Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 109

Monday, January 4 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 13:17:38 -0500
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject:
Who am I?


Rabbi Eliyahu W. Ferrell wrote:

<<<
David Glasner wrote:

>It is very
>nice to just sit back and say oh well Chazal said this was fine and that
>was okay and the Rishonim didn't make a fuss, so who am I to ask
>questions. 

That's right. Who are you?

Should one attribute wrong-doing where Chazal said it was just fine?
Shouldn't it set one back on his ear if he ascribes guilt where the
Rishonim didn't bat an eyelash?

Of course, one might--with requisite truckloads of scholarship and
humility--*perhaps* say, "I do not merit to understand the correctness of
Chazal's exculpation here because XYZ..."

Let's remember who we are and who they are.

>>>

I say this without irony.  I am dust under the feet of Chazal.  But neither they,
and, with all due respect, nor you, can take away my right to have an
opinion.  If their opinion is correct, it should be possible to explain to me why
their view is correct and why mine is not.  And if you can explain that to me, I
will be sincerely grateful, because we only learn by being proved wrong.  I will
not repeat myself since I have previoulsy discussed the sugya in Hulin 6b-7a
of "hinihu li avotai makom l'hitgader bo."  But I would respectfully refer you to
that sugya.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:22:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@IDT.NET>
Subject:
Re: Avodah V2 #107


> 
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Avodah -- mostly on ChaBaD
> 
> >> He is not an authority because he didn't leave over any chassidim.
> >> There are
> >> people who willread his works, but there is really no place where
> >> one can go
> >> to see some one following his 'derech.' It doesn't exist.
> >====> PMJI -- Is this supposed to be a "beauty contest" or something?  The
> >only Chachamim whose works get studied are those who leave behind lots of
> >talmidim -- regardless of the intellectual quality of those works??
> 
> :) What does PMJI mean?

=====> PMJI == "Pardon My Jumping In"


> 
> >> >the Maharal, Toldos and the Mai Shiloch in Chassidus today?  Bottom
> >> 1. The maharal was big in Pershischa Chassidus. I assume that in Ger it is
> >> still learned.
> >===> Could you explain why this is the case?  Was it that the Rebbe
> >happened to be a fan of the MaHaRal?  I am not trying to sound humorous.
> >But, it seems that "real chassidim" only learn certain material based upon
> >what their Rebbe chooses (?) or whatever seems "fashionable" (?) or if the
> >author happened to have had (originally?) a "big following".  What seems
> >*absent* is the intellectual quality of the work.
> 
> A person is not a Chasid because he has read some sefer and likes it. Today
> many Litvishe gadolim will learn chassidic seforim. A Chasid is a chasid
> because he has a Rebbe and follows the derech that his Rebbe has set out.

===> OK.  You define that a *must* have a Rebbe to be a Chassid
*and* to be considered an expert on Chassidus.  You realize, of course,
that the two are not strictly linked.  I.e., a person may not be a Chasid
but STILL be an expert on chassidus.  Further, this does not really answer
why a Rebbe will choose some particular aspect to learn and [apparently]
"neglect" something else.



> (Breslov is not really an exception. The reason is that since Reb Nachman died
> they have always had a person or persons who were Rosh HaChabirah who was
> mashpiah the 'Breslov' derech.) This is VERY important to understand. A Rebbe
> gets his derech from his Rebbe, or father, all the way back to the Baal SHem
> Tov. My Rebbe is a direct descendant of the Tzanzer Rov, who was a talmid of
> the Ropshitzer Rov, who was a talmid of the Chozeh of Lublin, Rebbe Mendele
> Riminover, and before that of the Rebbe Reb Meileich of Lizensk, who were
> talmidim of the Rebbe Reb Ber who was a talmid of the Baal Shem Tov. That is
> where my derech comes from. As to why different Rebbes had different daruchim
> the reason is as follows: The Tepheres Shlomoh was once asked why it was thast
> each of the talmidim of the Chozeh was different and had different customs. He
> answered that each one received from his Rebbe according to the level of his
> nashama.

===> I did not ask why Rebbeim have different derachim.  I wanted to know
what determined what was learned and what was not.


> 
> >> 2. The Toldos is Kodesh Kadushim. No one can call himself a chasid who haas
> >> not learned it. It is a direct source for the Toras HaBaal Shem Tov.
> >===> Why? Who are the current followers of the Toldos?
> 
> The Toldos is the only sefer that contains what the Baal Shem Tov himself
> taught directly. He continually brings what he has heard.

===> but, you cannot have it both ways.  If what defines "what is learned"
is solely that the Rebbe learns it, it should not matter *what* is
contained in the sefer.  OTOH, if you look at what is IN the sefer, then
it is legitimate to "complain" that there is a narrowness of vision in not
looking at OTHER material.


> 
> >> 3. Mai Shiloach is learned by few people in the mainstream. There is
> >> a small
> >> Radzyner chassidus in eretz yisroel, which would learn that as it is their
> >> source. It would like the seforim of the Mittler Rebbe of Lubavitch.
> >> Very few
> >> outside of Lubavitch would learn them. In the same way few chassidim
> >> learn Mai
> >> HaShloach. (On the other hand Toldos like Tanya is a major classic that any
> >> Jew who wants to call himself a chasid should learn.)
> >===> What *defines* Toldos as a "major classic" as opposed to the works of
> >Mai Shiloach or is this another popoularity contest?
> 
> I think from the above the answer is obvious.

===> Not entirely.  Apparently, the answer is as follows: A Chassid
follows his Rebbe's derech -- whatever that may be.  However, regardless
of what his rebbe learns or does not learn, the Toldos is "special",
anyway.  And, as to WHY the Rebbeim choose to learn some material and not
other material -- well, that is just left unanswered.  Most important, the
fact that something is or is not currently learned does not seem to
explain why the material it contains should not be considered
authoritative.
--Zvi
> ------------------------------
> 
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Chassidus
> 
> 
> Since you HAVE read Muvi HaShiurim chapter 8 let me quote what he says:
> 
> 'If one desires to become a chasid by learning seforim and to understand with
> his mind alone what is chassidus, and not make himself, his body and senses,
> his nefesh, riach, and nashamah to be a chasid, then he has not touched the
> corner of chassidus. Also if he doesn't go to a Rebbe ... he is no chasid.'
> (Bottom paragraph p. 39)
> 
> 'The main points of Chassidus are not found in a sefer but in the chasidim
> themselves.' (Third line down from page 43.)

===> And, Muvi HaShiurim is "authoritative" because......

--Zvi


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:22:38 -0500
From: "Michael Poppers" <MPoppers@kayescholer.com>
Subject:
Re: potatoes


<<
The sefer Hadras Kodesh (Nasoider Rov quoting the Chasam Sofer) brings that
the talmidim of Rabbenu Yonah held that oraz requires a mazonos as it is a
food that fills one up, and that this applies to all such foods. This is
also
the opinion of the Rosh. A similar logic applies to potatoes, and even
though
not all hold from this sevorah it is enough to bring a sufik of either
mazonos
or adamah.
>>
ETeitz: > While one might argue that all grains should be m'zonos, I do not
understand
how this is stretched to potatoes.  If I eat enough meat, I would also be
full.  Does that make the b'racha on steak now m'zonos?  I fail to see the
logic here. <
I'll take a stab-in-the-dark at a possible nafkah minah: the "min ha'aretz"
of birchas "hamotzi" indicates a limitation of "satisfying" foods to those
[staples] which come from the ground.

Michael Poppers  =*=  Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:38:02 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Avodah V2 #106


In a message dated 1/4/99 12:59:18 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:

> ==> I am not sure that this is considered part of the Mitzva of Tzedaka.
>  Note that it is described as *Gemillus Chesed*.
>  The Netziv is pretty explicit in other places that Gemillus chesed is part
>  of the "norm" for the entire world -- Not just for Jews.  He cites Olam
>  Chesed Yibaneh.  He discusses the sin of S'dom.  And, he *contrasts* the
>  Chesed that Yisrael does with the chesed done by Umos Ha'olam.

According to the RaN S'dom was punished for not doing Tzedakah, that is his
proof that a BN is obligated in Tzedakah, however there are different opinions
as I pointed out in an earlier post, in any case the Gemoroh says that the
*Chesed* of a non Jew is Cheit, (since it is done for selfish reasons) so
RCB's question Bmkomoy Omedes.
 
>  > From: Yzkd@aol.com
>  > Subject: Re: Outreach
>  > 
>  > Just for clarification,
>  > 
>  > Is it the custom of the Litvishe that when they are Mkareiv someone that 
> comes
>  > from chassidishe Upshtam to tell him and encourage him to follow the 
> Minhag of
>  > his parents regarding cutting of beard and Peios, Tzitzitz on the
outside,
>  > Davening with a Gartel, going to Mikveh Erev Shabbos, etc.
>  
>  
>  ====> Are you referring to the Mihag of the *parents* (or their immediate
>  ancestors) or to the "Upshtam", in general?  My *impression* (at least for
>  NCSY) is that they are most concerned that the person not "move too fast"
>  and then decide to "chuck it all".
>  

I am referring to those parents or grandparents that would create the
obligation of following their Minhogim.

WRT chucking it all just like Shabbos can be explained so too other things
Eloh Vos Den too many Shitos would scare someone (even if it is Minhag
Avoisuv) that is the same for Lubavitch.

Are you saying that once they are already frum (in who's ever hands thaey may
be then) it would be obligatory to inform them of Minhag Avosom, (minhag Ovos
isn't Bottul Broiv).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:53:26 -0500
From: "Lawrence M. Reisman" <LMReisman@email.msn.com>
Subject:
Members of the Agudah Moetzes


Dear Michy:

    Per your request, the members of the American Moetzes are:

        Novominsker Rebbe  (Rabbi Yaakov Perlow)
        Mattersdorfer Rov (Rabbi Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld)
        Rav Mordechai Gifter (Telshe-Cleveland - largely inactive due to age
and illness)
        Rav Elya Svei (Philadelphia)
        Rav Aharon Shechter (Chaim Berlin)
        Rav Avraham Pam (Torah Vodaas)

There is also an Israeli Moetzes, but the only members I know are the Gerer
Rebbe, Vizhnitzer Rebbe, Bostoner Rebbe, Mozhitser Rebbe.  The Erlauer Rov
may also be a member.  There are very few Litvishe Roshei Yeshiva in the
Israeli Moetzes as most of them went with Rav Shach to Degel haTorah.

Best wishes as ever,

Levi Reisman


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:48:44 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Erev Rav & Tinok She'Nishba


In a message dated 1/3/99 10:24:59 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:

> Let me reiterate, since obviously some people are getting the
>  misconceptions that I am:
>  
>  1. Pro-Lubavitch.
>  2. In favor of branding freier Yidden as Erev Rav.
>  3. Against granting them special status as Tinokos sh'Nishbu.
>  
>  that in reality I am:
>  
>  1. Against the theological position manifested publicly by Lubavitch.
>  2. Against branding any Jews as Erev Rav.
>  3. In favor of regarding non-Orthodox Jews as Erev Rav.
>  
>  
where is the error in # 2 of what you do not hold, or in # 3 of what you do
hold?

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:52:17 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Erev Rav & Tinok She'Nishba


In a message dated 1/4/99 1:49:47 PM EST, Yzkd@aol.com writes:

> where is the error in # 2 of what you do not hold, or in # 3 of what you do
>  hold?
>  
Sorry for not finishing off I beleive you meant in # 3 that you are for
applying "Tinuk Shenishboh" to non Orthodox

KT
YZ


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:58:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Erev Rav & Tinok She'Nishba, Whoops!


On Mon, 4 Jan 1999 Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> > 1. Against the theological position manifested publicly by Lubavitch. 
> > 2. Against branding any Jews as Erev Rav.
> > 3. In favor of regarding non-Orthodox Jews as Erev Rav. 

> where is the error in # 2 of what you do not hold, or in # 3 of what you
> do hold? 
> 

Whoops!

In #3.

It should read:
"In favor of regarding non-Orthodox Jews as Tinokos Sh'Nishbu!"

Sorry!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 19:18:56 +0000 (GMT)
From: Michael Frankel <FRANKEL@hq.dswa.mil>
Subject:
Re: Members of the Agudah Moetzes


<Dear Michy:
<
<    Per your request, the members of the American Moetzes are:
<
<        Novominsker Rebbe  (Rabbi Yaakov Perlow)
<        Mattersdorfer Rov (Rabbi Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld)
<        Rav Mordechai Gifter (Telshe-Cleveland - largely inactive due to age
and illness)
<        Rav Elya Svei (Philadelphia)
<        Rav Aharon Shechter (Chaim Berlin)
<        Rav Avraham Pam (Torah Vodaas)
<
<There is also an Israeli Moetzes, but the only members I know are the Gerer
Rebbe, Vizhnitzer Rebbe, Bostoner Rebbe, Mozhitser Rebbe.  The Erlauer Rov may
also be a member.  There are very few Litvishe Roshei Yeshiva in the Israeli
Moetzes as most of them went with Rav Shach to Degel haTorah.
<
<Best wishes as ever,
<
<Levi Reisman
<
__________________________________

Thank you very much for the info.  
best wishes.  MF


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:11:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@IDT.NET>
Subject:
Re: Avodah V2 #108


> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #105
> 
> In a message dated 1/4/99 12:10:24 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:
> 
> > ===> In the case of -- at least -- *some* B"T Yeshivot, that is an
> >  oversimplification.  Also, the issue is not simply "hashkafos" -- but
> >  actual conduct.  In other words, if it is true that ChaBaD minahgim
> >  *differ* from the "practices" of many -- possibly even *most* other
> >  shomrei Torah, is it "proper" to point a person along such a path when
> >  that person is not in a position to evaluate the matter "better".  The
> >  "practices" of most B"T Yeshivot are (I think!) fairly "normative" within
> >  the "frum world".  Thus, someone who goes to a B"T Yeshiva may get *some*
> >  matters of conduct that are "machmir" or different...  OTOH, someone
> >  following ChaBaD practices is likely to be very much different from many
> >  other segments of the Frum community.
> >  
> WRT Minhogei ChaBaD vs. others there is not that much diffrence then say other
> Chasidishe Kreizin vs. Litvishe, as such the *practacies* are fairly
> "normative".
> If one is permitted to not tell someone that his parents wore Rabbeinu Taam,
> and didn't wear Tfilin on Chol Hamoeid, and said Haleil Btzibur pessach night,
> then Lubavitch would be permitted not to tell him minhogim (or even issues of
> Halacha Ukdli'l) that would make him uneasy in the frum environment this BT
> will be in.

===> Who said that it is "permitted" to "not tell" someone about his
parent's minhagim??  Even if that is the case, why would the B"T be
"uneasy" in his/her "frum environment" by hearing about minhagim?  Seems
to me that *if* one is making such an effort to be mekarev Jews *to
Yiddishkeit*, the environment should NTO be one that would a B"T to be
"uneasy" with his/her minhagim.

--Zvi

> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> 
> -----------------------------
> From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
> Subject: Avodah V2 #104 -Reply
> 
> Zvi Weiss wrote:
> 
> <<<
> > Sorreee!  Even I as the unwilling representative of the Bash the Avos
> School
> > on this list could not conceive of such an obscene equation and I am
> > shocked and appalled that you would attribute it to me.  Can't you see that
> I
> > am trying to take what the Torah tells us about the Avot seriously and am
> > trying to understand for myself what the Torah is trying to tell us?
> 
> ===> Actually, I did *not* see that at all!  The poster did not simply
> say: "I do not understand something..."  On the contrary, there was an
> entire firmulation of the "wrong" that Yaakov had done and how he was
> repeatedly punished for that wrong!
> >>>
> 
> As I have already noted, when I suggested that the Torah itself indicates a
> certain disapproval of Yaakov's deception of his father because Yaakov was
> subsequently the repeated victim of the deception of others, I did not feel
> that I was making an observation that would be viewed as controversial on
> this list, because the same point had been made previously without eliciting
> any demurrals.  

===> It is not clear that the Torah indicates that "disapproval".  In
paritcular, the midrashim that "go out of their way" to show negative
repercussions (such as the one about Tza'aka Gedoal U'mara) would seem to
show the opposite -- that when there *was* disapproval, the Midrash (or
Meforshim) are very clear to note that.


> 
> <<<
> > It is very
> > nice to just sit back and say oh well Chazal said this was fine and that
> > was okay and the Rishonim didn't make a fuss, so who am I to ask
> > questions.  But if I don't understand, I will continue to raise issues
> > that I think
> 
> ===> But, before "making a fuss", why not try to figure out WHY the
> Rishonim are not bothered by these matters.  In other words, try to think:
> what must have been going on when a Rishon learned this parsha....
> >>>
> 
> Okay, I admit it.  I was lazy and I was, in my own way, inviting others
> to help
> me out.  Thank you for helping.  

===> You are welcome (I think)....



> 
> <<<
> > 
> > You do not address my basic question, which is why is the moral
> > blameworthiness (which you acknowledge, though you believe it justified
> by
> > extenuating circumstances) of Jacob's deception of his father is in any way
> > mitigated by the mental reservation postulated by the Midrash.  I am
> troubled
> > by these hidden mental reservations that somehow are supposed to make
> > permissible what would otherwise be a lie.  The Midrash uses it to absolve
> > Jacob from blame and a similar mental reservation is the linchpin of
> Clinton's> defense (I hate to keep bringing him into this) but how is the
> geneivat da'at
> > mitigated by resort to a mental reservation? 
> 
> ===> I see no indication from the Midrash that the "mental reservation" is
> what made anything permitted.  Yaakov acted as he had to because he was
> so
> ordered by his mother.  Yet, even when he *had* to say something deceptive
> (and this is described as a tremendous "nisayon" for Yaakov because it
> goes against ALL of his being which is one of "emes") -- he tried to do so
> in as "un-sheker" a way as possible, if you will.  The point of the
> Midrash to me is that even at *this time* Yaakov struggled to somehow
> minimize the sheker...  It would seem to me that you "over-invested" this
> midrash -- especially as various commentaries ALL mention that there WAS
> some
> deception here  (cf Netziv, RSRH, etc.)
> >>>
> 
> I find your suggestion attractive, but it doesn't seem to be borne out by some
> of the M'farshim like Or Ha-Hayim and the Gur Aryeh (both cited by Elie
> Ginsparg) which seem to me to suggest that Jacob could not have received
> the blessings based on a sheker and that the mental reservation was a
> necessary condition for his receiving the blessings.  But I am prepared to
> entertain the possibility of disagreement with M'phorshim of their
> stature.  See
> below for a further substantive comment.

==> I will have to re-look at Or HaChaim (in particular) to see that...


> 
> <<<
> > 
> > Whether it is p'shat in the pasuk or not, I will not dispute now.  My
> > main point
> > is that if Jacob really replied to his father's direct question about
> > who he was
> > with a statement that, in the context, he knew and intended for his  
> > father to
> > interpret in a false way when he, because of a mental reservation, could
> > interpret in a different way, I don't see how the moral
> > blameworthiness of his
> > conduct is any way less than if he had responded with a straightforward,
> > unambiguous (honest) lie.  That is the question to which I am seeking a
> > response
> 
> 
> ===> Again, the "moral blameworthiness" seems to be much more
> concentrated
> upon the fact that he listened to his Mother.  I owuld point out that I
> beleive there are midrashim that when Yaakov was called forward so that
> Yitzchak could feel him, he was terrified and G-d sent Malachim to help
> Yaakov move forward...  Obviously, this had the "highest degree" of
> approval regardless of the fact that there was a deception involved (note
> the midrash that the "scent of Gan Eden" entered with Yaakov.  And, the
> Netzivpoints out that afterwards, Yitzchak gave Yaakov a "Yasher
> Koach"for performing the deception...  As noted above, the ambiguous
> answer was
> because (I think) of Yaakov's OWN struggles...
> >>>
> 
> I agree that one can solve the riddle by saying that Jacob was following
> orders and so no blame attaches to him.  But if so, why did Jacob have to
> resort to a mental reservation?  Your answer, which strikes me as a hidush, is

===> Because *even though* he was "following orders", the reason for his
"mental reservation" was not because of the "blame" but because of his
(Yaakov's) actual *pain* at uttering somehting like that.  Though it made
no "practical" difference, Yaakov sought to distance himself from "sheker"
as much as possible.



> that the mental reservation was unnecessary, but that Jacob found it
> psychologically easier to tell a lie in such a way that he could
> rationalize it to
> himself as being truthful.  If that is the interpretation, I don't
> think that it is as
> favorable to Jacob as you do, because to me it suggests that Jacob was
> deceiving himself in thinking that his mental reservation made his response to
> his father any less untruthful than it was.
===> Again, I do not think that /yaakov was "fooling himself" nor was it a
case of "psychologically easier to tell a lie".  It is simply that
Yaakov sought to distance himself as much as possible from sheker and,
when he *had to*, he at least tried to "minimize it" *even though* it made
no actual difference.


> 
> <<<
> > 
> > And as I already noted, I am not suggesting a comparison between them.  I
> > am questioning the use of a mental reservation as a way of escaping blame
> > for lieing.
> 
> ====> then it should not have been mentioned.
> >>>
> 
> No, I disagree.  By doing so, I was underscoring the issue of why a hidden
> mental reservation could somehow transform what would otherwise be a lie
> into something not quite so bad. I am afraid that I'm starting to get
> fatigued at
> this point and I hope that you won't mind if I don't respond further since the
> original focus of my posting was on the mental reservation issue not on the
> extent to which the Biblical account can be interpreted as an implicit
> judgment on Jacob's  culpability for the deception that he
> perpretrated.  But I
> do very much appreciate your careful response to my posting and I am sorry
> for causing discomfort.

===> I think that your notion of "mental reservation" would fit in much
better according to the comments and presentation by RSRH.  If I recall
correctly, he asserts that it was
NEVER the intent to "get the B'rachot" that way.  the *intent* was simply
to *fool* Yitzchak and show Yitzchak how EASY it was to carry off the
deception such that Yaakov -- the Ish Tam -- is even able to carry it off.
(See RSRH for a fuller discussion on the whole issue there.)  If that is
the case, then maybe since it was simply meant to be nothing more than a
"play acting", Yaakov could have decided that it is "OK" to lie as per his
Mother but that he (yaakov) was going to use a mental reservation so that
he could [later] explain to Yitzchak how one can deceive Yitzchak without
a "real" lie....

--Zvi

> 
> David Glasner
> dglasner@ftc.gov


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:12:06 -0500
From: mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com
Subject:
MGH


"1.  This is my second request to listmembers for info re the composition
of the
Aguda's Mo'etzes Gidolei Torah.  How many? What is the current membership?
and
who/how is the appointive power?  "

     Why don't you call the Agudah at 212-797-9000?  I doubt this is
classified information.

     Moshe Luchins


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 15:27:35 +0000
From: rafael <rafael@nyct.net>
Subject:
Re: Avodah V2 #107


> In a message dated 99-01-02 21:33:19 EST, RYGB writes:
> 
> << This requires opening a new thread. The concept of tinok she'nishba
>  pertaining to non-Orthodox, to the best of my knowledge - while something
>  I subscribe to personally - is a relatively recent "chiddush." I believe >>

(Seeing as how the Beis Yosef in OC 385:2 uses the term wrt a tzadoki)
How does today's non-Orthodox differ from the tzadukim (or Karaites, for
that matter)?  It seems to me that these groups all have/had some
knowledge of or access to rabbinic teachings.  

As such, I would think that BY's application of "tinok she'nishba" would
work equally well in today's situation (given that an elementary
understanding of yiddishkeit is not enough to adequately combat the
forces of counter-Torah indoctrination.)

Rafael


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:11:47 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Avodah V2 #108


In a message dated 1/4/99 3:11:49 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:

> ===> Who said that it is "permitted" to "not tell" someone about his
>  parent's minhagim??  Even if that is the case, why would the B"T be
>  "uneasy" in his/her "frum environment" by hearing about minhagim?  Seems
>  to me that *if* one is making such an effort to be mekarev Jews *to
>  Yiddishkeit*, the environment should NTO be one that would a B"T to be
>  "uneasy" with his/her minhagim.
>  
> 
I was referring to R' Sternbuchs position.

A BT needs a home in most cases the parents totally reject the BT, the house
of his Mkareiv becomes his, likewise that community becomes his, making him
standout as different places him in danger of falling out. when they are more
secure they normally do search back to find pride in their past history, and
then make a knowledgeable dicision.

As to the actual opinions in Halacha, perhaps one will quote the different
opinions mentioned by R' Sternbuch.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 21:02:56 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Avodah V2 #107


On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, rafael wrote:

> (Seeing as how the Beis Yosef in OC 385:2 uses the term wrt a tzadoki) 
> How does today's non-Orthodox differ from the tzadukim (or Karaites, for
> that matter)?  It seems to me that these groups all have/had some
> knowledge of or access to rabbinic teachings. 
> 

Firstly, we call even "shanu u'pirshu's" tinokos she'nishbu.

Secondly, we regard them as tinokos she'nishbu even if they have been
exposed to our heritage and still reject it.

Thirdly, we live in far greater proximity and closeness - both in terms of
being family related and having dealings with - the "frei" than Kara'im
and Rabbani'im ever did.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


Go to top.


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


[ 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 ]

< Previous Next >