Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 398

Monday, February 28 2000

• Beis Din in Civil Court
• TIDE vs. TuM
• Facing the Truths of History
• Facing the Truths of History
• Re: Study of History
• Re: Beis Din in Civil Court
• Re: minor corrections re: Mendelsohnn
• OFF TOPIC - Courier Wanted
• Re: Facing the Truths of History
• Women as Guests
• Re: Women as Guests
• Re: Facing the Truths of History
• Maarava (was Re: Facing the Truths of History)

Carl Sherer wrote:

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:10:10 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Beis Din in Civil Court

The article below (I've taken out some of the names) appeared in
today's Jerusalem Post (paper and online). IMHO it is a Chilul
Hashem that it has come to this. The entire parsha is, IMHO, a
violation of "v'hyeesem n'kiyim." Be that as it may, I am hopeful
that the reaction of people like R. Asher Dovid Zweibel (quoted
extensively in the article) may bring about a change. Anyone else
feel the same way?

- -- Carl

The situation is a Chilul Hashem for sure, but I wouldn't necessarily blame
the woman without knowing more facts.
Rabbi Bleich as quoted in the article is right about the fact that this
belongs in a Bais Din but I know that no Bais Din
would get involved. As Rabbi Bleich said at  recent Agudah Yom Iyun, we as a
community have been over the mitzvah
to establish Batei Din.  I am pessimistic that any seder can be made here.
The fact that Zwiebel [Chaim Dovid, not Asher Dovid, BTW] despairs of the
situation and did not intuitively defend the Bais Din and says the things he
said  is very telling.  (BTW, he's probably going to catch hell for his
honesty.) Mosdos Hatorah and "Rabbonim Chashuvim" regularly resort to Arkaos
and/or ignore the decisions of Batei Din, sometimes on advice of their
Roshei Yeshiva, sometimes based on their own lomdus.  Even in the best of
the standing Batei Din there is often no minimal understanding of fair play
and due process and the Choshen Mishpat is vioalted with impunity, with ex
parte contacts with the litigants, etc. I would never suspect a dayan of
accepting out and out shochad, but what about participation in the heter
meah rabbonim by Roshei Yeshiva whose yeshivas have in the past received
contributions from the husband, etc. Such is apparently par for the course.

I am aware of a recent case where a Baltimore Bais Din did a wonderful job
in a case where the US Trustee had agreed to accept the order of the Bais
Din, which was "So Ordered" by the court. However, the losing side, a very
well known personality and a Talmid Chochom muvhak, decided that he just
wasn't going to obey it. The Trustee has tired of the case (the Bais Din
essentially imposed a partnership on the parties rather than award money
damages and its too hard to administer), the frum creditors who are
represented by the Trustee are relegated to going back to the Bais Din which
is basically just tired of the whole thing at this point.

As one of my frum legal colleagues once said, the only thing you can tell a
client that is more hilarious than
"This won't cost you alot of money" is "Why don't you try a Din Torah?" On
the other hand, the issuer of arkaos, according to Rabbi Bleich remains.
(Although I understand that in certain circumstances Rabbonim have given a
heter arkaos to someone involved with a litigant who refused to go to any
established Bais Din and insisted on zabla).

In short, Hashem Yerachem.

Zalman Krause

Carl Sherer wrote:
> Kira Sirote wrote:
> > [R. Yitzchak Twersky zt"l] showed that Rambam held that
> > the study of science is to Maaseh Breishit is as the study of Kabbala is to
> > Maaseh HaMercavah - ie, the highest level of Talmud Torah.  This is in the
> > Yad, in Hil Talmud Torah, and I can find the exact reference if you'd like.

Please do.

Rambam Yad, Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 4:10-15.  Maaseh Bereshit is physics,
maaseh merkavah is philosphy of the divine realm. 

See the following lecture by Dr. Moshe Idel:
<http://www.kheper.auz.com/topics/Kabbalah/Idel/lecture1.htm>
on the Rambam's understanding of Pardes, which is part and parcel
of this whole idea.  // note there is a lot of odd stuff on this 
                     // site, but the Idel lectures are straightforward.

Remember, Rambam didn't know kabbalah, he thought it had been lost;
see Guide III:intro.  So for him, pardes, maaseh merkavah, was 
perfect philosophy which allowed one to contemplate the Divine,
insofar as Man can.

-JJB

> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:10:08 -0800 (PST)
> From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>

<<It is quite a different matter to omit the following:
 
R. S.Y. Zevin praised Medinas Israel.
Or to refute that the Gra had a positive  thought about learning Mada,.

Or to deny that R. S.F. Mendlowitz, the great RH of Yeshivas Torah
VaDaas, was in the forefront of trying (unsuccessfully, in the end) to
create a fully
accredited College ultimately containing three separate graduate schools.
 
Or that the Netziv's wife learned Mishnayos and Sifrei Agadah. 
 
Or that R. Eliahu Meir Bloch, the Rosh HaYeshiva of Telshe participated
fully in 1954 in a Yom HaAtzmaot celebration in Cleveland.
 
Or to spin R.S.R.Hirsch's great Hashkafa of TIDE was only a Bidieved
stopgap against the encroachment of Haskala.
 
Or to say that the Rav's attitude about Secular studies was not
L'Chatchila (or that he only went to University to escape the Polish
Draft!)>>

	I agree that many of these should not be sanitized.  

	OTOH,  some of them cannot be understood out of context.  You need to
know the circumstances surrounding a gadol's action or statement in order
to (and this IS the whole point of the biographies) to apply it to
your/our own situation here, today.  That is what shimusha shel Torah is
all about.

	For those situations,  just knowing the "facts"  without background and
context leads to as skewed an opinion as,  conversely,  not knowing the
facts at all.

	For the general reading public,  it is unfortunately too much of an
effort to get both the facts and the context,  and they will wind up
misunderstanding.  That is,  partly, the reason for some of the
"editing", and I hasten to repeat that I disagree with much of it.

<<In the US the trend has already begun. Yeshivos of the R.W. that
include secular studies in high schools are becoming dinosaurs.>>

	I don't believe this is the case,  at least not now.  There are schools
which do not teach limudei chol,  but they are far from even a
significant minority,  beminyan or bebinyan. 

<<And it is the R.W. who is guilty of intolerance here not the so called
Left Wing (LW).  The left wing as  far as I am aware, agrees that there
is more than one approach to Torah Judaism. The great Centrist thinker
and advocate of Torah u Maddah, Dr. Lamm has stated that the "Torah Only"
view is legitimate. He, of course,  advocates his own view that Torah u
Maddah is the correct one but does not deny the legitimacy of other
points of view.  But the R.W. seems to do just that. They deny all
legitimacy to the Torah u Maddah approach and have done their level best
to obliterate all positive reference to it by Gedolei Hador of previous
generations.>>

<<I'd like to be proven wrong.  I would love to hear even one R.W. Rosh
HaYeshiva (RH) say that even though he doesn't agree with the TuM
philosophy itself that,  it is never-the-less a legitimate approach.  I
don't
remember R. Svei or anyone else on the Right ever saying that. >>

	We have been discussing here for a bit what the similarities and
differences are between TIDE and TuM.  I don't believe we are anywhere
near a consensus.  If we say that TIDE=TuM,  then I would argue that the
Torah only world recognizes the legitimacy of that approach.  They do not
deny that RSRH had a valid  approach.  If they choose not to follow it, 
they would not deny its legitimacy.  They may not agree with the
equivalency,  however, and will say that TuM is a perversion of TIDE.

	If,  OTOH,  TuM is an independent stream of thought,  beyond TIDE,  then
why are the RW required to grant it legitimacy?   TuM is an invention of
Drs. Revel and Belkin,  according to what someone posted here recently. 
The Rov's own position on how legitimate an approach TuM is,  has not
been made clear despite attempts by several posters to do so.  If so,  on
what basis does the TuM approach demand legitimacy from the RW?  Dr. Lamm
agrees that Torah only is a viable alternative-how could he say
otherwise?  The converse is not compelling.

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Facing the Truths of History

In Israel this is already an accomplished
> fact to the extent that any institution that tries to
> add some sort of general studies program is ostracized
> and labeled "out of the mainstream" at best and put
> into Cherem at worst (as is the case with Marava).  

AFAIK Maarava is not in cherem. I understand that there is a letter 
from Rav Schach that is published in the Yated around Chanuka 
time (when the bchina is given) saying that parents should not 
send their children there, but I don't think that Maarava was ever 
actually put in cherem. And even if Maarava were considered to be 
in cherem by some people, actions speak louder than words. 
Maarava graduates are accepted at nearly every fine Yeshiva 
Kdosha in the country.

-- Carl (parent of a Maarava ninth grader)


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

> From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Study of History

> >While I am generally sympathetic to making allowances in biographies and
> >history for the sake of truth, I can't help but feel the above comment goes
> >too far.  If the power to see "real truth" is absolute, how do we explain
> >HaShem's avoidance of lashon hara vis-a-vis Avraham and Sarah? 
> 
> One the one hand this cite supports the idea that one does not always
> tell the truth (even HaShem lied for Shalom Bayis), but in other ways,
> it seems, if anything to undermine the discussion we have been having
> on Loshen Hora and toeles.
> 
> After all, while I fully understand why it is that Hashem said what he
> said to Avraham - what I don't really understand is why, you and me, and
> everybody else who reads the Torah from Moshe's day until ours, needs to
> know that Sara Imanu spoke Loshen Hora about Avraham Avinu.
> 
> Now yes, the toeles is clear - in that we can learn from this episode
> that one can (and should) act in the way Hashem acted - but if, as Carl
> suggests, where there are two ways of teaching something, one that
> involves publicising loshen hora, and another that doesn't, you should
> choose the one that doesn't, then why is it that we know that this ever
> happened.

I think the lesson here was Shalom Bayis. But I also think that 
what Sara said was not necessarily Lashon Hara but more in the 
genre of "nura bei planya." I think that it could be argued that Sara 
would have said the same thing in front of Avraham Avinu, and that 
she would not have looked upon it as a derogatory statement (after 
all, even though she was clearly beyond ordinary child-bearing 
years at the time, he still WAS ten years older than she was).

Alternatively, Sara said what she did only to herself and not to 
someone else (after all, it says "VaTizchak Sara B'KIRBA laimor"). 
Therefore what SARA did was NOT Lashon Hara. Hashem wanted 
to reproach Avraham about it nevertheless (because He regarded it 
as a pegiya in His Kavod, as if R"L it could not have been done). 
But he did so by changing the lashon in order to teach us that one 
may change lashon because of darchei shalom.  

> Surely the Author of the Torah could have chosen another way of teaching
> us this lesson - eg stating it explicitly as a command, without a
> ma'ase, or alternatively not telling us *who* the couple in question
> were. 

I don't think changing the couple in question would have had the 
same impact. I'm also not sure that telling us a halacha rather than 
telling us a story would have had the same impact either. And 
besides, the purpose of Sefer Breishis is to teach us stories that 
will act as a mussar haskel and not to teach us halachos per se. 

(The same question also has always bothered me about Miriam,
> although I supposed there that since the loshen hora was spoken
> publically, ie all bnei Yisroel knew about it, then it was considered to
> be "in the public domain" and hence not loshen hora to put it in the
> Torah - even though you and I would never have known about it if the
> Torah had not told us about it).

Actually, no. The Chafetz Chaim makes quite clear that Miriam 
spoke only to herself. See the Sifri brought in Shmiras HaLashon, 
Shaar HaZchira Perek 5. Had Hashem not punished her so openly, 
Bnei Yisrael would never have known about it. And the Torah does 
cover up what she said. "Al odos haIsha haKushis asher lakach" 
isn't exactly an explicit statement....

Here again, I think the answer here is toeles. If there was ever a 
case that someone was going to speak Lashon Hara about 
someone else with no sense of wrongdoing whatsoever, this was it. 
The Medrash tells us that Miriam's kavana was pure - only for the 
sake of pirya v'rivya. She spoke only to herself. She knew what she 
knew only because she heard Tzipora being meysiach l'fi tuma. 
She said what she said about her brother whom she loved and 
respected and would never have harmed. Miriam was a tzadekes. 
Moshe was a tzadik and was not at all angry with her ("Keil na refa 
na la" - it didn't take anything to get him to daven for her. No 
hakpada). And yet the Torah is still telling us no, that's still Lashon 
Hara. What statement of halacha could have as powerful an effect 
as that?

> Since, however, I have a great deal of difficulty (British
> understatement here!) in attributing loshen hora (or, alternatively,
> unnecessary loshen hora) to HaShem, can somebody help me out of my
> perplexity by explaining why it was mutar to write the Torah in the way
> it was written (especially as the easy answer, ie you can say loshen
> hora about dead people appears, from what people have said here, not to
> be valid).

To me at least, there is a chiluk to be made between the Avos and 
Moshe Rabbeinu and his family, on the one hand, and the Gdolim 
of later generations on the other hand. I think that chiluk is why it's 
"okay" for the Torah to tell us about the failings of the Avos while 
it's still not "okay" to talk about the failings of Gadol X, even if 
Gadol x is after 120.

Let's go through some of the parsheyos in the Torah that would be 
kaveyachol regarded as the "wrong" thing to do in today's society. 
Does any of us think any "less" of Yaakov Avinu because of the 
way in which he received the bchora? Does any of us think any 
"less" of Yehuda because of Maaseh Tamar? Of Yosef because he 
let things get to the point that they did with Aishes Potiphar 
because (according to the Medrash) he equivocated in declining 
her advances? Of Moshe Rabbeinu because he continued to 
decline his shlichus even though it was quite clear that he had 
gone beyond the point of mere modesty (not to mention mesarvin 
le'katan v'ain mesarvin le'gadol)? Of David HaMelech because of 
Maaseh Bas Sheva? Of course not! Part of that is because we are 
melamed zchus on them - this is the way Hashem decreed that 
they would behave and so on. 

But there's also an element of distance in time. And there's also 
the concept that the Avos are so far beyond all of us, that there is 
nothing about them that could convince us that they are any less 
tzadikim than we already think they are. And, as shown, at least 
for some of the stories (and we could show it with the others) there 
was also a toeles in telling each story. For example, see the Sifri 
at the beginning of Dvarim regarding Miriam's actions. 

But if Ploni goes and publicizes that Gadol x had a child out of 
wedlock 50 or 100 years ago, who has decided that is a toeles? 
With Miriam, Hashem decided there was a toeles for us to be told - 
who decided that with respect to Gadol x? With Miriam, we are not 
going to think any less of her, because we know (and are told very 
clearly in the Medrash) her aveira was b'shogeg and with only the 
best of intentions. Can we say the same about this hypothetical 
story about Gadol x? Of course not! And if the offspring of that 
union are still known, people will whisper in the streets, "that's 
Gadol x's granchild; his/her father was born out of wedlock." What 
does that do to Gadol x's image?

Soif davar, IMHO it is impossible to try to make a hekesh to permit 
hearing maaseilach about Gdolim from the fact that the Torah tells 
over things that, to our minds, appear to be Lashon Hara. 

-- Carl


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 27 Feb 00, at 21:54, Sheldon Krause wrote:

Nice to know you're on here :-) 

> Carl Sherer wrote:

> The situation is a Chilul Hashem for sure, but I wouldn't necessarily blame
> the woman without knowing more facts.

I'm sorry if I created the impression that I was blaming the woman. 
I was not trying to. I thought that by saying that the Chilul Hashem 
was caused by a lack of "v'hyisem n'kiyim" I was implying that 
there was blame on all sides. IMHO, the very fact that people have 
a hava amina that such a thing (bribery) could go on in a Beis Din 
is a chilul Hashem.

> Rabbi Bleich as quoted in the article is right about the fact that this
> belongs in a Bais Din but I know that no Bais Din
> would get involved. As Rabbi Bleich said at  recent Agudah Yom Iyun, we as a
> community have been over the mitzvah
> to establish Batei Din.  

I was actually hoping that this kind of case would galvanize the 
community into trying to establish some sort of structure that 
would bring Batei Din under supervision. Then again, in Eretz 
Yisrael where there is such supervision, we see people avoiding 
Beis Din anyway.

 Even in the best of
> the standing Batei Din there is often no minimal understanding of fair play
> and due process and the Choshen Mishpat is vioalted with impunity, with ex
> parte contacts with the litigants, etc. 

That's Yoreh Deah - not only Choshen Mishpat. 

I would never suspect a dayan of
> accepting out and out shochad, but what about participation in the heter
> meah rabbonim by Roshei Yeshiva whose yeshivas have in the past received
> contributions from the husband, etc. Such is apparently par for the course.

I would argue that those Roshei Yeshiva should recuse themselves 
because of a conflict of interest. I don't know how pervasive the 
"heter Meah Rabbanim" is today (I only know personally of one), 
but I had the impression that the Meah Rabbanim were put 
together by people who are out of the mainstream. You're telling 
me that it's rotten to the core.

> As one of my frum legal colleagues once said, the only thing you can tell a
> client that is more hilarious than
> "This won't cost you alot of money" is "Why don't you try a Din Torah?" On
> the other hand, the issuer of arkaos, according to Rabbi Bleich remains.
> (Although I understand that in certain circumstances Rabbonim have given a
> heter arkaos to someone involved with a litigant who refused to go to any
> established Bais Din and insisted on zabla).

Forgive the naivete, but why is going to a zabla a problem? Is it 
because the Rabbonim don't know the halachos? I would think that 
at least as far as bias is concerned, the fact that the two dayanim 
chosen by the litigants would have to chose a third would be some 
sort of protection. Am I wrong? Also, why would it be mutar to give 
a heter arkaos if the opposing party is willing to go to a zabla, 
which is still a Jewish court that (in theory at least) will judge al pi 
halacha.

-- Carl (who has no experience litigating except for himself and his 
wife)


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

 RDBannett writes:  <Although some attribute Reb Shlomo 
Dubno's  disassociation from M to pressure from  RW opposers, the evidence
seems 
to point to financial differences .>
A minor correction (amplification?) to R david's minor correction - (which,
as a minor squared, leaves this note highly competitive for the most trivial
posting contest.)  Dubno's disassociation was due to artistic angst, not
financial differences.  basically MM refused to publish a long and somewhat
technical essay on hebrew liinguistics prepared by Dubno as an
"introduction" to the Biur, and which dubno felt deeply about. MM felt it
was too specialized for such a function, and instead decided to write the
intro himself, though in the end he did consent to publish the first part of
the dubno work as well.  apparently MM did try to soften the blow to dubno's
ego by, disingenously but good heartedly, suggesting to him at first that
his refusal stemmed from the financial costs associated with the
publication. This is well documented in contemporary letters by MM and
quoted in Altmann's definitive bio.

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

If anyone is coming from Flatbush, Boro Park, Williamsburg or 
Lakewood over the next week or two and would be willing to bring a 
(very small) package to Yerushalayim, please get in touch with me 
off list. Thanks.

-- 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.

In a message dated 2/27/00 11:24:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< 
    If,  OTOH,  TuM is an independent stream of thought,  beyond TIDE,  then
 why are the RW required to grant it legitimacy?   TuM is an invention of
 Drs. Revel and Belkin,  according to what someone posted here recently. 
 The Rov's own position on how legitimate an approach TuM is,  has not
 been made clear despite attempts by several posters to do so.  If so,  on
 what basis does the TuM approach demand legitimacy from the RW?  Dr. Lamm
 agrees that Torah only is a viable alternative-how could he say
 otherwise?  The converse is not compelling.
  >>
Without getting back into the definitional debates, saying that Rabbis/Drs 
Revel and Belkin "invented" TUM is like saying that the Chofetz Chaim 
"invented" not speaking Lashon Hara. 

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS Does anyone know anything about "a Hasidic Rabbi......Rabbi David Weiss" . 
 He is mentioned in a NY Times article this morning as having addressed the 
"Nation of Islam's" Saviors day rally

The account of the JOFA conference in the _Forward_ of 2/25/00 reports (on
 p. 9, in an article by E. J. Kessler entitled "Who's Afraid of Orthodox
 Feminism?"), in the context of discussing why many rabbis declined the
 invitation to attend the conference (some of these reasons seemed
 plausible to me), that:
 
    Rabbi [Moshe] Tendler said he wouldn't attend the conference because "I
    have nothing to contribute.  Whatever Halacha allows, I'm happy to
    permit."  Because of the participation of some rabbis associated with
    Edah, he called the conference "an attempt to leverage in pluralism
    along with the rightful claims of feminism."
 
    "I'm prepared to divide my beit midrash in half," Rabbi Tendler said,
    using the Hebrew for Talmudic study hall.  "My synagogue -- never."
    Orthodox women should know, he said, that in synagogue "they're welcome
    guests, but they're guests.  Their presence is not required.  That's
    not their role, to modify the service so that they can participate more
    fully."

Wgatever our positions on feminism, JOFA, etc., I'm interested in your 
reactions to "women as guests."  Thanks.  

Mark Dratch 

--- MSDratch@aol.com wrote:
> in the context of discussing why many
> rabbis declined the
>  invitation to attend the conference 
>     Rabbi [Moshe] Tendler said he wouldn't attend
> the conference because "I
>     have nothing to contribute.  Whatever Halacha
> allows, I'm happy to
>     permit."  Because of the participation of some
> rabbis associated with
>     Edah, he called the conference "an attempt to
> leverage in pluralism
>     along with the rightful claims of feminism."
>  
>     "I'm prepared to divide my beit midrash in
> half," Rabbi Tendler said,
>     using the Hebrew for Talmudic study hall.  "My
> synagogue -- never."
>     Orthodox women should know, he said, that in
> synagogue "they're welcome
>     guests, but they're guests.  Their presence is
> not required.  That's
>     not their role, to modify the service so that
> they can participate more
>     fully."
> 
> Wgatever our positions on feminism, JOFA, etc., I'm
> interested in your 
> reactions to "women as guests."  

I don't think that the expression  "women as guests." 

is necessarily the best way to describe the function
of women in the synagogue. The important point that R.
Tendler made is that their presence is not required. I
suppose one could refer to them as "guests" but I
think that removes from women a genuine desire to be
inspired in Tefila more profoundly within the context
of a minyan than would be the case B'yichidus. The
word "guest" implies more of a social component, as if
to say "come on in, relax, enjoy the repartee, have a
cookie".  It implies removal of any sense of
spirituality that women may gain through participation
of Tfila B'Tzibur and all of it's components.  

I don't believe that R.Tendler meant his comments to
be taken that way.  It was probably just a poor choice
of words.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

--- Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:

> AFAIK Maarava is not in cherem. I understand that
> there is a letter 
> from Rav Schach that is published in the Yated
> around Chanuka 
> time (when the bchina is given) saying that parents
> should not 
> send their children there, but I don't think that
> Maarava was ever 
> actually put in cherem. And even if Maarava were
> considered to be 
> in cherem by some people, actions speak louder than
> words. 
> Maarava graduates are accepted at nearly every fine
> Yeshiva 
> Kdosha in the country.
> 
> -- Carl (parent of a Maarava ninth grader)

Don't you think that the the above reffeerenced letter
by R. Schach is tantamount to a Defacto Cherem even if
it is not DeJure?  BTW, I am the biggest fan of
Maarava type schools, ken yirbu. But does that make me
an Apikores (Defacto, not Dejure) in the eyes of the
RW?

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

On 28 Feb 00, at 7:23, Harry Maryles wrote:

> --- Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> 
> > AFAIK Maarava is not in cherem. I understand that
> > there is a letter 
> > from Rav Schach that is published in the Yated
> > around Chanuka 
> > time (when the bchina is given) saying that parents
> > should not 
> > send their children there, but I don't think that
> > Maarava was ever 
> > actually put in cherem. And even if Maarava were
> > considered to be 
> > in cherem by some people, actions speak louder than
> > words. 
> > Maarava graduates are accepted at nearly every fine
> > Yeshiva 
> > Kdosha in the country.
> > 
> > -- Carl (parent of a Maarava ninth grader)
> 
> Don't you think that the the above reffeerenced letter
> by R. Schach is tantamount to a Defacto Cherem even if
> it is not DeJure?  

Saying that something is in "cherem" is a pretty strong statement. 
It's kind of like calling someone a rasha R"L. While the term gets 
bandied around a lot, it has specific halachic criteria that have to 
be met in order for the label to be true. I don't know of anyone who 
says Maarava is in cherem.

Yes, it is true that the RW (especially the Israeli RW) does not 
encourage sending their kids there. But if at the end of the day, my 
son can get into the same Yeshivas that someone who goes to a 
Yeshiva Ktana can get into, and (IY"H) he will shtieg more than the 
average Yeshiva Ktana kid once he gets to Yeshiva Kdosha 
(because being without the distraction of secular studies will be 
new to him), then I don't think it makes much of a difference what 
people say about the place. My wife and I do not feel we have 
compromised in any respect by sending him there. Now, if only 
there was a school like this for girls....

Two other points that I think are important to keep in mind. First, 
with all the talk about it on this list, Maarava is not exactly 
sweeping the Charedi world, nor does it want to. My son's class is 
about 35 boys and there is only one class per grade. A lot of the 
boys leave after 11th grade to go to Yeshiva Gdola (I think that 
most of the bagruyot are done with by then) so the 12th grade is 
even smaller - I think around 20. Yes, there are a lot more kids 
than that who apply. But it's (purposely) been kept a small school, 
and I don't think there are more than two others like it that could be 
firmly called in the Charedi camp (I would say Yishuv and Nehora - 
nothing else springs to mind). So most of the Charedim in Israel 
who are opposed to Maarava type schools probably have better 
things to do with their time than to worry about who goes there.

The other thing - and to me this is more important - is that Maarava 
is more than just a Charedi Yeshiva on a high academic level which 
also has secular studies. The midos that the boys learn there are 
amazing, and I give the Rosh Yeshiva (R. Baruch Chait) a lot of 
credit for that. Two small incidents just to illustrate:

When my son went for his farher there last year, every boy we 
passed on the way to the office wished him luck. He didn't know 
who a single one of them was.

A few weeks ago, I was on my way home from Tel Aviv at a time 
when I knew my son would be on his dinner break, and I stopped in 
to see him. As soon as I walked in the door, someone asked 
whom I was looking for and ran to get him. Avraham Yaakov came, 
we talked for a while, and I decided to stay for Maariv. We walked 
into the Beis Medrash no more than thirty seconds before Barchu, 
and I stood in the back because I didn't want to chance taking 
someone's seat. Before Barchu, a chair, a shtender and two 
siddurim materialized, as if all the boys had their eyes out to see if 
any guests were coming to Maariv. After Maariv, I asked my son 
where to put the chair and shtender, and he told me, "don't worry, 
the boys always take care of it." When he came home for Shabbos 
that week, I told him how impressed I was with the boys' behavior, 
and asked him if this was something that the Rosh Yeshiva had 
drilled into them. He said no, that the Rosh Yeshiva once told a 
story about how the Yeshiva had gotten a large donation because a 
boy had bothered to bring a guest a chair, a shtender and a siddur 
for Tefilla, and ever since then, all the boys took upon themselves 
to do that for any guest that comes to the Yeshiva. 

BTW, I am the biggest fan of
> Maarava type schools, ken yirbu. 

I am glad you are a fan. Obviously I am too. But I think it's 
important to understand that there is a lot more to Maarava than 
secular studies in a Charedi environment. And there is a lot more 
to it than academic excellence (in fact my son has told me that the 
school will not kick you out if you get 4's in Gemara but they will 
kick you out if you exhibit poor midos).

But does that make me
> an Apikores (Defacto, not Dejure) in the eyes of the
> RW?

I don't think you can look at the RW as a monolith. Apikores is 
another overused term that is bandied about that has a specific 
halachic meaning. As long as I don't fit the halachic definition of 
"apikores," I could care less who calls me one. 

And I don't think that what is correct for one person who is "RW" is 
correct for another. I think most of us who try to think before we 
speak, also try not to engage in the labelling game.

Let me put it another way for you. When this same child was in 
elementary school, he was in an environment that would not be 
considered Charedi, and when he went to masmidim (learning at 
night for elementary school boys), he would avoid telling boys 
where he went to school. He doesn't do that anymore. And AFAIK 
no one in our 99% Charedi neighborhood has ever made a snide 
remark to him about where he goes to school.

-- 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.

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


[ 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         ]