Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 383

Monday, February 21 2000

• learning from history
• Re: The SE letters - Some Imprerssions
• Re: learning from history
• Ban on Cigarettes?
• Re: Secret of A Sale
• SE/History
• Daf Yomi Query
• Re: SE/History
• Re: Daf Yomi Query
• Not one positive thing?
• Re: SE/History
• Re: Daf Yomi Query
• Shapiro's book: chachomim hizohoru bidivreichem
• TuMJ
• Re: Shapiro's book: chachomim hizohoru bidivreichem
• Re: Besmirching Fruhm Sociopaths

How about things like being doomed to repeat history
if you don't learn from it?  How about dealing with
problems and not pretending that they don't exist? 
How about being able to refute the lies that are
banded about constantly?

>
>I think not being oiver on Lashon Hara wins unless
there is a 
specific toeles (not just because it's true) in saying
the emes. See Hilchos Rechilus Clal 1 S'if 8.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

On 21 Feb 00, at 3:52, Harry Maryles wrote:

> Are the contents of those letters Lashon Hara (LH)?  I
> believe that LH applies only if the individual spoken
> about was alive. 

Nope. See Chafetz Chaim Clal 8 S'if 9. 

I also had a lengthy debate about this with someone on this list 
last summer. This is part of my last post on the subject (Vol. 3 
#196):

"Look at the Rabbeinu Yona in the sugya in Brachos top of 11b in 
the Rif, s"v Kol HaMesaper. He specifically states that it's assur to 
repeat the gnus and the aveiros of a talmid chacham, and he does 
not make the distinction between truth and falsehood that you 
make. While that may not mean that we cannot speak (truthfully) 
b'gnus of ANY meis (because the Rabbeinu Yona attributes it to 
the fact that we have a chazaka that a talmid chacham who sins 
does tshuva immediately), it nevertheless would forbid airing out a 
talmid chacham's dirty laundry after he dies - for example, by 
publishing his private letters or a book about him in a derogatory 
fashion.

"And I think you and I have already agreed that it is forbidden to 
speak *falsely* b'gnus about any fruhm meis, based on the 
Mordechai in Bava Kama forbidding motzi shem ra (Number 106 
there). 

"BTW the Mordechai in Bava Kama Number 82 speaks of asking  
forgiveness from meisim for "cheruf." (He also alludes to this at the 
beginning of 106). AFAIK cheruf is a curse, without regard to its 
truth or falsity."

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 21 Feb 00, at 4:24, ben waxman wrote:

> How about things like being doomed to repeat history
> if you don't learn from it?  

Learning from history does not necessarily require that one speak 
Lashon Hara about individuals. In the case of the type of history 
from which Jews are meant to learn, it doesn't usually require 
speaking Lashon Hara about people who are "oseh maaseh 
amcha." Yes, Lashon Hara is permitted when there is a toeles (and 
I AM overgeneralizing - see the Chafetz Chaim in Clal 9), but even 
then it must be minimized as much as possible.

How about dealing with
> problems and not pretending that they don't exist? 

What does that have to do with the publication of the SE's personal 
correspondence (which IIRC is where this thread started)?

> How about being able to refute the lies that are
> banded about constantly?

I don't know if I want an explanation of this question, but I'll ask 
anyway. To what "lies" are you referring? 

-- Carl

> >
> >I think not being oiver on Lashon Hara wins unless
> there is a 
> specific toeles (not just because it's true) in saying
> the emes. See Hilchos Rechilus Clal 1 S'if 8.
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
> 


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

Sometimes I think the Gdolim read Avodah :-) This came from 
today's Jerusalem Post....

-- Carl

Haredi papers consider banning
               tobacco ads
               By Judy Siegel-Itzkovich

               (February 21) - The editors and managers of of Hamodia
               and Yated Ne'eman, the two Ashkenazi haredi dailies,
               will meet soon to discuss whether to refuse to accept
               tobacco advertising, which constitutes a major chunk of
               their income. Both papers said they will follow
               instructions from their rabbis. 

               Full-page Dubek advertisements with religious themes,
               handled by a haredi woman advertising agent in Bnei
               Brak, have appeared for many years in these papers. 

               One, for example, shows a havdala candle and spice box
               - signifying the end of Shabbat - alongside a pack of
               cigarettes, with the slogan shavua tov ("A good week");
               another refers to cigarettes and "the lips of wise men." 

               Tobacco companies have long claimed that their ads
               "merely try to persuade existing smokers to switch to their
               brand, instead of getting non-smokers to start smoking." 

               The Jerusalem-based Hamodia, read primarily by a
               hassidic audience, and the Bnei Brak-based Yated
               Ne'eman, which has a Lithuanian (mitnagdim) following,
               are three years behind the anti-tobacco campaigns of
               Yom Le'Yom, the Shas-affiliated weekly inspired to take
               action by party spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. 

               The Sephardi-oriented Yom Le'Yom went so far as to
               bar all cigarette advertisements from its pages, even
               though Dubek and other companies supplied a major part
               of its advertising income. 

               Hamodia editor Elazar Knopf said yesterday that "we'll
               certainly discuss it. We will do whatever our rabbis rule."
               He declined to say how much money the paper received
               each year for Dubek's ads. 

               Haim Rieger, the advertising manager at Yated Ne'eman,
               said that a discussion on whether to adopt a new
               advertising policy regarding tobacco will be held this
               week. "There are all kinds of legal and other
               implications," he said. 

               The question of tobacco advertising in the Ashkenazi
               haredi papers was raised by forceful rulings by leading
               rabbinical authorities against smoking given prominence
               on Friday by the two Ashkenazi haredi dailies.
               Unprecedented front-page news articles accompanied
               large advertisements placed by Rabbis Yosef Shalom
               Elyashiv, Aharon Yehuda Leib Steinman, Moshe Shmuel
               Shapira, Michl Yehuda Lifkovitz, Nissim Karelitz, and
               Shmuel Auerbach. 

               The articles and the advertisements in the two papers
               called on young people not to start smoking, and for
               those who already smoke to "gradually try to quit." 

               A few weeks ago, The Jerusalem Post was the first to
               publish an even more rigorous ruling by prominent Bnei
               Brak sage Rabbi Shmuel Halevy Wosner, which
               appeared in an boxed ad on the Friday front pages of
               both Hamodia and Yated Ne'eman. Wosner called on
               people not only to avoid starting to smoke altogether, but
               said that if they were already hooked, they should
               gradually kick the habit. 

               He also declared that smokers should not light up in
               public places and thus harm others, and stated that 
"those
               that advertise [cigarettes] in the newspapers and those
               who assist in this dangerous thing" will have to take
               responsibility for the harm they cause." 


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

Steve Brizel wrote: << The secret of the sale is that you will  see bnei and 
bnos Torah as well as heterodox Jews ranging from Satmar, Mir , Lakewood, 
REITS, Stern and JYS in one room looking to purchase sifrei Kodesh.  >>

The secret is that it is a sale where real bargains are to be had. The same 
thing happens in Israel when the entire book industry gets together for its 
"Shavua haSefer".  The market forces are at work - supply, demand, bargain - 
and then even ferocious ideologues drop their crusades for truth.

chaim wasserman

I note my full agreement (I know, not "netiquette", does that really matter?
It should be netiquette, as if we noted all the times we agree, it would
diminish the friction of the times we disagree.) with RHM's post, most of
which I have deleted for space purposes.

I would like to register my observation of the flow in the winding down (I
hope) of the SE thread and the escalation (it seems likely) of the History
thread.

To date, particularly in RCS's posts, the, for want of a better term, please
excuse its use, "RW" view has brought proofs and references, and has masde
an attempt (in my case, perhaps failing at times :-) ) to discuss the issue
qua issue from the perspective of Yahadus and its source texts and
guidelines. The response, again, forgive the arbitrary terminology, from the
"LW", has been mostly emotional, stirring to be sure, but based on the
axiomatic assumption that nothing should be left unsaid, no sotne unturned,
no privacy respected, and "truth" will emerge. Let us not for now question
that notion - we can leave that for another time (I believe I demonstrated
to R' Micha and R' David Motzo'ei Shabbos how "truth" does not necessarily
emerge from these letters) - but I believe the RW perspective (va'ani
b'socham) has the right to respectfully ask for countervailing mareh mekomos
and evidence.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 5:52 AM
Subject: The SE letters - Some Imprerssions


> It is relatively clear to me that the SE letters were
> a private correspondence between two great friends
> that were never intended to see the light of day.  The
> SE had a friend, whom he trusted, who was outside of
> the establishment Torah community, whom he was able to
> "pour out his heart" by communicating his innermost
> private thoughts about issues and people of the day
> without fear of retribution from peers.  I'm convinced
> by the tone of those letters that in his wildest
> dreams, he never thought those letters would be
> published. In this he erred.
>

Interesting Gemaros about the Giv'onim and Dovid on Yevamos 78-79. See also
the Michtav Me'Eliyahu vol. 5 p. 279. Are there ramifications for modren
application in the Middle East...?

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

In a message dated 2/21/00 9:46:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 To date, particularly in RCS's posts, the, for want of a better term, please
 excuse its use, "RW" view has brought proofs and references, and has masde
 an attempt (in my case, perhaps failing at times :-) ) to discuss the issue
 qua issue from the perspective of Yahadus and its source texts and
 guidelines. The response, again, forgive the arbitrary terminology, from the
 "LW", has been mostly emotional, stirring to be sure, but based on the
 axiomatic assumption that nothing should be left unsaid, no sotne unturned,
 no privacy respected, and "truth" will emerge.  >>
An interesting interpretation of the history of this thread:-).  I read it as 
a difference of opinion as to whether there is a toelet in the specifics of 
the soul searching that R"YY Weinberg went through. IMHO your categorization 
of the "LW" position is an overreach.
Interesting is whether a statement which will have toelet for a significant  
public but not all would be over Lashon Hara.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich 

On 21 Feb 00, at 8:47, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:

> Interesting Gemaros about the Giv'onim and Dovid on Yevamos 78-79. See also
> the Michtav Me'Eliyahu vol. 5 p. 279. Are there ramifications for modren
> application in the Middle East...?

I'm not sure what you're getting at (admittedly I have not finished 
Daf 79 yet, and I only own the first three volumes of the Michtav 
and they are at home, so if you could elaborate, that would be 
much appreciated). But given the Mishna in Yadayim (4:4) and the 
Gemara in Brachos 28a regarding Sancherev, what implications 
could there be for today's Middle East? 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

> If one were to only read these letters one would get
> the impression that the SE was a bitter, lonely man
> who was against the entire thrust of what the Orthodox
> Jewish world was doing.  Not one positive thing can be
> said about such an individual.  Everything the SE

Let us accept the premise that reading the letters leaves precisely the
impression described. To be sure, we are dealing with a major talmid
hakham, who continues to devote his old age to Torah and avoda, who
continues to respond to queries from around the world. But his
correspondence reveals "a bitter lonely man who was against the entire
thrust of what the Orthodox Jewish world was doing."

Does this lead to the conclusion that "not one positive thing can be said
about such an individual?"

I would like to know what perspective it is that cannot find "one positive
thing" to say about a talmid hakham who is 1) lonely and 2) who is
critical, not of Torah uMitzvot, but of the "thrust" of what the Orthodox
Jewish world was doing. Being 1) lonely and 2) critical are probably
impediments to running for Chairman of a local Booster's club in the
United States, to say nothing of cutting down one's chances to endorse
sugary breakfast cereals. But surely it is possible for honest people to
find "one positive thing" to say about such an individual.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Joelirich@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: SE/History


> An interesting interpretation of the history of this thread:-).  I read it
as
> a difference of opinion as to whether there is a toelet in the specifics
of
> the soul searching that R"YY Weinberg went through. IMHO your
categorization
> of the "LW" position is an overreach.
> Interesting is whether a statement which will have toelet for a
significant
> public but not all would be over Lashon Hara.
>

But that is part of the point: Can you bring precedent with chapter and
verse that this is a to'eles ha'materes to transgress, if nothing else for
the moment, retzono shel odom zehu kevodo? RCS from one perspective, and I
from another, have brought evidence that it is not - where is contrary
evidence?

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

Wait till you get there - I am not talking about geneaology (a natural
assumption in Yevamos) - but of parameters of Kiddush Hashem.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
To: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>;
<avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Daf Yomi Query


> On 21 Feb 00, at 8:47, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:
>
> > Interesting Gemaros about the Giv'onim and Dovid on Yevamos 78-79. See
also
> > the Michtav Me'Eliyahu vol. 5 p. 279. Are there ramifications for modren
> > application in the Middle East...?
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at (admittedly I have not finished
> Daf 79 yet, and I only own the first three volumes of the Michtav
> and they are at home, so if you could elaborate, that would be
> much appreciated). But given the Mishna in Yadayim (4:4) and the
> Gemara in Brachos 28a regarding Sancherev, what implications
> could there be for today's Middle East?
>
> -- Carl
>
>
> Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
> Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
> Telephone 972-2-625-7751
> Fax 972-2-625-0461
> mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
> mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
>
> Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
> Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
> Thank you very much.
>

potential apologies if this appears twice.  I've been having trouble
connecting to avodah with one of my e-mail accounts and am resubmitting
something first sent last week, but because DN never goes out of style, is
still relevant this week. if the original ever self-exhumes from whatever
cyber limbo it managed to find, please reference line one apology....

I had no plans to weigh in on these discussions as the protagonists seem to
ably and forefully represent their own perspectives.  But yet the too quick
dismissal (imho) of RD Havin's plaint re the tone assumed in some postings
needs reinforcement, not a blow-off inviting him to unsubscribe if he is
uncomfortable.  I cast not the slightest aspersion on RYGBs self perception
of the "issues" focus of his postings as opposed to ad hominem screeds,
indeed it is precisely from the positive example and sensitivity usually
shown by RYGB in such matters that makes some recent responses atypical. but
here is clearly an area, as any musar devotee such as RYGB might surely
agree,  where improvement is possible for all of us.  I will give two recent
examples, one personal and one related to the SE stuff.  In the recent
thread on MM, I wrote some things (all true of course, but that is another
issue) which clearly vexed RYGB as well as some others and he wrote back
demanding sources - fair enough. I had indeed prepared just such a reply but
decided not to post it in part because of the tone, intended or not, of some
other remarks.  Thus when a halochik issue was raised (viz the
permissability of la'az on the departed) with a citation from the chofetz
chaim (ironically to the very same citation that people feel free to apply
this week to the SE issue - but with much less relevance than the MM
application since the purported SE la'az is quite undetectable at least to
this reader), this was dismissed - but not answered - by RYGB as an attempt
to <..piously (presumably false piety - mine?)  protect MM behind the veil
of the Chofeitz Chaim - this doesn't quite make fro reasoned debate, does
it?> While i am unsure whether this remark was meant to exemplify RYGBs
understanding of reasoned debate (indeed, i'm sure it was not since we've
grown accustomed to higher standards from him), I am quite  sure - again
whether intended or not - that it comes across perilously close to the ad
hominem border, and never did attempt to answer the substantive issue. good
thing I'm not a sensitive kind of guy.  now consider the recent SE dust up
with Shapiro's impassioned defense of his own integrity/intellectual honesty
as a historian.  RYGB claims that he nowhere questioned it, rather reserving
the right to question his judgement (again fair enough in the sense that
this removes it from the ad hominem mode - though even to question judgement
it would seem that you might cite something relevant, but "relevance" too is
a judgement call and I don't wish to debate it here).  

But what RYGB actually said in response to a posting by REC, and I assume
was the proximate cause which sent Shapiro ballistic, was:
<Thus, just as cheerfully - but vehemently - must I disagree with what here
follows: >> Prof. Shapiro does not need me to defend his intellectual
honesty.  I will note only that his book does refer to statements in letters
or statements addressed to the yeshiva world which contradict Shapiro's
portrait. Shapiro interprets these as not reflecting the Seridei Esh's true
views. Readers are free to interpret them differently. But Prof. Shapiro
makes no attempt to disregard or conceal the conflicting evidence.  Kol tuv,
Eli Clark > >
Now,  how may we parse this response where he "disagrees with the follows"
There are only six sentences in REC's text.  The sixth contains his closing
salutation and name, which I presume RYGB is not disputing. Similar analysis
leads me to assume RYGB can only be disagreeing with the first or fifth of
REC's sentences.  Either of which could easily be taken (indeed I would not
know how else to take it) as an attack on someone's intellectual honesty -
precisely what RYGB did not by his testimony mean to do.  

Now, I am also a very quick and thus occasionally careless writer, and I
know that I have -inadvertently poh vi'shom- strayed beyond such bounds.
thus the stricture: chachomim, hizoharu bi'divreichem would (if I only had
such status) have applied to me as well, let alone a talmid chochom like
RYGB.

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

A poster wrote:  <If the intention of the TuM journal in publishing
those letters (and I will admit that I have not seen them except to the
extent that they have been published on this list) had only been to say to
its own ideological adherents, "see, the SE was sympathetic to our camp too.
But don't use that as a club against the RW," I don't think anyone would
have a problem..>

While the editors of TuMJ hardly need me to speak for them, i am
increasingly uncomfortable with the various references to its purported
ideological agendum - not that i disagree that some common (in a very broad
sense) perspectives are indeed shared by many of the editors/contributors
and is indeed implicit in its very title. Of course absolutely identical
remarks about the title/editor/readership could be made of the journal
Modern Judaism and many other scholarly journals) But the occasionally
spoken inference which some have drawn that therefore, the published
articles are inherently "tainted" by suspicion of -essentially -
intellectual dishonesty through the skewing, misrepresenting, or outright
ignoring of known facts that do not "support" the agendum, the conscious
refusal to draw inferences at variance with the program, etc. are - to an
academic - loshon horoh of the highest order.  It also confuses the purpose
of a TuMJ with something like, say, the Jewish Observer or the Yated, which
do in fact have an "intent to speak to its own ideological adherents", where
such "skewing" is part of the program - which is their role as a tool in the
educational servicing, information dissemination,  and re-inforcing of
communal mores. i.e. a completely valid, but different, function than a
TuMJ. it is only when such publications also wish to lay claim to such
"secular" ideals as "intellectual honesty" -after all, who wants to be
labeled by implication "dishonest"- that a dissonance appears and criticism
is appropriate.  But there is no dissonance when a journal like TuM claims
to strive for intellectually honesty (though of course the success of
individual contributions, as in any scholarly journal, may vary).  The pages
of TuMJ for instance are not necessarily restricted to those whose fidelity
to the titular agendum is unquestioned and whose published contributions
indeed may strongly challenge the shared (broadly) hashqofic perspectives of
the editors - contributions by R. Parnes come to mind. It is thus part of a
different class of publications and these differences should not be blurred
by too casual references to its supposed ideology.  

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 9:55 AM
Subject: Shapiro's book: chachomim hizohoru bidivreichem


> <Thus, just as cheerfully - but vehemently - must I disagree with what
here
> follows: >> Prof. Shapiro does not need me to defend his intellectual
> honesty.  I will note only that his book does refer to statements in
letters
> or statements addressed to the yeshiva world which contradict Shapiro's
> portrait. Shapiro interprets these as not reflecting the Seridei Esh's
true
> views. Readers are free to interpret them differently. But Prof. Shapiro
> makes no attempt to disregard or conceal the conflicting evidence.  Kol
tuv,
> Eli Clark > >
> Now,  how may we parse this response where he "disagrees with the follows"
> There are only six sentences in REC's text.  The sixth contains his
closing
> salutation and name, which I presume RYGB is not disputing. Similar
analysis
> leads me to assume RYGB can only be disagreeing with the first or fifth of
> REC's sentences.  Either of which could easily be taken (indeed I would
not
> know how else to take it) as an attack on someone's intellectual honesty -
> precisely what RYGB did not by his testimony mean to do.
>
> Now, I am also a very quick and thus occasionally careless writer, and I
> know that I have -inadvertently poh vi'shom- strayed beyond such bounds.
> thus the stricture: chachomim, hizoharu bi'divreichem would (if I only had
> such status) have applied to me as well, let alone a talmid chochom like
> RYGB.
>

As always, I enjoy RMF's posts and appreciate his comments. As an afficiando
of the "hard" sciences, he is doubtless aware of the skepticism that those
fields accord the "soft" sciences - and, I would assume. kol she'kein,
history.

Now, to be sure, I love history (and have an aversion to the the hard
sciences, but that's another thread), but I recognize that one's personal
perspective, point of view, and even autobiography, will shape that person's
defintions and pronouncements concerning historical events. This is logical,
evident, and the subject of many scholarly studies: I note again a book I
just finished listening to, "Inventing the Middle Ages" by Prof. Norman F.
Cantor of NYU, in which he demonstrates how personal perspectives and
beliefs shaped the outlooks of the great medieval scholars of the twentieth
century. I drew the hypothetical example of the distinctions that would
arise from in biographies of R' Yisroel Slanter written by a Ba'al Mussar, a
Brisker, and a Maskil (one might toss in a Chosid for good measure). As
Prof. Shapiro's views on matters that I regard as core to our understanding
of Yahadus differ so vastly from mine, I personally, and I assume people in
my intellectual stratum, cannot rely on his assessment of a Gadol b'Torah's
"true views". That is the line in REC's post that I referred to. I am sure
that you remember our contretemps from MJ, and therefore would agree that I
(not you) am in the situation I describe.

Right?

KT,
YGB

In a message dated 2/21/00 1:10:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But I don't think that I can 
 make the determination to "go public" without consulting a 
 competent posek (and obviously one who is not a nogea ba'davar). 
 
 This is not the forum for me to discuss this, but I assure you that 
 > if a group of my friends had been willing to issue loud and clear calls 
for 
 > such a Rabbis censure, a great number of people would have avoided a good 
 > deal of pain and persecution.
 
 Lo aleinu, I think we are all aware of such incidents in our 
 communities and elsewhere.... >>

Yes, but the Rabbinical establishment dragged their feet on the case of which 
I speak, and with the notable exception of one Rabbi, has been unwilling to 
confront that person to this day, and he is still in a position that brings 
him into contact with hundreds of young people. This has been going on for 
thirty years.

Jordan  

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


[ 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         ]