Avodah Mailing List
Volume 02 : Number 137
Monday, January 25 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:03:44 -0800
From: Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@idt.net>
Subject: Chasam Sofer and Nusach Ari - Still Not - Then again...
I the Siddur Chasam Sofer authored by Rabbi Yizchak Tzvi Bernfeld the
Likutei Chaver ben Chaim is quoted as saying the the Chasam Sofer
davened from a nusach Ar"i Siddur yet was still carefull to daven nusach
ashkenaz. This would fit very nicely with what is quoted in the same
siddur from the Hasam Sofer OH 15 that the Ar"i worked out the kavanos
for davening in nusach sefard and it is unfortuinate that noone has done
the same for nusach ashkenaz. Perhaps the Chasam Sofer was using the
kavonos outlined by the Ar"i, to as best as possible, fit to nusach
ashkenaz. The siddur also states that the siddur mentioned in teshuva OH
197 in is in Jerusalem with the Chasam Sofer's hand wrtten notes and it
is a nusach Sefard siddur.
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:38:59 EST
From: Pawshas@aol.com
Subject: One of Edah's goals
In a message dated 1/23/99 10:24:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, R' Eli Clark
writes:
> One must also be careful when using a term that has different
> definitions for different people. The phrase "Modern Orthodoxy" is
> prominently displayed on the Edah website. Presumably, then, they
> intend it in a positive sense, although many associate the term with
> laxity in halakhic observance. (A sociologist named Chaim Waxman once
> described the Modern Orthodox community as having two components -- the
> "sociological MO," i.e., the lazy ones, and the "philosophical MO,"
> referring to those who are philosophically inclined to integrate
> modernity into their religious worldview.) It seems safe to assume that
> Edah intends to represent the latter group. However, Norman Lamm coined
> a different label for this group, "Centrist Orthodox."
I believe Edah is meant to bring the sociological MO into the camp of the
philosophical MO.
One of the founders of Edah (and a person who I believe is involved for
entirely Lishmah purposes) explained its function to me some three years ago:
"We want to provide an ideology for those who believe Modern Orthodox means 'I
go to shul on Shabbos and I also go to see movies (not on Shabbos, I assume he
meant).'"
Mordechai Torczyner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:58:48 -0600 (CST)
From: mpress@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Edah
I do not see that any of the issues raised by Edah in the program for its conference
cannot be discussed from a Torah perspective. Few issues of Hashkafa are fully
resolved or have only one legitimate approach; it seems clear that the Edah issues
can certainly be talked about.
On the other hand, Edah is avery problematic organization. First, its primary
financial support comes from Michael Steinhardt, an avowed atheist who wants to
develop a Judaism devoid of religion. While this does not automatically invalidate
anything Steinhardt touches (after all, he is a supporter of the very valuable NJOP),
it surely demands careful examination of the goals of the group. Steinhardt has
recently funded a program whose avowed purpose is to encourage creativity in
Jewish education but whose effect will clearly be to attempt to harm declaredly
religious (both Orthodox and Conservative) schools in favor of community-wide
religiously-neutral or cultural institutions.
Secondly, Edah's executive director is Rabbi Saul Berman, an espouser of kfirah and
possibly a kofer. (I hesitate to make the statement definitively, since even well-
intentioned maaminim have occasionally espoused kfirah.) In contrast to Torah-committed
Jews who believe that there is one divine revelation, Toras Moshe, Rabbi Berman
subscribes to the notion of progressive revelation and asserts that there is now a Toras
Miriam, to be added to Toras Moshe. This point of view is not his alone; such figures as
Tamar Ross of the Hebrew University have espoused it. Ross claims that the revelation
of our period has come through feminism and Berman (and his colleague, Avi Weiss) have
joined in the advocacy of Toras Miriam. This is rabid kfirah - period!! Lest someone on
this list assert that this last statement is the result of my being an unrepentant extremist, I note
that Rav Aharon Lichtenstein said this publicly about a year ago when Ross made a
public presentation.
One of the posters noted that some of the names associated with Edah are at the fringe of
Orthopraxy; I would say that they have crossed the remotest boundaries. This is not to
say that we should not attempt to be mekarev them. Readers know from my previous
postings that I accept completely the guidance of the Chazon Ish in these matters and
believe that we should attempt to lovingly persuade even probable apikorsim like Berman
to repent. At the same time apikorsus is apikorsus and the Torah has no place for tolerance
of false beliefs. The same Rav Soloveitchik who spoke softly to Conservative rabbis did
not hesitate to declare their synagogues to have the Halachic status of churches (or worse).
Melech
M. Press, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair
Touro College, 1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
Phone: 718-252-7800, x275 Fax: 718-645-1816
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 02:27:10 EST
From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com
Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #136
In a message dated 1/23/99 10:29:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, owner-
avodah@aishdas.org writes:
<< without naming names, there are some panelists are known as at the outer
limits of orthodoxy-orthopraxy
>>
With all due respect, this kind of comment simply does not belong on a list
dedicated to serious discussions of Torah ideas.
Jordan Hirsch
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:37 +0200
From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: Yeshivat Shem Va'Ever
See the Meiri on Pirkei Avot 3:16 re: "v'chol hamesorot she'masru lo shem
v'ever".
Josh Backon
backon@vms.huji.ac.il
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 02:38:32 EST
From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com
Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #136
In a message dated 1/23/99 10:29:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, owner-
avodah@aishdas.org writes:
<< 've wondered who 'police' the rabbis--meaning how iconaclastic can you bee
and still be in the fold. I asked R Butler at the recent west coast ou
convention, and he said that this obviously toucy issue is best left to the
RCA. But i think it's an interesting question---how left is too left, and
who decides?
>>
Hey, here is a radical idea. If the Rabbi issueing the psak can find a source
for it in the classical Halachick sources, uh, such as the Talmud, Rishonim,
Acharonim, both in Chidushim and Shu"t literature, then he should still be
considered in the fold. I know that this is a little disingenuous, because a
lot is left up to our understanding
of various sources. I guess I am not one for overly policing Rabbis as to
their politically correct psak. I have always thought it was more important
for us to worry about our own observance of Halacha. I dont remember who said
that Geula will come when we are more interested in our own spiritual well
being, and our neighbors physical well being. It seems that all too often, we
get that idea reversed. I guess what it boils down to is that discussions of
who these Edah people are seem somewhat beside the point to me.
Jordan Hirsch
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 08:09:49 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject: Re: Edah
<<
the female synagog interns
>>
There being two distinct forms of this position, I wonder what the problem is
with having a person who is formally hired to do what most wives of rabbis
have been expected to do without formal title, or salary.
<<
i've wondered who 'police' the rabbis--meaning how iconaclastic can you bee
and still be in the fold. I asked R Butler at the recent west coast ou
convention, and he said that this obviously toucy issue is best left to the
RCA. But i think it's an interesting question---how left is too left, and
who decides?
>>
The same could be asked of the right and far right. How far is off the scale
of yahadus and just simply chumra without reason. Let us not forget that to
prohibit the permitted is just as wrong as to permit the prohibited. And on
another point, who polices the policy statements that are made by some
prominent members of right wing institutions.
The answer is that there is no real policing done on any front. So to point
fingers at one group is to not see what is going on in one's own camp.
Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:26:10 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject: Rambam Hil A"Z, R' Soloveitchik zt'l
In a message dated 1/23/99 10:24:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, owner-
avodah@aishdas.org writes:
<< A friend of mine once pointed out the Rambam in the beginning of hilchot
avodat zara where he mentions Avraham Avinu "finding" Hashem at age 40. The
Raavad questions this based on a medrash saying he found him at age 3. The
kesef mishna(I think) reconciles that he began at 3 but "finalized" at 40.
What was he inbetween? Perhaps searching for his balance as well?
>>
While one could learn the discrepency as a semantic issue of chronology in
defining the one point where 'emunah' is reached', what I find to be the more
interesting approach is to read the machloket as a debate as to how we
approach the emunah of Avraham Avinu - is it the mature religiousity of the 40
year old or is it the simple faith of the child? Or is there a development
within the episodes and Midrashim that surround Braishis? Food for thought...
While I came to YU after the Rav had left and have had to rely on published
material to draw my impressions, I would just like to echo your appreciation
for the dialectic that runs throughout the Rav's writings. Rather than give
simple answers, the Rav's writings underscore the the complexity of the
religious experience.
-Chaim
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:32:55 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject: Re: Mazel Tov
Mazel Tov to YGB and family on the birth of a baby boy last week! Hope baby
is zocheh to be nichnas bb'riso shel A"A b'zmano and brings nacahas and
beracha to the whole family.
- Chaim (YGB's brother -in-law)
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:43:47 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Mazel Tov
Let me join the proud uncle in congratulating the Bechhofers on their new son.
May the b'ris be b'ito ubizmano, viyizku ligadlo liTorah, lichuppah, ulma'asim
tovim.
-mi
PS: Is it too late to campaign to name the baby "Ovadiah"? <grin>
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6070 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 24-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:30:48 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Mazel Tov
In a message dated 1/24/99 10:33:25 AM EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:
> Mazel Tov to YGB and family on the birth of a baby boy last week! Hope baby
> is zocheh to be nichnas bb'riso shel A"A b'zmano and brings nacahas and
> beracha to the whole family.
>
Mazel Tov, Vyizkeh Lhachinosoi Bbrisoi Shel Avrohom Ovinu Ulgadloi Ltorah
Lchupoh Ulmaasim Tovim.
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:30:38 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Mazel Tov
In a message dated 1/24/99 10:43:51 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> PS: Is it too late to campaign to name the baby "Ovadiah"? <grin>
He has a great uncle by that name!
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 16:08:36 -0500
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject: Re: Mazel Tov
Me too!
HM
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 18:01:23 -0500
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject: Re: Avodas Hashem from the Rav
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
>Rav Lichtenstein sums up the Rav's approach as
> follows:
> "Torah study gives the Jew insight - as direct and profound as
>man is
> privileged to attain - into the revealed will of his Creator.
>Through
> the study of Halakha - the immanent expression of God's
> transcendent rational will - man's knowledge of God gains depth and
> scope. Further, religious study is a stimulus to the >total spiritual
> personality. Faith can be neither profound nor enduring unless
>the
> intellect is fully and actively engaged in the quest for God."
> In light of this, we can understand Rav
> Soloveitchik's insistence that one's sense of inwardness in mitzvot
>be
> based not on "cheap sentimentality or ceremonialism," but rather
>on
> serious familiarity with halakhic sources. "...[W]ithout knowledge
>of
> Torah, the Jew cannot attain the proper religious experience, nor can
>he
> fully understand the beauty and splendor of avodat Hashem (divine
> service)" (Divrei Hashkafa, p. 76). Recall also the Rav's claim
>that
> the laws of Halakha are the basic data of Judaism, out of which any
> understanding of Judaism must be derived.
>
> Rav Soloveitchik believed that the demand for a
> strong intellectual component in one's avodat Hashem, while true
>at
> all times, is especially relevant in our generation:
> "With keen sensitivity to the malaise of commitment affecting
> contemporary Jewry, the Rav concluded that religious engagement of
>the
> intellect is essential to the cure... [T]he Rav deemed our time
> propitious for the intellectual quest:
So much for the "superiority" of Emunah Pshutah!
HM
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:26:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject: Re: Avodas Hashem from the Rav
After reading this post I was left with a few question and I'll be
grateful if
those with a solid undersatnding of the Rav's shitos provide the answers.
I
saw the stress on Talmud torah and on Halacha made in different
paragraphs. IOW some paragraphs stressed Halacha ,while others stressed a
more genaric Talmud Torah. Is the Rav's focus really Halacha, which would
exclude classical lomdus as it isn't really essential to halacha, and
would also make the Rav a great supporter of the Baal shem tov who also
told his Talmidim to learn halach and not lomdus (such halacha based study
could also be termed talmud Torah). Or does the Rav really advocate in
depth
learning whteher or not it leads to Halacha, as long as it's not kabballa
or maybe aggadaic (I don't know the Rav shittos on learning aggadata in
depth), and the above is being excluded with the term HAlacha.
Furthermore, what else is being excluded with this approach--is Mussar
excluded (posters have said earliar that mussar isn't talmud Torah and it
doesn't seem to be halacha), maybe one doesn't need mussar because he's so
engrossed in Halacha/Talmud Torah. In addition, where does Madda fit in,
is
it Torah, Halacha or something else. If it's something else where exactly
does it fit in, and if it's Torah, do you get knowledge of Hashem the
same way out of Torah as out of Madda. My interest has been stimulated
by Mr. Wolpoe's post, please provide some of the answers.
Elie Ginsparg
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 18:48:58 -0500
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject: Re: Edah
mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Secondly, Edah's executive director is Rabbi Saul Berman, an espouser of kfirah and
> possibly a kofer. (I hesitate to make the statement definitively, since even well-
> intentioned maaminim have occasionally espoused kfirah.) In contrast to Torah-committed
> Jews who believe that there is one divine revelation, Toras Moshe, Rabbi Berman
> subscribes to the notion of progressive revelation and asserts that there is now a Toras
> Miriam, to be added to Toras Moshe. This point of view is not his alone; such figures as
> Tamar Ross of the Hebrew University have espoused it. Ross claims that the revelation
> of our period has come through feminism and Berman (and his colleague, Avi Weiss) have
> joined in the advocacy of Toras Miriam. This is rabid kfirah - period!! Lest someone on
> this list assert that this last statement is the result of my being an unrepentant extremist, I note
> that Rav Aharon Lichtenstein said this publicly about a year ago
I don't really know enough about Rabbi Berman to proclaim him an
Apikores. Not withstanding what R. Lichtenstein said, I am hard pressed
to call anyone a Kofer without giving him the benefit of the doubt, or,
at least an opportunity to defend himself. Based on my limited exposure
to him through print and electronic media, it appears as though he is a
man of integrity. But, one which I basicly disagree with on many issues
and his new organiztion, Edah, seems to be one of them. It is likely
that the creation of Edah is well intentioned. At the same time it
seems as though the motivation for it's creation is the femminist
movement and is an answer to the call on the part of certain left wing
femminists (ala Blu Greenberg) for Orthdoxy to be more responsive to
women's issues.
Do we really need more fragmentation of Centrist Orthodoxy? Have we no
satisfying answers to the concerns of these femminists, without creating
yet another movement? Must we cater to the sociologically influenced
whims of certain individuals who want to dictate the agenda of the MO?
Is there no way we can ever say NO to some of the least normative of
their desires? Are Women's Tfila Groups so integral to the well being
of today's woman? If so, why are only the MO feminists agitating for
womens tfila groups? Why aren't charedei women interested in WTG ? Or
even Ner Israel Types, or most YU types? It seems only a very few of
the fringe need this type of religious expression. I have many freinds
who can be defined as belonging to all the various camps of Orthodox
Judaism, extereme right to extreme left, and I know of only one woman,
a charter member of Edah, and personal freind of Rabbi Berman, who
supports it and even she has reservations about the importance of WTGs'
(although a WTG does exist here in Chicago).
If Edah is a creation on the part of those who desire to identify
themselves as a Halachicly oriented expression of MO, then I submit,
that it is an unnecessary fragmentation of a dwindling Centrist
population. It behoves all of us who identify with the Centrism, to
rally behind a single entity that would encompass all of the halachic
views, left to right, which could be defined as Centrist Orthodoxy, and
unite to insure the continuity of Centrist Ideals.
HM
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:59:12 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Mazel Tov
Those who are in the Avodah group know already, and others will now find
out, that B"EH last Thursday we had a baby boy, b'sha'a tova.
It was somewhat rough this time, and while B"H everyone is recuperating,
it is unlikely that the bris will be b'zmano.
My wife and the newborn baby will be in the hospital at least through
tomorrow, Monday, and can be reached at (847) 723-6100, room 352.
Although both are progressing nicely, tefillos are always helpful:
Shoshana Michal bas Rivka Rachel
Ha'Tinok ben Shoshana Michal.
To all those who sent Mazel Tov and Refu'ah Sheleima wishes, thank you
very much, and I hope to be able to respond personally soon.
v'nizke l'gadlo l'Torah l'Chuppa u'l'Ma'asim Tovim, u'l'Hachniso l'Briso
shel A"A!
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, 25 Jan 1999 03:15:28 -0500
From: Isser Zalman Weisberg <izw@cpol.com>
Subject: [none]
I had pointed out that the Rambunctiousness in Derech Hashem (2:3:8)
mentions the concept (generally attributed to chassidim) that
"shleimus" need not necessarily reached entirety through ones own efforts,
but can sometimes be accomplished through connecting to a Tzadik.
YGB commented:
"The Ramchal there does not resemble Chassidus at all.
The Ramchal requires no personal connection or affiliation between the
shalem and those upon whom he has a collateral beneficial impact.
The tzaddik also does not impart to them shleymus, but rather indirectly
generates for them merit via "kol Yisroel areivim zeh la'zeh."
A careful reading of the Ramchal will not justify this explanation. The
Ramchal speaks of 3 levels of Tzaddikim. 1. Who can help some Yiddin
("kitzosom") benefit from shleimus ("layhanos b'shleimus") by connecting to
him ("hitaloso" i.e. hanging, connecting) 2. One who benefits the entire
dor 3. One who effects tikkun and brings shleimus on a cosmic scale. (This
third level parallels the concept of the Tzadik Hador as it appears in
Chassidus)
While YGB is correct regarding the second two levels, the first level in
which the Tzadik effects only certain individuals clearly must occur
through personal connection and is not arbitrary. Rav Yosef Begun (who
published the Ramchal's seforim before the war and was a big maven on the
Ramchal's derech) in his synopsis of this paragraph writes "They merit olom
habah not through their own koach but by connecting ("hiskashrom") to
grater people"
IZW
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 ]