, and the Rav
              must choose to rely on the Chasam Sofer, whose writings even
              in chiddushim need be taken seriously as a matter of halacha,
              or canceling sheva berachos for the night.  Once we
              acknowledge the Chasam Sofer as a reliable source, the issues
              of precedent and public policy become factors to be weighed
              against embarassment of the chassan v'kallah and other
              circumstances of the individual case.

              -Chaim B.

In v2n6, Eli Clark writes:
: >A partial Torah is no Torah at all. We are not satisfied with
: >half-measures.
: This is stirring rhetoric, but not consistent with Halakhah or the
: notion of kiruv.  It suggests that there is no value in persuading a
: non-halakhic Jew to do a mitzvah if there is no guarantee of continued
: observance.

Further, in real life kiruv situations, the person who tries to do it all at
once too often ends up leaving frumkeit again. It's a bit much to take on all
at once. For that matter, on Yom Kippur as well, it is often easier to try to
do better in general, but really only eliminate a limited set of chataim from
my inventory. Too many changes at once tend to evaporate as Succos distracts
one from the Yom Kippur mood.

(I once heard the words of "Hashkiveinu" explained that way. "Vehaseir Satan
milfaneienu" -- from blocking us from doing mitzvos. "Umei'achareinu" -- from
trying to push us into doing more than we're ready for, setting us up for
failure.)

OTOH, Arnie Lustiger's sefer has much about the Rav (Soloveitchik) on "mikveh
Yisrael Hashem", and how teshuvah must be entire, with no chatzitzos. I'm not
sure how to understand it, as the concept isn't born out by my experience.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5938 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 2-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

A number of years ago Rav Ahron Soloveichek ruled that the bris milah of the
child of a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father should be done on Shabbos.
Another rov in the city said it should not be done. At issue was how to read
the remarks of R.Akiva Eigar to Yoreh Deah,266:12 R.Akiva Eigar first says
that in such a case it would seem that the milah should be done on Shabbos,
but then says that according to the Maharsha's understsanding of Tosafos in
Kiddushin 75b, it should not be done on Shabbos. The question was whether
R.E.A. quoted the Maharsha just as an aside, or in order to show that  one
really should not do the milah on Shabbos. R.Ahron very adamantly insisted
that he meant it as an aside.The milah in question was, in fact, performed on
Shabbos, following Rav Ahron's decision. 

>
>Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 13:39:20 -0400
>From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
>Subject: atem k'ruim adam
>
>In following the readingo of Yonah yesterday I was struck by the last
>verse of the book.  
>
>V'ani lo ahus al ninveh ha-ir ha-gedolah asher yesh bah harbeh 
>mi-shtem
>esreh ribo adam . . .
>
>Is anyone aware of any discussion of the clear textual contradiction 
>of
>one of my least favorite drashot of Chazal "atem k'ruim adam v'lo umot
>ha-olam k'ruim adam" by this verse and the even clearer subtextual
>contradiction?
>
>David Glasner
>dglasner@ftc.gov
>
Without commenting on the obvious inappropriate statement of "my least
favorite drasaha" (on the same level as saying that that is my least
favorite posuk in Chumash)  the Gem. in Yevamos 61a which is the source
of this drasha asks this question. 

Shraga Rothbart

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Our listowner wrote, in Avodah 2:8 -

<<< The discussion of the threat of Conservative Judaism teeters in and
out of being on topic for Avodah. For that reason, I haven't spoken up
yet. But as the discussion seems to show real longevity, I'd like
everyone to watch that we keep the topic religious, and not political.
(To whatever extent that distinction really exists.) >>>

Several people have posted responses to my posting on this, and I am
still formulating what I want to say next. Thank you all for sharing your
views. They are all helpful. I hope to write again after Shabbos, ba"h.

On the question of the relevance of this subject to the list, I want to
say that it seems to me that Avodah and Bais Tefila are markedly
philosophical in nature, whereas Mail Jewish and Bais Medrash had a more
halachic bent. Or that's how it appears to me, anyway, not that any of
these was devoted to any one approach exclusively. But if others feel the
same, then I think this C/R discussion is very relevant and appropriate.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

>
> R' Elyashiv, on yet another hand, seems to hold that techeles *does* fall
> into the category of halacha v'ein morin ken, due to several factors.
>

I am curious to know where the above comes from? There is a letter from Rav
Elyashiv which has been circulated in the yeshivos here to counter such
claims. Is your claim  based on material before or after his denial?

                                                           Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]