Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 138

Monday, January 25 1999

• Mazel Tov to YGB
• Re: Avodah V2 #137
• Re: connection to tzadikim
• Discussing Individuals
• Baal Hatanya and NH
• Baal Hatanya and Nefesh Hachayim
• Re: Avodah V2 #137
• Accusations of apikorsut/progressive revelation/innuendo
• Modern Orthodoxy

    Mazol Tov to YGB. 
    Vyizkeh legadlo ltorah ulchupah ulmaasim tovim.
    AMEN

In a message dated 1/25/99 4:12:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, owner-
avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< 
 Secondly, Edah's executive director is Rabbi Saul Berman, an espouser of
kfirah and
 possibly a kofer. (I hesitate to make the statement definitively, since even
well-
 intentioned maaminim have occasionally espoused kfirah.)  In contrast to
Torah-committed
 Jews who believe that there is one divine revelation, Toras Moshe, Rabbi
Berman
 subscribes to the notion of progressive revelation and asserts that there is
now a Toras
 Miriam, to be added to Toras Moshe.  This point of view is not his alone;
such figures as
 Tamar Ross of the Hebrew University have espoused it.  Ross claims that the
revelation
 of our period has come through feminism and Berman (and his colleague, Avi
Weiss) have
 joined in the advocacy of Toras Miriam.  This is rabid kfirah - period!!
Lest someone on
 this list assert that this last statement is the result of my being an
unrepentant extremist, I note
 that Rav Aharon Lichtenstein said this publicly about a year ago when Ross
made a
 public presentation.
 
 One of the posters noted that some of the names associated with Edah are at
the fringe of
 Orthopraxy; I would say that they have crossed the remotest boundaries.  This
is not to
 say that we should not attempt to be mekarev them.  Readers know from my
previous
 postings that I accept completely the guidance of the Chazon Ish in these
matters and
 believe that we should attempt to lovingly persuade even probable apikorsim
like Berman
 to repent.  At the same time apikorsus is apikorsus and the Torah has no
place for tolerance
 of false beliefs.  The same Rav Soloveitchik who spoke softly to Conservative
rabbis did
 not hesitate to declare their synagogues to have the Halachic status of
churches (or worse).
 
 Melech >>


This is exactly the kind of nonsense I think we should be avoiding on this
list! Whether you agree with R Berman or not, the kind of free swinging name
calling and irresponsible hatchet job that you post does not serve the purpose
of in depth discussion of Torah. I take to task as well, the major domo of
this digest, as he has the option of editing posts that do not belong in the
digest.

Jordan Hirsch

<< 
"They merit olom habah not through their own koach but by connecting
("hiskashrom") to grater people" 
>>

This doesn't sound Jewish to me (despite the source).  Simply substitute one
person (jesus) for "greater people" and we have Christian theology in a
nutshell.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Come on people, you know better than that.

I have no idea what Rabbi Berman believes or doesn't believe. Nor can I see
any reason why it would affect any of our lives. So why discuss it on the list?

Both motzi shem ra and lashon hara are prohibited anyway.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6071 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 25-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

    I sent this letter (last week) privately to a few people and on 
    request I decided to post it to the group. I modified a few places and
    so if you read it, please reread it.

    I described in a previous post 2 types of tefilah which the Baal 
    Hatanya in his halachic work Hilchos TT (4:5) brings. The
    first is chaye shooh which is lower than TT and the other is
    higher. The difference is that a person who is toroso umnosoh 
    is potur from the former but chayov in the later. This he got
    from an open mishne in en omdin that the chasidim rishonim
    davened 9 hrs. a day. The talmud explains when and how they
    learned and worked. This is halacha. (See SA OC 98)
    R. Yochonon says "ulvay  sheyispalel kol hayom kulo". There is a 
    madrega of tefilah that one spend on a whole day. So, before I start
    I will not accuse the NH of paskening against the Tanya since it is an
open
    gemoroh. Were the chasidim rishonim guilty of bitul torah. If
    they are a special case then the talmud would not bring them. 
    Apparently, there are still people in every generation who are at
    such a high madregah that they are like chasidm rishonim.

    I was asked to show where does the NH talk about 2 types of
    tefilah and make the point I made. The real answer is 
    that (You quoted Kadish as having appox my point of view) one has
    to read a work a few times in total to get a picture. Also,
    one has to read in our case the Tanya and even know the hilchos
    TT of his. When one does that it became apparent (as is well known)
    that the NH is a rebuttal to the tanya. All the issues that the
    Alter Rebbie discussed are addressed in the NH. Reb C. 
    Mivolozyn (RCM) was well versed in the Tanya and had studied 
    his SA. The laws of TT was the SA Horav's first halachic work and 
    the legend is that the geroh praised it, until he learned who the
    author was. I must assume that lehalacha they do not disagree.
    This is straight gemoroh. It is only in the implementation
    a halachic guide for average people we may find different results.
    

    Thus, the NH reviews 
        (a) the kabalistic concepts of Ztadik
        (b) ztimzum 
        (c) Tefilah
        (d) learning
        (e) Polemics and advice.
     
    In the section on tzimtzum he reviews the concept as developed by
    the Ari. I will not go into this concept since most readers probably 
    have not been exposed enough to kabalah. But, let it suffice that
    the Geroh was against the Ari's version. The main point of the Zohar 
    reagarding "elokus" is that there are 2 aspects to kudsha brich hu.
    (a) Les machshovo tefisah beh
    (b) There are 4 worlds of sefirot Azilut, Briyah,Yezira and Asiya.
     The world of Azilus is also a briah with regard to kusha brich hu.

    The Ari advanced the concept of "zimzum" a shrinking of kudsha brich
    Hu. To say it simply. In one aspect "en od milvadoh" There is no yesh. 
    There is only kudsha brich hu. In another aspect there is a world. Zimzum
    bridges it. The geroh understood the bridge differently. I am not
familiar 
    with his position. If you asked me, I would say that the NH jumped ship
    and follows the Ari. He even explains why the Ari had the right to reveal
    this concept. Chasidim demonstrate their difference as follows. "Does
    the Almighty reside in the bes hakiseh". For the Ari, He does, not for
    the geroh. There is a letter from the Alter Rebbie where he states that
    because of philosophic differences, he realizes that the Geroh and he
    could not come to terms. The geroh considered the Baal hatany's beliefs as
    heresy. He was not surprised when the misnagim claimed that they
violated the 
    torah. Of course, those trouble makers are of the same cloth that exist
    today. For power plays etc. one group will gossip and do all in its
    power to destroy another group. They make it seem that it is leshem 
    shomayim, but it is not. The Geroh was leshaem shomayim, but not 
    those around him. For him it was theology. (Which means nothing to
    most misnagdim today. He wrote a pirush on the tikune zoha. Did 
    many modern day Roshe Yeshivah learn it. I have heard many Rabbis
    from pulpets when coming across a kabalistic concept in the SA
    (which they are teaching) dismiss it as some  mumbo jumbo. Even
    when a mishne brurah quotes a geroh.)

    In "tefilah" he talks about the ultimate type of tefilah which involves
    almost expiration of the soul (nafhecha). This is the crux of the Tanya
    and the NH agrees.

    In "learning" he discusses that TT is chaye olom  while tefilah is chaye 
    shooh. This is a quote from the talmud. So, there can be no argument.
    But, as explained in TT of the SA Harav this refers to the average
person's
    tefilah. But, chasidim horishonim and those who achieve the higher
    form are required to daven because it is the superior chaye olom-higher
    then TT. Why should I be chosed that the NH disagrees with the gemoroh 
    and the halacha. (See SA OC 98)

    The NH addresses those whose tefilah is only chaye shooh. And, here
    even the tanya agrees. At the end of the Tanya the Rav has a polemic
    against those who talk during tefilah. It appears that he had chasidim
who did
    not even daven properly at the lower level. For these people there is a
sign in 770
    (very big one)"assur ledaber.." Everyone agrees that the best tefilah
at the
    lower level is nothing compared to TT. I feel that that the Tanya is
    addressing those whose lower tefilah is impecible and want to aspire to
a higher
    form. It is this audience the NH also addresses. Maybe, here there are
philosophic
    differences. But, the NH gives medicines in how to learn without good
    tefilah. The Tanya does not have to worry. If you daven better you will
learn
    better. This last part is opinion. It is way I interpret the seforim.
But, I
    think it makes sense. There cannot be halachic differences. The main
differences
    have to paths to take. But, I believe that in what constitutes the
desired result
    they agree. We should daven like the chasidim rishonim. It should be
    real and the Almighty will bless us in parnash and torah (see yureshalmi
    and bavli for different takes)

    Finally, regarding the point that one may not daven after 4 hrs. Here I
must say
    many misnagdim are eclectic. They are mekil. See the time of services
in YI 
    or other shuls on Shabos along the Eastern seaboard. They are not makpid.
    The Eretz Tzvi (Fromer) Koglizer Rov-Rosh Yeshivah of Chachme Lublin in
    a teshuvah explains that 
        (a) Most poskim pasken "ad chazos". 
        (b) Those  chasidim who are davening and trying for the
             higher form  described in the Tanya (he references that)  are
not bound by zeman
             tefilah. 
    And he proves both assertions. So, the criticism of the NH is answered.
But, this 
    does not help those the Tanya is addressing who talk during the davening.

  Finally. let me ask all to learn Chidush Reb Chayim Halevi on the Rambam
  Hilchos Berochot. He explains a stirah in two Rambams. One says that 
  if a person davened shmoah esreh shelo bekavono he has to repeat it and
  the other says that he has to repeat the shemono esreh if he lacked
kavanah in
  the first berocho only. To resolve this he says that are two reuirements.
    (a) To realize that you are in front the Almighty
    (b)  Pirush hamilos

  He says that if (a) is violated, i.e. if one's mind drifted during shmono
esreh even
  during one berocho of the 19 he must redaven. If the requirement of (b)
is not
  met, i.e. if he did not know the pirush hamilos then he is yotzeh (except
for the first 
  berocho.) 

  I have two remarks. Imagine talking to melech malche hamlochim and not
  even wanting to learn the pirush hamilos. but, bdieved we are yozte. But,
if 
  our mind drifts we have to redaven. Does the shoe fit anyone.How dare we
  worry which is more important davening or learning. Is there anyone in this
  group who has to redaven? Ask a sheeloh, please. in the next posting, I
  will get to "learning". In this area there is a minor machalokes between the
  NH and the Tanya. But, the NH is more mekil on one point. But, the 
  medicine is the same. We must do all the things I outlined in a previous
  posting. This must be done before the learning and renewed during the 
  learning. The lesson is that it is hard to learn and daven correctly. I
agree
  with Rav Yosef Gavriel that misnagdim follow the nefesh hachayim, but
  I disagree that the NH did not worry about the paradox or issues he cited.
  Let me in the next posting, which will not come out for a few days, address 
  this.(Learning properly)

  Again, all this reduces to opinion. I hope that at least it is learned.
But, you are 
  entitled to disagree. That is what learning is. 


    Shaya Beilin

    I sent this letter (last week) privately to a few people and on 
    request I decided to post it to the group. I modified a few places and
    so if you read it, please reread it.

    I described in a previous post 2 types of tefilah which the Baal 
    Hatanya in his halachic work Hilchos TT (4:5) brings. The
    first is chaye shooh which is lower than TT and the other is
    higher. The difference is that a person who is toroso umnosoh 
    is potur from the former but chayov in the later. This he got
    from an open mishne in en omdin that the chasidim rishonim
    davened 9 hrs. a day. The talmud explains when and how they
    learned and worked. This is halacha. (See SA OC 98)
    R. Yochonon says "ulvay  sheyispalel kol hayom kulo". There is a 
    madrega of tefilah that one spend on a whole day. So, before I start
    I will not accuse the NH of paskening against the Tanya since it is an
open
    gemoroh. Were the chasidim rishonim guilty of bitul torah. If
    they are a special case then the talmud would not bring them. 
    Apparently, there are still people in every generation who are at
    such a high madregah that they are like chasidm rishonim.

    I was asked to show where does the NH talk about 2 types of
    tefilah and make the point I made. The real answer is 
    that (You quoted Kadish as having appox my point of view) one has
    to read a work a few times in total to get a picture. Also,
    one has to read in our case the Tanya and even know the hilchos
    TT of his. When one does that it became apparent (as is well known)
    that the NH is a rebuttal to the tanya. All the issues that the
    Alter Rebbie discussed are addressed in the NH. Reb C. 
    Mivolozyn (RCM) was well versed in the Tanya and had studied 
    his SA. The laws of TT was the SA Horav's first halachic work and 
    the legend is that the geroh praised it, until he learned who the
    author was. I must assume that lehalacha they do not disagree.
    This is straight gemoroh. It is only in the implementation
    a halachic guide for average people we may find different results.
    

    Thus, the NH reviews 
        (a) the kabalistic concepts of Ztadik
        (b) ztimzum 
        (c) Tefilah
        (d) learning
        (e) Polemics and advice.
     
    In the section on tzimtzum he reviews the concept as developed by
    the Ari. I will not go into this concept since most readers probably 
    have not been exposed enough to kabalah. But, let it suffice that
    the Geroh was against the Ari's version. The main point of the Zohar 
    reagarding "elokus" is that there are 2 aspects to kudsha brich hu.
    (a) Les machshovo tefisah beh
    (b) There are 4 worlds of sefirot Azilut, Briyah,Yezira and Asiya.
     The world of Azilus is also a briah with regard to kusha brich hu.

    The Ari advanced the concept of "zimzum" a shrinking of kudsha brich
    Hu. To say it simply. In one aspect "en od milvadoh" There is no yesh. 
    There is only kudsha brich hu. In another aspect there is a world. Zimzum
    bridges it. The geroh understood the bridge differently. I am not
familiar 
    with his position. If you asked me, I would say that the NH jumped ship
    and follows the Ari. He even explains why the Ari had the right to reveal
    this concept. Chasidim demonstrate their difference as follows. "Does
    the Almighty reside in the bes hakiseh". For the Ari, He does, not for
    the geroh. There is a letter from the Alter Rebbie where he states that
    because of philosophic differences, he realizes that the Geroh and he
    could not come to terms. The geroh considered the Baal hatany's beliefs as
    heresy. He was not surprised when the misnagim claimed that they
violated the 
    torah. Of course, those trouble makers are of the same cloth that exist
    today. For power plays etc. one group will gossip and do all in its
    power to destroy another group. They make it seem that it is leshem 
    shomayim, but it is not. The Geroh was leshaem shomayim, but not 
    those around him. For him it was theology. (Which means nothing to
    most misnagdim today. He wrote a pirush on the tikune zoha. Did 
    many modern day Roshe Yeshivah learn it. I have heard many Rabbis
    from pulpets when coming across a kabalistic concept in the SA
    (which they are teaching) dismiss it as some  mumbo jumbo. Even
    when a mishne brurah quotes a geroh.)

    In "tefilah" he talks about the ultimate type of tefilah which involves
    almost expiration of the soul (nafhecha). This is the crux of the Tanya
    and the NH agrees.

    In "learning" he discusses that TT is chaye olom  while tefilah is chaye 
    shooh. This is a quote from the talmud. So, there can be no argument.
    But, as explained in TT of the SA Harav this refers to the average
person's
    tefilah. But, chasidim horishonim and those who achieve the higher
    form are required to daven because it is the superior chaye olom-higher
    then TT. Why should I be chosed that the NH disagrees with the gemoroh 
    and the halacha. (See SA OC 98)

    The NH addresses those whose tefilah is only chaye shooh. And, here
    even the tanya agrees. At the end of the Tanya the Rav has a polemic
    against those who talk during tefilah. It appears that he had chasidim
who did
    not even daven properly at the lower level. For these people there is a
sign in 770
    (very big one)"assur ledaber.." Everyone agrees that the best tefilah
at the
    lower level is nothing compared to TT. I feel that that the Tanya is
    addressing those whose lower tefilah is impecible and want to aspire to
a higher
    form. It is this audience the NH also addresses. Maybe, here there are
philosophic
    differences. But, the NH gives medicines in how to learn without good
    tefilah. The Tanya does not have to worry. If you daven better you will
learn
    better. This last part is opinion. It is way I interpret the seforim.
But, I
    think it makes sense. There cannot be halachic differences. The main
differences
    have to paths to take. But, I believe that in what constitutes the
desired result
    they agree. We should daven like the chasidim rishonim. It should be
    real and the Almighty will bless us in parnash and torah (see yureshalmi
    and bavli for different takes)

    Finally, regarding the point that one may not daven after 4 hrs. Here I
must say
    many misnagdim are eclectic. They are mekil. See the time of services
in YI 
    or other shuls on Shabos along the Eastern seaboard. They are not makpid.
    The Eretz Tzvi (Fromer) Koglizer Rov-Rosh Yeshivah of Chachme Lublin in
    a teshuvah explains that 
        (a) Most poskim pasken "ad chazos". 
        (b) Those  chasidim who are davening and trying for the
             higher form  described in the Tanya (he references that)  are
not bound by zeman
             tefilah. 
    And he proves both assertions. So, the criticism of the NH is answered.
But, this 
    does not help those the Tanya is addressing who talk during the davening.

  Finally. let me ask all to learn Chidush Reb Chayim Halevi on the Rambam
  Hilchos Berochot. He explains a stirah in two Rambams. One says that 
  if a person davened shmoah esreh shelo bekavono he has to repeat it and
  the other says that he has to repeat the shemono esreh if he lacked
kavanah in
  the first berocho only. To resolve this he says that are two reuirements.
    (a) To realize that you are in front the Almighty
    (b)  Pirush hamilos

  He says that if (a) is violated, i.e. if one's mind drifted during shmono
esreh even
  during one berocho of the 19 he must redaven. If the requirement of (b)
is not
  met, i.e. if he did not know the pirush hamilos then he is yotzeh (except
for the first 
  berocho.) 

  I have two remarks. Imagine talking to melech malche hamlochim and not
  even wanting to learn the pirush hamilos. but, bdieved we are yozte. But,
if 
  our mind drifts we have to redaven. Does the shoe fit anyone.How dare we
  worry which is more important davening or learning. Is there anyone in this
  group who has to redaven? Ask a sheeloh, please. in the next posting, I
  will get to "learning". In this area there is a minor machalokes between the
  NH and the Tanya. But, the NH is more mekil on one point. But, the 
  medicine is the same. We must do all the things I outlined in a previous
  posting. This must be done before the learning and renewed during the 
  learning. The lesson is that it is hard to learn and daven correctly. I
agree
  with Rav Yosef Gavriel that misnagdim follow the nefesh hachayim, but
  I disagree that the NH did not worry about the paradox or issues he cited.
  Let me in the next posting, which will not come out for a few days, address 
  this.(Learning properly)

  Again, all this reduces to opinion. I hope that at least it is learned.
But, you are 
  entitled to disagree. That is what learning is. 


    Shaya Beilin

I think we need to be extremely careful when we call other Rabbanim a
heretic.(see Netziv's Hakdama to Chumash) We also need to be very
careful about not being mevazeh a Talmid Chochom. (see Rav's statement in
Sanhedrin 99b).  
	Melech, where did Rabbi Berman	ever speak about progessive 
revelation? 
	For those who don't know RabbiBerman, he is a tremendous
Talmid  Chacham who received Semicha from RIETS	-- was the Rabbi at
Lincoln Square Synagogue and has been teaching Torah at Yeshiva University
for close to 30 years. 
	 With regard to the name "Toras Miriam" -- it was named after my
grandmother -- Rebbetzin Miriam Weiss -- it is NOT called Toras Miriam in
order to imply chas veshalom a "new Torah". It is a program that brings in
various speakers every Tues. night to discuss many issues that are
confronting Orthodoxy today.By the way, most of the women in the program
don't support women's Prayer Groups and both speakers who have come in the
past to speak on women's Prayer Groups do not support Women's Prayer
Groups (Rabbi JJ Schacter and Rabbi Dov Frimer).
	Melech, if you are correct, that Rav Aaron Lichtenstein believes
that "Toras Miriam" is a group that espouses Kefira -- it is quite
shocking that Rav Aaron's son ---- Harav Moshe Lichtenstein shlita --    
would come in from his Kollel in Cleveland to speak in front of Torat
Miriam on the topic of Da'as Torah and land for peace. 
	And Melech, in your mind does my father, Rabbi Avi Weiss also
espouse Kefira (I wasn't so clear on that issue in your last ruling). 
	
					Rabbi Dov Weiss
					Rabbinic Intern, The Jewish Center
					275 West 96st apt #16f
					(212)-222-2230
					dweiss@ymail.yu.edu

Sadly, it seems we have gone from nasty discussions about Habad
messianists to the far nastier public branding of a specific individual
as "an espouser of kfirah and possibly a kofer."

I leave it to the listowner to police darkhei noam.  For my part, I will
restrict myself to correct what appear to me to be utterly fallacious
statements.

Dr. Press writes (I have left out the name of the Orthodox rabbi in
question):

>In contrast to Torah-committed
>Jews who believe that there is one divine revelation, Toras Moshe, Rabbi
______
>subscribes to the notion of progressive revelation and asserts that there is
now a Toras
>Miriam, to be added to Toras Moshe.

I have no idea if this is an accurate account of this rabbi's theology,
nor, assuming it is, is it for me to defend him.  But I know with
certainty that the concept of progressive revelation is an old one.  The
Gemara itself presents two opinions about whether Moshe received all of
Torah at Har Sinai or parts of it later on.  In the midrashim, we also
find two accounts: one (cited in Rashi at the beginning of Behar)
characterizes Moshe as receiving all of Torah, the other as receiving
only the general kelalim.  The classic paradox in the famous passage in
the Talmud Yerushalmi (the most famous?) in Pe'ah describes Moshe as
receiving "kol mah she-talmid vatik atid le-hithadesh."  Note that the
student is still described as being mehadesh.  Rishonim took varying
positions on the subject (see the famous Ritva in Eruvin on the phrase
elu va-elu).  But it is the mekubbalim who developed the concept of
ongoing, progressive revelation.  This is evident in many works of
kabbalists, including early works, such as the perush of Rabbenu Azriel
and Sefer Rimmon, and later works, such as the Shelah (citations on
request).   More recently, Rav Kook put forward the suggestion that
history itself is part of the Divine revelation.   Thus far traditional
sources.

According to Dr. Press:
>This point of view is not his alone; such figures as
>Tamar Ross of the Hebrew University have espoused it.  Ross claims that the
revelation
>of our period has come through feminism and Berman (and his colleague, Avi
Weiss) have
>joined in the advocacy of Toras Miriam.  This is rabid kfirah - period!!
Lest someone on
>this list assert that this last statement is the result of my being an
unrepentant extremist, I note
>that Rav Aharon Lichtenstein said this publicly about a year ago when Ross
made a
>public presentation.

What Dr. Ross wrote was that, if one accepts R. Kook's idea that human
history itself reflects a part of Divine revelation, then the feminist
revolution in Western society is also part of that revelation.  This is
a radical idea, given that feminism is at odds with the traditional role
of women in Judaism.  As I understand it, when Dr. Ross presented this
premise in a paper in a >private< forum, Rav Lichtenstein rejected it as
heretical. I believe he has made no public statement on the subject, nor
is it in his character to do so.  He certainly has made no public
statement about the rabbi in question or his de'ot.  I think it highly
questionable to cite R. Lichtenstein out of context.

Dr. Ross has been criticized in Israel as well for her position and has
since publicly defended her stance to an Israeli audience.  She writes
that, far from supporting radical feminism, she is trying to show that
everything that develops in society, even that which seems contrary to
Torah, should be seen as an expression of Hashgahah and having positive
religious value.  She concedes that her idea is vulnerable to concern
for the slippery slope: after all, how does one know what is
legitimately part of Divine revelation and what isn't?  Where are the
red lines?  Her answer is that the consensus of the Torah community is
the arbiter and that she trusts in the Ribbono shel olam to ensure that
we will follow the correct path.

Speaking for myself, I think that Dr. Ross' thesis causes more problems
than it solves.  It is rooted in an academic historicism that I would
not apply to Torah.  I believe that it is precisely this historicism
that R. Lichtenstein found so objectionable.  In another context, R.
Sacks of Great Britain has suggested that Orthodoxy rejects the idea
that history is normative in Halakhah.  If that is true in Halakhah, kal
va-homer in hashkafah.  But I am sure that we can all agree that
discussions of giluy Shekhinah are be-rumo shel olam and need to be
discussed with a maximum of precision and a minimum of innuendo.

It is clear that Dr. Press does not like Edah.  I am sure his opposition
is well grounded.  But I think it is the height of sophistry to attack
an organization because it is funded by "an avowed atheist."  Strangely,
Dr. Press seems to concede this in his next sentence, noting that the
same philanthropist also supports NJOP.  But then he goes back to
innuendo, by pointing out the individual's support for some other
program Dr. Press sees as a threat to religious schools.  I believe it
is well known that many Torah institutions rely on support from people
who include koferim, mumarim and mehalelei Shabbat be-farhesya.  When
this becomes a criterion for questioning institutions, very few will be
left untainted.

Dr. Press adds:
>Readers know from my previous
>postings that I accept completely the guidance of the Chazon Ish in these
matters and
>believe that we should attempt to lovingly persuade even probable apikorsim
like [R. ____]
>to repent.

I applaud Dr. Press's interest in kiruv.  I am not an expert in that
area, but I would think the first step in an approach of loving
persuasion is to stop calling the potential mekurav a "probable"
apikores.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I grew up modern O, and partook of the slide to the right at least to some
extent, so I'd like to offer my personal anecdotal "evidence".

I'd agree with the sociological observation cited earlier that mod-O includes
two groups of people. The first are liberalism seekers. They really want
Orthodoxy-lite, but call themselves modern O because mod-O is the leftmost O.
Similar to all the self-proclaimed Reform Jews who don't believe in the ideals
of the R movement, they're just seeking the thing that calls itself "Judaism"
that places the fewest demands on its adherents.

(The parallel exists in the Yeshiva world: it's called "the Chumrah of the
Month club". People who joined the sociological community of the Yeshiva not
because of belief in its ideals, but because they can satisfy some need to
follow the latest chumros.)

The second are people who are ideologically in favor of embracing the positive
in contemporary culture, knowledge, and technology. They focus more on the
opportunities of a new situation (television, the internet) than its threats.

To tie this with discussions we've had in this past, I think mod-O /requires/
a sh'leimus orientation, and see our lives within the modern world as part of
that whole that needs to be created. A d'veikus orientation would see anything
but Toras Hashem (and perhaps enough science to see the glory of creation) to
be a distraction from seeking Him.

According to the S'ridei Eish, R' SR Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz is about
giving the form of Torah to the substance of derech eretz, creating a unity
(a sh'leimus or t'mimus) of the two, whose aims and function is defined by
Torah. According to the Rav (based on R' Aharon Zeigler's email list that has
been getting mentioned lately), there is value in Adam I as well as Adam II.
Adam I finds expression in mastering this world. Sh'leimus includes knowing
how to live as both Adams.

Unlike Joel Rich, I think modern O is about both, learning how to live as both
Adams. Chassidus ends up stressing Adam II, but so does R' Chaim Vilozhiner
or any "d'veikus" based thinker. I think it's true of anyone who reacted to
the fall of the ghetto walls with retreat (an Adam II response to begin with).

Aside from that, you can't force-fit either of their philosophies into the
Rav's terms. They don't stress Adam II -- they don't even acknowledge or deny
his existance. The whole thoughtspace is divided differently. Yes, once you
think in those terms, you'd say that Adam I is suppressed. But choosing to
frame the discussion in the Rav's terms is already leaving their hashkafos.

Back to mod O social realities...

The idealogues (primarily R' Lamm) coined a new term "Centrism". What happened,
at least amongst the people I meet, is that the people who picked up on it were
those still in touch with the idealogues -- those who were mod-O who didn't do
much sliding to the right. Those who seek O-lite and those who ideologically
mod-O but live on the sociological fringes of Yeshivish (and there are MANY of
us) still use "mod-O" to describe themselves.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6071 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 25-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

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


[ 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 ]