Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 038

Saturday, October 31 1998

• Re: Re[2]: Shomer psa'im
• Re[4]: Shomer psa'im
• Minhagim and shuls
• Re: Minhagim and shuls
• Re: Maakeh and Yeshiva
• Re[2]: Maakeh and Yeshiva
• Administrivia re: YU and TV
• Re: Maakeh and Yeshiva
• Re: Re[2]: Maakeh and Yeshiva
• MISC
• Mail-Jewish and Avodah
• Women's Tefillah Groups (& tv & mo, too!)
• Re: Avodah V2 #37
• Re: Maakeh
• Orthodoxy and Feminism
• Re: Women's Prayer Groups

In a message dated 10/29/98 9:42:26 AM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Question:  A mother is concernd about tghe long term effects of giving 
>       her child a new medication, i.e. about a 5 year track record.
>       
>       the doctor is in favor, but also respects the Mother's concerns.
>       
>       Is the mother - in absence of any negtaive  data - allowedto rely on 
>       shomer ps'aim and let the child tkae the meidcation adn hope for the 
>       best?
>       
If there are proven medications on the market for that illness why should she
should she use it Ein Sofeik Motzee M'ydei Vaaday, if however there are no
other known medication then the question is she allowed to withhold, (unless
it isn't a life threatening or debilitating disease).  In any case I don't see
the connection to Shomeir Psoyim where the one who does it doesn't know there
may be a Sakanah.

In any case this is a Shayloh for a Rov.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

     We can prove beyond a reaonble doubt that there is no immediate 
     danger.  The long term effects are a complete unknown.  Most people 
     wouldn't even consider the long term effects, and taht's a "purer case 
     of  shomeir pesoim in taht they go on what they know.  this mother is 
     being cautious so she suspects a potential long term danger.  Can she 
     realy on the known safety (shomer peso'im) or need to seek 
     alternatives - assuming ther are avaialable.
     
     By the way, a LOT of nerw drugs are superior in effectiveness.  The 
     chesshasis their long term side effects...
     
     Richard I'm no doctor Wolpoe   


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Shomer psa'im 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/29/98 7:48 PM


In a message dated 10/29/98 9:42:26 AM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
     
> Question:  A mother is concernd about tghe long term effects of giving 
>       her child a new medication, i.e. about a 5 year track record.
>       
>       the doctor is in favor, but also respects the Mother's concerns. 
>       
>       Is the mother - in absence of any negtaive  data - allowedto rely on 
>       shomer ps'aim and let the child tkae the meidcation adn hope for the 
>       best?
>       
If there are proven medications on the market for that illness why should she 
should she use it Ein Sofeik Motzee M'ydei Vaaday, if however there are no 
other known medication then the question is she allowed to withhold, (unless 
it isn't a life threatening or debilitating disease).  In any case I don't see 
the connection to Shomeir Psoyim where the one who does it doesn't know there 
may be a Sakanah.
     
In any case this is a Shayloh for a Rov.
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     

I meant to say that even the Rav has limited power in changing the minhagim
of the shul -- even if they grew up davenning Nusach Sefard, if they are the
Rav of a shul which has davenned Nusach Ashkenaz for years there are clear
limits to the shul changing its minhag.

     I don't know the entire hisotry but I belong to a shul that was once 
     Nusach Sefard, and I think its first Rov was an influence in making it 
     the nusach.  Subsequent Rabbonim changd it to Ashkenaz, yet the shul 
     retained certain minhoggim to this day.  (EG no Boruch Hasehm leolom 
     at Maariv) 
     
     This seems to contraidct an earlier posting that inidcates a change of 
     a Nusach is a bigger deal than chaning Minhogim.
     
     (And I make no claim that this shul played by "the rules"
     
     Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

I meant to say that even the Rav has limited power in changing the minhagim 
of the shul -- even if they grew up davenning Nusach Sefard, if they are the 
Rav of a shul which has davenned Nusach Ashkenaz for years there are clear 
limits to the shul changing its minhag.
     

From Joel Rich:
:                                                I later found that the Emek
: Bracha brings this as a proof (among others) that ma;akeh is a gezeirat
: hakatuv not directly associated with sakkanah - i.e. sakanah may be a nice
: reason, but it is not the 'geder' of the mitzva, see Hi. Chol Hamoed where he
: discusses it. 

(I hope geder was quoted to stress the pun.)

A proof from the passuk -- the word "ki", not "lima'an" is used. "Ki"
indicates a causal relationship (or simultinaity "ka'asher", or 5 other
things...) "lim'an" implies telos.

In other words, the pasuk tells you that doing so will cause a prevention of
bloodshed. It doesn't say that one builds a ma'akeh IN ORDER TO prevent it.
You would think, though, that Yeshivos would have to put up fences for
straight piku'ach nefesh reasons.

From Richard Wolpoe:
:      Fantastic and  now can we can ignore the kosuv's point ki Yipol 
:      hanofeil memimenu and JUST focus on v'osiso maakeh legagecho?!

Which brings me to a second observation. Lifnei iver is /never/ applied
literally anywhere in Shas. It was suggested to me that the reason is simple:
we don't need a seperate issur to tell us not to be cruel to blind people.

Perhaps the same could be said here. If ma'akah were really directly about
preventing hazards, would it need to be a seperate mitzvah?

Third point: I wrote "directly about preventing hazards" for a reason. Because
here, unlike shiluach haken (or is it hakan, because I'm putting a comma
here?), Hashem does mention the reason we're told to ignore.

Perhaps it's like showing kavod to mishneh lechem, or Mosheh showing hakaras
hatov to the Nile and the sand (and therefore was not the instrument by which
Hashem brought the makos that afflicted them). Because it's important for the
doer to practice these things. So we ignore the fact that the recipient isn't
necessarily in a position to care.

Similarly, one puts up a ma'akeh to practice sh'miras hanefesh, not necessarily
to actually save lives. This would also explain why it's a chiyuv gavra, as
the point is to make the gavra go through the excersize.

From Akiva Miller:
: My understanding was that mezuza is also a chovas gavra, but somehow, the
: yeshiva found plenty of people to donate and put up the mezuzos on the
: beis medrash and elsewhere.

Somehow, our generation tends to be stronger on the bein adam laMakom. This
looks to me like another case in point. (Is it okay to bash everyone equally?)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5964 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 29-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

     My simple understandin of Ki Yipol was to modify v;osiso, that is it 
     IS a chiyuv if some could fall, and NOT a chiyuv if such were not the 
     case, EG a roof that is not in use.
     
     I did not meant simply that this the soource of a generic mitzvo 
     althouth I think v'nishartem me'od lenafshoseichem comes to mind.
     
     On a Hashkofo level, many frumme Yidn would be mechallel Shabbos to 
     carry a walky-talky when they serve in Hatzolo.  In other words, we 
     take pikuach nefesh VERY seriously. (apologies to RYGB if he takes 
     ruchnious more seriously, but to me if he was bineg consistent then 
     what about Sahbbos and Pikuach Nefesh).  So I understand that pikuach 
     nefesh not only requires chumros, it acutally sets aside a LOT of 
     halcohos like shabbos, kashrus etc. Under 99% of realistic 
     circunstances.
     
     I know somebody WILL, but I cannot seem to explain the great attention 
     to pikuach nefesh and a concomittant defense of leaving off a maakeh - 
     and it seems to me to be the ultimate irony that a possuk that demands 
     a maake is (apparently) used to make this LESS of a chiyuv than the 
     shabbos walkie talkie.
     
     Shabbat shalom
     Rich Wolpoe
     
     
        

Chiam Brown writes:
: As I wrote on old Bais Tefilla with regard to the Lubavitch issues - since N.
: Lamm (or in the former case, the lof Lubavitch) isn't reading this list, aside
: from venting, what is the toelet of bashing YU?

Rabbi Yosef Blau, mashgiach ruchani of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchannan
(at least, he was in my day), actually IS on this list.

In terms of to'elet, though... To this nogei'ah bidavar, it sure sounded
more like bashing than constructive criticism to me. Tochachah is a very
hard mitzvah to do correctly, and so close to SO many issurim.

I am most surprised by the people who -- on the list and those who commented
in personal email -- couldn't see what I found wrong with the posts. But as
I'm a nogei'ah bidavar as well (having been in a s'michah shi'ur in RIETS),
I'm not in a position to judge. Either way, once someone says I'm insulted,
and you continue, the tone should change no matter how right you think you
are.

As to why I didn't carry out my threat... Despite the fact that I asked the
chevrah to drop the thread or I'll close the list for a week, that was a
Friday. I was elsewhere on motz'ei Shabbos and returned to find out that not
only was I ignored, but the topic was wearing out on its own.

And to those who complained... People's personalities or posting styles are
off topic for the list.Besides, which do you think is more likely: you'll get
the last word, or you just insured the thread will continue? Tochachah is
not supposed to be birabbim, and there's a reason for that. So, if you do feel
a need to criticize a post, the proper venue is an email to the person, CC'ed
to me. (So that I can keep track of trends.)

That last line will, b'li neder, find its way into the membership agreement.
In some form or another.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5964 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 29-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In a message dated 10/29/98 9:16:34 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

>  Perhaps the same could be said here. If ma'akah were really directly about
>  preventing hazards, would it need to be a seperate mitzvah?

There is a greater need to teach that one has to make a Geder to avoid a
Sakanah, then teaching us not to be cruel.  

>  Similarly, one puts up a ma'akeh to practice sh'miras hanefesh, not 
> necessarily
>  to actually save lives. This would also explain why it's a chiyuv gavra, as
>  the point is to make the gavra go through the excersize.

Plz see Rambam Hil Rotzeich chapter 11, and the whole added simon 427 in S"O
Choshen Mishpot, which is not in Tur.  IMHO the reason that he brings it in
Choshen Mishpot rather then Y"D, is because he considers this an extension of
the laws of Mazik etc. IOW not that much a Gzeiras Hakosuv but rather to
actualy avoid Hezek to someone.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

In a message dated 10/29/98 9:40:51 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> I know somebody WILL, but I cannot seem to explain the great attention 
>       to pikuach nefesh and a concomittant defense of leaving off a maakeh -
>       and it seems to me to be the ultimate irony that a possuk that demands
>       a maake is (apparently) used to make this LESS of a chiyuv than the 
>       shabbos walkie talkie.

First one has to establish that the case is so, that people violate the
Mitzvah of M'aakeh, (and for those interested in a lengthy discussion of the
topic see Sdei Chemed Klolim Mem 195), in the case of walkie talkie it is
based on the possibility of it saving a life (and not even avoiding a danger,
Makeh is not Dochea Shabbos).

Kol Tuv

YItzchok

A couple of thoughts which relate to previous threads:

1-I was teaching the parshas tzizis this week and came across a Ramban who
(unlike Rashi) says the main zechira of tzizis is the Techeles (rashi says
its gwematria +strings+knots) I also went through a Michtav meliyahu which
indicated that techeles was essential for tzizis to serve its
purpose--this made me ask the question to myself, if techeles is so
essential why does the Torah allow for tzizis with only white strings
are there any other mitzvos where we are still required to do the mitzvos
even though the main idea of the mitzva isn't there.

2- I came acxross another case where the Rambam holds like the yerusalmi,
in Pesachim 53b there is a dispute Rabbi shimon ben eliezer and the
chachmim and the Rambam holsd like Rsbe, the nosei kelim say that it is
based on a yerushalmi. It isn't rare that this happens--are we still
trying to explain why
Elie Ginsparg

I'd like to thank R. Bechhofer for forwarding my message to mail-jewish
to your list. I've just come back on line and have tried to read some of
the recent issues of Avodah. I'm confident that there is more than
enough material and need for both of our lists. I see that I get at
least 500-1000 line digest from Avodah every day, and I am receiving
enough material to keep mail-jewish busy. I do see that we have many
readers in common, and I expect that to continue. I look forward to both
of our lists growing and serving the Torah Jewish community.

Avi Feldblum
Moderator - mail-jewish
mljewish@shamash.org or feldblum@cnj.digex.net

As Rick Turkel said, nobody here has given evidence that they even know
people who participate in women's tefillah groups.  My mother does, as
do many of her friends, and I've been to one of their conferences, so 
I'd like to share some thoughts.

Abraham Pechman wrote:
>The concern isn't that women (as individuals) might deviate. The problem is
>a movement, with leaders and conferences and publications, etc. which may be
>pushing for deviations. 

Rick Turkel wrote:
>	There _are_ respected halakhic authorities who permit and advise
>such groups as to what they are permitted to do and what is forbidden to
>them _within the halakha_ - R. Avi Weiss of Riverdale is the first one
>who comes to mind.  The rabbi of my shul in Columbus, Ohio has also

Most WTGs were formed with Rabbinic help, and continue to practice
under rabbinic guidance.  There are WTGs, such as Flatbush, which
have been unable to get a local rabbi to advise them, or a local
shul with which to affiliate.  Thus, a) they meet in private homes,
and b) they feel free to deviate, saying Kaddish in at least one case. 

The traditionalists in the WTGs don't like this because a) it *is* a
deviation from halacha, and b) it tends to discredit all the WTGs
because people like R. Pechman can point and shake their fingers and
say "look what women's tefillah groups do, what women's prayer leads
to."

In a way, the local rabbinic leadership is to blame, for refusing
to associate with what could have been a legitimate activity, if done
right.  By refusing these women the rabbinic advice (imprimatur) they
want and need, to serve as a brake on the car of WTGs, they implicitly
encourage them to swerve off the road.  There's a big difference
between rabbinic guidance and rabbinic "I-told-you-sos".

Micha Berger wrote:
>I have a couple of hashkafic problems with such prayer groups.

>We are setting them up for failure. As soon as the newness of the "almost
>minyan" wears off, so will the feeling of spiritual fulfillment.

Historical point: my mother and many of her associates have been attending
the occasional Lincoln Square WTG since its inception 25 years ago.  Is
it that the "newness" hasn't worn off, or does it actually fulfill some
spiritual need other than a desire for the new?

Also, when my grandmother died 9 years ago, and my mother was saying
kaddish for her (my uncle won't darken the door of a synagogue), on
WTG days, she would go to the hashkama minyan to say kaddish, and then
to the WTG to actually pray.

>Second, it would be validating the non-O belief that Judaism revolves around
>the synagogue. Jon Baker (or was it his wife?) once pointed out to me that the
>three mitzvos that sociologically define Orthodoxy, Shabbos, kashrus, and
>taharas hamishpachah are all "women's mitzvos". So of course, non-Orthodox
>"Judaisms" can't provide sufficient spiritual context for women.

Like it or not, though, in America at least, religion does revolve around
the church, whether as focal point for social activity or as place for
worship.  That may be part of why this is limited to the Modern Orthodox,
who are hashkafically integrated in the larger world.  Something of the
world's attitudes will rub off, whatever one does.  And it's not just
TV (for those who would bash MO and YU for it), it's work as well, where
one socializes with one's non-Jewish co-workers, and community activities,
and social action groups, etc.  Also, many of the women who participate
in WTGs are BTs, who have an even stronger connection to the social
realities of the outside world.

If we view it unabashedly in the context of "older" feminism, that
of equal opportunity, it fits right into the mold of the attitudes
that created the Beis Yaakovs.  Women were getting secular education
in Eastern Europe, so the Beis Yaakovs were formed to give them equal
access to Jewish education, so as to prevent them from leaving the 
derech.  Now, women are getting better opportunities for leadership
in work, in shul boards, in school boards, etc.  Better that they
have a (limited) role for religious leadership than that they go to
the Conservative and Reform, who would welcome them as educated people
who could lead services right away.

Perhaps the WTGs do satisfy something beyond the desire for "fake male"
leadership roles.  For one thing, my mother does not read Hebrew well. 
She sings very well, but her lack of fluency in reading keeps her from
leading a service or layning.  She just did her first Musaf this
Simchat Torah, after 25 years).  For many years she was the kiddush
committee, something she could have done in any shul in America.  Yet
she gets extra fulfillment from participating in a WTG where women sing
loudly enough to be heard, women lead, women pray with kavvanah. At WTGs,
women take an active interest in the prayers rather than chatting about
their children and their outside lives.  They become a group for serious
daveners, rather than a group of "minyan outsiders" who feel free to
chatter and disturb anyone among them who actually wants to daven.
And there are many women who are far more personally frum than my mother
who also feel that they get a better, more serious prayer experience
in WTGs without having to lead services themselves.

Women do feel a need to pray with kavvanah, as evidenced by the techinot
that were composed and used in a period when women were strongly socially
excluded from the synagogue, and not just from the minyan.  If the WTG
creates a space which is conducive to real prayer, I'd say it meets a
real halachic and personal need.

While WTGs miss the devarim shebikedushah, regular minyanim are clearly
lacking for these women.  There is no single ideal place for these
women.  At the occasional (at LSS, every other month) WTG, they can
fill in the gaps in the regular minyan experience.

> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:11:28 EST
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Orthodoxy and feminism - Aveiro Lishmo
> 
> In a message dated 10/28/98 5:47:48 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
> 
> > Would the 250 makrivei Ketores be categorized as doing an "aviro 
> >       lishmo"??
> 
> While there the Torah calls them Hachatoi'm Bnafshosom (even the Nefesh), See
> the Ohr Hachayim Hakodosh on Nodov V'avihu.

===> I believe that the Netziv also considers this a *type* of "Aveira
Lishmo" and points out that once the people are punished, their intentions
are also recognized.
--Zvi

> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:57:36 EST
> From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
> Subject: YU, TV, femisim - sanctimonious self-righteousness at its best
> 
> As I wrote on old Bais Tefilla with regard to the Lubavitch issues - since N.
> Lamm (or in the former case, the lof Lubavitch) isn't reading this list, aside
> from venting, what is the toelet of bashing YU?  Did anyone in their self-
> righteousness bother to pen a letter to N. Lamm or the Commentator - not that
> that would help, but it would at least be the right forum to discuss the idea
> so that I don't have to exercise the delete key as much.  I see things have
> now moved on to better targets, i.e. feminism.  I know, this serves the public
> interest of informing us of the world's evils.  Do I sound annoyed enough : -
> )?  

===> I have written repeatedly to The Commentator when I see something
objectionable.  And, sometimes, they even publish the letter...  I agree,
however, that "beating up" on YU in this forum seems to border on plain
ol' you-know-what rather than anything constructive.

--Zvi



> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:06:16 -0600 (CST)
> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Re: YU, TV, femisim - sanctimonious self-righteousness at its best
> 
> No one bashed YU, don't get defensive.
> 
> The purpose of such discussion, in any event, is birur ha'emes l'ma'an
> ha'emes. Many sugyos we learn have no nafka mina except birur ha'emes.
> That is enough of a nafka mina.

====> I would like to know how much birur we can hope to achieve when the
"main players" are not involved....

--Zvi

> 
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > As I wrote on old Bais Tefilla with regard to the Lubavitch issues -
> > since N.  Lamm (or in the former case, the lof Lubavitch) isn't reading
> > this list, aside from venting, what is the toelet of bashing YU?  Did
> > anyone in their self- righteousness bother to pen a letter to N. Lamm or
> > the Commentator - not that that would help, but it would at least be the
> > right forum to discuss the idea so that I don't have to exercise the
> > delete key as much.  I see things have now moved on to better targets,
> > i.e. feminism.  I know, this serves the public interest of informing us
> > of the world's evils.  Do I sound annoyed enough : - )? 
> > 
> 
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 

Might maakeh not be a chok (and I think mishpatim must be accepted as 
chukim) for which we don not know and may not question HKB'H's 
motivation?
shabbat shalom ye all
steve katz

PS. see Moreh Nevuchim re gezerah milfanei

If we want to seriously discuss Orthodoxy and Feminism we have to go
beyond a reporter's quote of a single women at a conference.  The fact
that a number of such conferences of women have taken place and that
they are well attended, signifies that there are are a substantial
amount of Orthodox women dissatisfied with the status quo. Women are
playing a different role in society and changes already exist in Jewish
life as well.  Women working outside the home has become the norm.  The
existence of many kollelim is based on the earnings of the kollel
wives.  The remarkable growth of formal Jewish education for women has
produced, probably for the first time in history, large numbers of women
capable of mastering halachic texts.  How do these changes in Orthodox
women's lives affect the nature of their observances and role?  This is
a  question that requires serious analysis especially if these
conferences actually reflect the concerns of many Orthodox women. 
Sincerely yours,
Yosef Blau

I have top confess I have some difficulty with both the points that you
make:

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>I have a couple of hashkafic problems with such prayer groups.
>
>First, as Rick Turkel writes, they are not, and could never be, minyanim. This
>means that the message we are giving these women is: Yes, you are right to
>believe that the only way to get spiritual fulfillment is in the mode of
>worship traditionally reserved for men. But, you can never really fill that
>role -- you can at best have an "almost minyan".
>
>We are setting them up for failure. As soon as the newness of the "almost
>minyan" wears off, so will the feeling of spiritual fulfillment.

On that basis, I am suprised that the chachamim ever allowed a regular
minyan.  After all, a beis haknesses can never be a beis hamikdash, and
we can never offer korbanos there.  Thus by having tephilla we are
setting up the participants for failure (especially those poor
Yisroelim, who will never be able to offer korbanos).  And what's more,
we have historical evidence of people who have responded in this way -
both in tanach times (har hagerizzim, not to mention the case of
Yehonatan the son of Gershon (shoftim 17:7)) and modern times (one of
the battle cries of the German reformers was that they were sick of the
second class status inherent in the synagogue - their response - Germany
is our homeland and *this* is our temple - hence the reason Conservative
and Reform places are called temples).

On the other hand, the overwhelming historical evidence presented by the
generations on generations of faithful Jews is that the fact that one is
not (and in the case of Yisroelim will never be) able to fulfil a higher
role does not necessarily lead people to despise what it is they can do.

>
>Second, it would be validating the non-O belief that Judaism revolves around
>the synagogue. Jon Baker (or was it his wife?) once pointed out to me that the
>three mitzvos that sociologically define Orthodoxy, Shabbos, kashrus, and
>taharas hamishpachah are all "women's mitzvos". So of course, non-Orthodox
>"Judaisms" can't provide sufficient spiritual context for women.
>
>As R' YB Soloveitchik writes in one of the earlier footnotes to Ish HaHalachah
>(sorry, I lost my copy), it is the nature of modern religion to define itself
>as a respite from reality. So, churches are built with an otherworldliness, to
>provide a spiritual retreat. This is the path Conservative and Reform are
>following (in practice, if not in their position papers).
>
>Yiddishkeit, though, (still paraphrasing the footnote) is about the
>unification of the spiritual with day-to-day life. If we really felt this,
>then the question of who had what role in the synagogue would be a very
>unimportant question. If anything us men should be vying for more cooking, so
>that we too can increase our role in preparing for Shabbos, and day-to-day
>observance of kashrus (at least basar bichalav). <half-grin>

It seems to me that using the Rav's understanding to make the point you
make misses the fundamental point he was making about Yiddishkeit.  It
is not that Xianity revolves around their churches and Yiddishkeit
revolves around the home, but that Yiddishkeit is integrated fully into
life.  Another one of the German reformer's slogans was "A Jew in the
home and a man in the street" - but a Jew in the home and a man in the
street is not an Orthodox Jew.  For an Orthodox Jew, Yiddishkeit is
wherever he or she is. If he or she is in the home, then that is where
Yiddishkeit must be, but it is not, and should not be something that
gets left behind when he or she leaves.

I realise that these days, very few people have been in what was once a
classic situation, of what it meant to keep shabbas in the outside
world. But having had the experience myself of lying on the floor at
11pm at night (because I had managed to make myself quite ill by working
when I was also fasting for Tisha B'av) and speaking to a partner of my
then law firm by telephone and having to explain that while demanding
that I work on Tisha B'av was one thing, but I just could not work
shabbas despite that fact that a half a billion pound deal and my job
was on the line (and hence my right to even stay in England). Let me
tell you it is not a fun experience, and not one I would ever like to
have to repeat. But it is part of what shabbas observance means when a
part of one's life is out there in a non Jewish environment, just as the
fact that I walked out of work yesterday, despite that fact that I knew
there was a message on my voicemail asking me to phone back urgently on
a deal, as the numbers needed to be amended. But I had already eaten
into my grace period, and I simply had to catch the next train in order
to be sure of being home in time. That is part of shabbas observance,
but it is not a question of being a woman or a man's mitzvah, it is an
obligation thrust on those who earn their living outside the Jewish
olam.

Similarly the fact that at the staff dinner on Wednesday night, I had to
field a number of questions as to why I wasn't eating what everybody
else was eating is part of kashrus observance.  As is pretending that
really you only want a piece of fruit when it is 4 oclock in the
morning, you haven't eaten anything all evening, and the seafood
whatever it is that the 24 hour kitchen is serving to everybody else in
the room smells amazing. As is maintaining food supplies at the office,
and Harmolis meals in the freezer (in case you have to travel at short
notice).

In a similar way davening is meant to be a part of life, not just
something that is done in a church on Sunday (or for that matter a shul
on shabbas).  This is particularly true of mincha, which is slap bang in
the middle of a working day, at least in winter.  And I have to confess
that I don't much like sneaking around the corner behind the building
every day (Security guard: "that doesn't lead anywhere", me: "yes, that
is why I am going there") to daven mincha, but there is just nowhere in
the building where I can guarantee that somebody won't walk in on me, or
interupt (except of course, the one place you can't daven!). And I have
confess that I find davening in sub zero temperatures sub optimal to say
the least.  

And it is also a very lonely experience, being (as far as I am aware)
the only frum person out of all 1000 or so lawyers (not to mention all
the support staff etc). One of the really nice things about the lunch
place down the road called Munchbox is that not only can I get a hot
meal there, but that a) I see other frum Jews so there is a certain
solidarity of experience and b) I can wash, eat and bench there without
need to explain, or worry about potential interuption.  But while there
is a mincha minyan somewhere nearby, and I did try asking that I be
allowed to come, at least during the winter months when mincha is such a
problem (in summer I either daven mincha after I get home, or if I am
working so late, it isn't such a problem to find a deserted room), but
apparently it is a very small room, and there is really no space to set
up a mechitza.  

But again I have to confess that it would be really very nice if not
only were there somewhere I could go where I could daven in peace, but
where it would give me the opportunity to link up with others who also
face the same kinds of pressures and draw a certain solidarity. Because
being out there on your own is not easy. I realise that this is
something that is hard for those of you who live your lives within the
womb of the Jewish community, whether that be the home or the beis
medrish or a Torani organisation, to understand.  Nor is it something
that our mothers or grandmothers had to face, because traditionally the
world of work, at least as it related to going out into the non Jewish
community, was the provence of men.  But that is my life, at least for
the moment, and to suggest that Yiddishkeit should be left at home, or
is the provence of the home, while tempting (and sometimes you don't
know how tempting) seems to me the antithesis of what it truely stands
for.
>
>- -mi
>
>- -- 
>Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5963 days!

Shavuah tov

Chana
>

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

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


[ 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 ]