Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 118

Thursday, July 8 1999

• Top Doctor
• Christian avodoh zoroh, siforim chitzonim and Abravanel too.
• Liberal Arts, R. shlomo's music
• Hilkhot Shehitah
• Re: Dante and fervor
• Re: Darius & Persian kings
• Artscroll
• Gra & mathematics
• Re: RSRH through the eyes of Leo Levi (longer than I wanted it to be!)
• R' Kook and kodesh/chol
• R. Hutner; R. Kook and liberal arts
• Re: Christian avodoh zoroh, siforim chitzonim and Abravanel too.
• MT Alert
• Re: Humor
• Re: Hilkhot Shehitah
• Re: Hilkhot Shehitah P.S.
• Jewish Music?

>>
Ome thing that I have never unserstood is the insistence in certain circles
on only using the "top" doctor no matter what the expense because he is
"blessed" by G-d.

It seems to me that they end up in the absurd sitiuation in which most people
will use an "average" doctor but those with bitachon insist on only the
best.

Eli Turkel<<

See Avos 3:7 re: mafsik mimishnoso

I have a drush on this as follows:

Lemoshol, what if a surgeon where mafsik his srugery and admired Hashem's 
beautiful tree?  He would be mischayav benafsho not because it is not impornat 
to adimire the tree but it is a discctraction from his appointed task to peform 
surgery!

Nimshol: if you are learning half-heartedly w/o full concentraion you'll notice 
the tree, but if you are REALLY concnetraing, you will NOT be mafsik.  IOW it's 
the lack of concentration that the mishon is deriding.

Ok, so it MIGHT be that some pepole are makpid that their doctor's are ALL 
BUSINESS, IOW they are highly focused upon their tasks as healers, and in that 
sense, Hashem is mashpia on them...

Just a thought.

Rich Wolpoe

R Shraga Rothblatt wrote recently: 
 <I am somewhat shocked to hear that in order to grow and develop my
spirituality I have to read avodah zara, which is exactly what Saint
Augustines writings are, (I do believe all major poskim agree that
CHristianity is avodah for Jews) as of course Milton and Dante are heavily
based upon the same sources. Should I perhaps try to dig up some treatises
from the Baal worshippers, I am sure that they had some brilliant followers
also! Do I really need to learn ethics from Plato, the same man who argued
in one of his dialogues why homosexuality is better than heterosexuality. Is
this really what Torah is lacking? Does the lucidity of Aristotle include
his belief that Hashem did not create the world, nor directly interacts with
it, nor that man has no soul that exists beyond the body. Is this what my
knowledge is lacking. Or perhaps all of his treatises on science that are
notable for this inaccuracy. It isunnecessary I am sure to quote all things
that the Rishonim said about Aristotle (especially people like the Ramban),
although admitedly not universally agreed upon. Does the profundity of
Shakespeare include his descriptions of Jews in the character of Shylock,
and is Romeo and Juliet the model for Jewish morality that we need
Shakespeare to teach us? (I would mention Newman but I also have no idea who
he was!) I am just curious, now that I have been told that the gentiles have
better cultivated almost every field of study, (I guess Jewish thinkers have
some value, although I guess not in the field personality development,
however I would love to have seen Saint Augustine try to answer a shver
Rambam. Thank goodness the gentiles left us with something that we can still
excell in), I have been told that books that both preach and are based upon
avodah zara are necessary for my spirtual growth, what am I to do with the
Mishna in Sanhedrin the forbids me to learn Seforim Chitzonim. I am just
curious, what exactly should I be careful not to study? ... Shraga >
 
While I won't address the substance of  RSRs comments - leaving it as one of
those different folks different strokes kind of things - nor do i have any
idea whether he is in the minority here as he feels, from the tenor of
various submissions i believe he must reflect more widespread sentiment on
this list  - but some specific, if peripheral, factual corrections may be in
order.

1.  Siforim Chitzonim.  R Shraga asks what he is to do with the Mishnoh in
Sanhedrin that forbade him to learn siforim chitzonim. My suggestion here is
continue to observe it - but be sure to chazer it over first so that you may
be certain of  being miqayeim the Mishnoh's actual instructions, which have
should in no way interfere with your prospective enjoyment of Shakespeare,
Milton, or even Plato should ever strike an unnatural urge to explore this
derech to spiritual growth described by  R. Lichtenstein    There are two
traditions recorded in the gemoroh re the proper identification of "siforim
chitzonim" - either the "extra-biblical" books which we may loosely identify
with the Apocrypha, or the works of the early jewish christians. . these are
well trod issues in the literature and one needn't review here the
speculations for the reasons underlying this prohibition. But exemplary of
those things specifically excluded from the category of the isur was
shakespeare (ok, Homer- see yerushalmi sanhedrin 28a).  i.e. reading the
humanities in the sense we've been discuusing here.   So, R Shraga, enjoy. 

2..Christianiy and avodoh zoroh.   R Shraga's asserted that the majority of
posiqim hold that Christianity is avodoh zoroh (not sure what the
prepositional modifier "for jews' adds here). This is a highly dubious
statement.  Consider, e.g. the following sources:

a. rabbeinu gershom: permitted commerce with goyim in near-festival days
despite the clear mishnaic prohibition of yimei eidehen in meseches AZ.  One
of the offered rationales was that contemporary goyim were not really ovidei
avodoh zoroh, but were just  executing minhog avoseihem biyodeihem.
b. Tosephos AZ, 2a. "qim lon bigovyhu diminhog avoseihem biyodeihem"
c. tishuvos Rashi: permitted hano'oh from sitam yaynom because our goyim not
well cognizant of avodoh zoroh.
d. R"i Hazoqein: in a discussion of permissability of using the local
judicial system since it would cause an oath to be taken by the goy! . The
R"i concludes  that the goyim only swear to the Gospels (btw, hard to get
more christian literary works than that) and not to some foreign deity so it
is not a promotion of avodoh zoroh.  He also touches on the trinity but
classifies this only as shittuf, which is not osur for a goy.
e. Above all, the Me'ieri: who  identifies a new halakhic category for
christians and muslims as "umos hagiduros bidarchei hadosos" and draws the
operational halakhic consequences in a wide variety of specific instances.
The me'iri's pisaq also has the happy consequence that  a highly troubling
(for some of us anyway) double standard of personal morality which seems to
be talmudically sanctioned, lichoroh, for dealings with jews vis a vis goyim
is now rejected by the me'iri as a consequence of this a general approach
which explicitly puts goyim in identical status to jews for such matters.
(see bais habichiroh to BK: p 120, 320, AZ: p 285)

3. Shakespeare.  Despite the posting's anti-humanities screed  it appears
that at heart we are all literary critics with well articulated positions
So I will just mention that R Shraga's take on the Merchant of Venice and
Shylock  is hardly the only one and there are many who discern a positive
shakespearean empathy for shylock quite at variance with elizabethan english
norms.  i will leave that to r. Shraga and the english lit majors to
untangle

4.  And, while not a factual  correction per se, it should be at least
sobering that the Abravanel references Augustine and the City of God, as
well as Aquinas, in quite favorable tones. Maybe that's another reason he
was banned from some botei midrash -BTW how grata is his persona  in
Chicago? Of course, it is hardly necessary for everybody to read such works,
or Dante, Milton etc and r. Lichtenstein was hardly suggesting such a
course,  but let's not throw stones at those who do. Can't tell whom you'll
hit in a drive by shooting and surely we would not want to accuse Abravanel
of citing avodoh zoroh with  approval. 

5.  As for me, while I recognize and agree in principle with R.
Lichtenstein's remarks, I also have to confess that his selection of
humanist luminaries would not be congruent to my own.  Just as an example,
his citation of shakespeare, milton, and dante should of course be replaced
my own selection of  the greatest western poets - which would certainly
include shakespeare, rudyard kipling, and ogden nash.  What this unlikely
grouping of poetic immortals possess aside from a shared capability to
illumine the human condition, and conspicuously absent from some members of
R. Lichtenstein's list, is the ability to write real poetry, i.e. where the
words rhyme. 

Mechy Frankel					W: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@dtra.mil			H: (7030 325-1277

From our estemmed listowner  >>
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)


One poster mentioned "tunes ... stolen from good non-frum songwriters". I
assume the word "stolen" is being used loosely, as the Jewish singer/lyricist
will get the songwriter's permission -- and not just violate copyright. (That's
according to Lenny Solomon, author of Shlock Rock 1-n.)

I agree, though, that Jewish music has a ways to go.

Supposedly R' Shlomo Carlebach -- and therefore much of American Jewish music
- -- was directly influenced by Rennesaince pre-classical melodies. One will 
note that the stereotypical pasuk song the same structure as much Rennaisance 
dance
music. Theme 1 is slower and plainer than a second theme, and is played twice
before theme 2 is played, then return to theme 1. In contrast, non-borrowed
19th century Chassidic music tended to have three themes in the pattern 1232,
to correspond to the order of letters in Sheim Havayah.

- -mi<<

Let me elaborate a bit.  I am a chazzan, and I while I was only remotely 
acquatined with R. Sholomo, I am more acquantied with his music.  As a matter of
fact, my congregation's rabbi for 47 was R. Shlomo's first cousin.

Some (by no means allO of R. Shlomo's meoloides are adaptations or derivitaves 
of old yekke niggunim.  Many yekke niggunim can be traced back to the central 
europe to the era of 500 years ago or more.

Chazon Rabbi Steve Lnagnes once lectured on this topic.  It is miselading to 
think that because melody A sounds like Melody B that A is borrowed from B.  
usually they are actually cousins in that they both are INDPENDETNLY derived 
from far more ancient antecedent folk tunes.

EG, Die Moldau of Smetana AND hatikvo were BOTH derived from older melodies and 
not from each other.  So too, R. Sholomo, whose ancestors stem from a famous 
rabbinical line inHamburg, was familiar with melodies that wer incorporated into
the yekke liturgy generations ago.  

Rich Wolpoe 

RYGB writes:

>Let me turn the table. Do you contend that the Rama here is being machmir
>because he holds Chazal were wrong in their assessment of the impact of
>even the most minute time frame for shehi'ah? Because that is the only
>approach that would make this case similar to nidon didan.

Absolutely not.  As I think I made clear, one can read Rema's language
of "nohagim le-hahmir" as drawing a distinction between the halakhah
pesukah and the minhag that goes beyond it.

Whether or not this case is relevant to nidon didan  is, evidently, a
matter of opinion.  I think, in this case, the Ashkenazic community has
institutionalized a framework of humra beyond Hazal.  I therefore find
it puzzling that one would contend that to be mahmir on Hazal -- whether
one thinks they erred or for any other reason (including spiritual or
sociological) --  is problematic.  I would say that in all cases such a
humra does not question their authority, but simply reflects that Hazal
are not the last word in pesak.

>Actually, I think it underlies much of the last 2000 years of psak, in
>cases of major machlokos of gedolei ha'poskim.

I guess it depends how one characterizes "major."  For example,
personally, I don't eat halak meat.  Do you?

She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,

Eli Clark

Micha Berger wrote:

> In v3n111, R YGB lists a number of approaches to "Torah uMadda". He omits
> any mention of R' Kook. I'd be surprised if the Rav who held that the concept
> of chol is illusion didn't voice an opinion on the subject of the role of
> limudei chol. Anyone know if and what R' Kook holds?

Rabbi Lamm in Torah UMadda has a chapter  - #6-  devoted to Rav Kook.

page 128 "Kook speaks of two tendencies of the Jewish spirit. One is directed
inward; it is a deepening of the sacred and is represented by the tradition. The
other is an outward one, relating the within to the without. Just as the
intensification of the sacred is embodied in the old type of yeshiva, so is the
relating of the sacred to the secular the function of the university.

page 129"....there is nothing absolutely profane or secular in the world. There is
no absolute metaphysical category called hol; there is only the holy and the
not-yet-holy....The Kookian version of Torah Umadda is the very antithesis of
secularism, which recognizes the sacred only in its insularity. Kook's centrifugal
kodesh is so overpowering and outgoing that the profane loses its absolute
character even before its encounter with the sacred. It is, as it were, fated from
its creation to submit to the sacred.

page 130 "Hence it must be fundamentally acknowledged that the secular studies are
not inherently and eternally unholy, and that the sacred studies are sterile when
they have nothing but the sacred to act upon...."

page 132. "The slogan Torah im Derekh Eretz would not be appropriate to Rav Kook's
grand vision of the sacred and the profane. Torah "with" derekh eretz implies that
they keep a respectable distance from each other, like neighbors who remain
courteous as long as they do not become too intimate. Torah "and" derekh eretz
would be more fitting for Kook. ....Hirsch's view of Torah and Wisdom is one of
coexistence and therefore is essentially static. Kook's is one of interaction, and
hence dynamic....From the point of view of Kook, it is not enough to raise a
generation of Orthodox Jews who will also be cultured Western people, admirable as
this ambition may be. It is not enough to conceive of the two cultures as parallel
lines that can meet only in infinity. It is urgent that there be a confrontation
and an encounter between them....Hence for Kook, Torah Umadda represents a genuine
synthesis, with all the benefits and problems - and dangers - associated with that.

page 135. "On the other hand, Kook's ruminations on the holy and the profane,
profound as they are, have -tragically - had little effect on his followers. His
late son ... did not openly encourage the study of Madda...."


                         Daniel Eidensohn

On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

> 3. I am also bothered philosophically by the idea that a nonJew is not
>    considered righteous unless his motives are purely for the worship of
>    G-d. With that logic Truman was not being good when the US voted for
>    Israel if he had any motives that it was good for the US
>    (Conservative logic dictates that on the contrary if it was not in
>    the interest of the US Truman should not have made such a decision).
>    Similar remarks for gentiles that saved jews in the holocaust. If their
>    motive was to gain G-d's protection then they are not really righteous.

Don't the Gemara (and that amazing Tosafos at the top of Amud Aleph) mean
that Jews are more prone to the right intent and Goyim more prone to the
wrong, but not that it is a hard and fast rule?

YGB

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

> 
> When I published the first version of my work on eruvin, in 1993, I asked
> a certain Gadol b'Torah, no longer among us, for an haskomo. He wrote me a
> very nice letter declining for a couple of reasons, among them was his
> perpsective that a Ba'al Ha'Bayis should not be granted too much access to
> the intricacies of the halachic system. It is for the Ba'al Ha'Bayis to do
> as he is told, not to delve the depths of the halachic process.
> 
certainly the Artscroll gemaras can make giving a daf yomi shiur hard
as the students know as much as most rebbes.

Eli Turkel

> 
> Either way, the whole vista of
> infintesimals in math was new in the Gr"a's day. As the Gaon came up with an
> early theorem in Transfinite Number Theory, it's hard to picture that he was
> unaware of Newton's work in this area.
> 
Any sources for this theorem?
Earlier claims that connected the Gra with Cramer's theorem in
determinants turned out to be false.

Eli Turkel

> Sadly, there is more to say, but in the interests of leaving some
bandwidth to others and going back to earning a livelihood... <
Please continue when you have an opportunity.  In the meantime, permit me
to point out, as briefly as I dare, some errors in your logic and
interpretation and express the hope that this thread will [further]
stimulate our fellow listmembers' thought processes and interest in Rav
Hirsch (hereafter, as before, SRH).

> Not coincidentally,
he describes R. Hirsch as favoring sciences, but not the humanities, and
claims R. Hirsch was a nationalist and speculates that R. Hirsch would
support the medinah today. <
Your previous post stated, "Least persuasive by far is
the author's contention that R. Hirsch would be a Zionist today"; now,
according to you, Professor Levi claims that SRH was a "nationalist."
Perhaps our respective understanding of English differs, but nowhere does
Professor Levi make either contention.  He does contend that, according to
SRH, "*Judaism* is primarily nationalistic," and no part of your
well-written reply cites any evidence to the contrary; he does dispute the
notion that SRH was "anti-nationalist," and, again, you cited no evidence
to the contrary.
> Regarding Prof. Levi's "speculation" about R. Hirsch's views on Medinat
Yisrael, there is little to be said.  While perhaps appropiate for a
Shabbat table discussion, it has no place in an article in a scholarly
journal. <
You're welcome to disagree with such "speculation" -- perhaps you feel,
based on your understanding, that SRH would have sided with the Satmar Rav.
Re the permissibility of settling E'Y, a poseik either holds that the
"three oaths" are binding or that they aren't -- you are free to discuss,
in as scholarly a fashion as you choose, that SRH would have held the
former position rather than the latter based on his published views, and I
will be more than happy to side with Professor Levi.
> Prof. Levi concedes that R. Hirsch praises non-Jewish literature in one
well-known essay, but claims that Hirsch's phrase "realm of knowledge"
refers to science and history rather than the humanities.   The
interpretation is debatable. <
Nobody claimed it wasn't, least of all Professor Levi.  However, he
buttresses his claims on this issue, as he does on the others in his
article, with specific examples from and an overall summary of SRH's
writings.
> In the
speech, R. Hirsch bestows on Schiller the berakhah 'she-natan hakhmato
le-basar va-dam.'  The speech reflects R. Hirsch's knowledge of and
reverence for Schiller's poetry, and seems aimed at inspiring the same
in the young audience.  It was also subsequently published for a broader
audience.  This would seem to contradict Prof. Levi's contention that R.
Hirsch did not encourage study of the humanities. <
Perhaps you define "study" and "humanities" differently than Professor Levi
did...or perhaps the full quote from the article is necessary:
   In his steadfast adherence to this principle <that Judaism be understood
   "from within itself" {"Letters of Ben Uziel", XVIII} --MP>, Rabbi Hirsch
   never turns to outside sources for ideological inspiration.  He
   encourages the study of nature, of the nature of man (through psychology
   and anthropology), and of history -- but not the study of the
   humanities, which deal with the meaning of the world, man's place in the
   world, aspirations and values, goals and ideas.  Even when, on one
   occasion, dictates of good manners compelled him to eulogize a gentile
   poet, he praised that poet for having absorbed many lofty Jewish
   teachings, and for having enriched the gentile world by clothing those
   teachings in an inspiring form.  Nowhere, however, in an address of
   fourteen pages, did he imply that we, as Jews, should -- or need to --
   absorb ideas from a gentile.
> I find it difficult to interpret all of these references to beauty and
esthetics to science and history, as opposed to the humanities.  The
Greek lessons on self-respect, self-confidence and autonomy presumably
are found in works of philosophy, not mathematics. <
As did Professor Levi, I see a tremendous difference between praising Yefes
and learning from him -- chalilah either that you don't or don't understand
how Professor Levi views SRH as differentiating between the two.

In summary,
> In addition, R. Hirsch's praise for Hellenism acknowledges that its
contribution is independent of the Jewish contribution to humanity, i.e.
Torah. I think it clear that R. Hirsch saw them as fully compatible... <
....and I think it clear that he saw the Jewish source in the praiseworthy
elements; as such, we Jews should dwell b'o'holai Shaim and not look to
Yefes for what is in the Torah.
> ...But it would also seem that these passages support those who -- in
Prof.
Levi's words -- "accuse" R. Hirsch of "adoring Western European culture
.. . . without citing any reasonable support for their claims." <
As above, it would not...unless "those" also cannot differentiate between
praising that which is worthy of praise and "adoring (i.e. worshipping)
[gentile] culture."  Permit me to end with one more quote from the article,
as context is important:
   Others have not hesitated to accuse Rabbi Hirsch of being a believer in
   secular humanism, of adoring Western European culture, and of trying to
   adopt two cultures that he himself was unable to reconcile.  And this,
   without citing any reasonable support for their claims, which fly in the
   face of Rabbi Hirsch's repeated assertion that any element of secular
   culture must be measured against the criteria of Torah before it may be
   accepted into our thought-world as true, an assertion upon which he
   acted consistently.  The essence of secular humanism is the belief that
   man is self-sufficient, that on his own, he will inexorably ascend the
   ladder to perfection.  This should be compared to Rabbi Hirsch's comment
   that even scientific knowledge is dependent on belief in God's creation
   for its validation, -- that even modern scientific progress was not
   possible until the Jewish people spread the knowledge of God's unity
   among the nations.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

>>>Anyone know if and what R' Kook holds?<<<

I will not even attempt this one al regel achas, but I would suggest the 
place to start is Orot HaKodesh vol I where R' Kook has a discussion of 
kodesh and chol.  I would also suggest that what R' Kook writes there needs 
to be placed in the context of some of his other major ideas, particularly 
his emphasis on mystical harmony of all ideas.  You wilI not find in Orot how 
R' Kook translated (or hoped to ) his philosophical ideas into the reality of 
chinuch, but you can discover that as well from other books that deal with 
his plans for opening Merkarz HaRAv and other schools.  I have always found 
R' Kook to be challenging reading - good luck!

-Chaim 

1. In my 1981 article in Tradition, and elsewhere, I have indicated lines
in which R. Hutner's ideas tend to support educational values that are
usually associated with Torah ve-Hokhma. David Eidenssohn (I think, it's
been a busy day!) asks why I was tentative and qualified in making these
points. The answer, very simply, is "tafasta muat tafasta." I am grateful
that I developed an appreciation for the Pahad Yitzhak and had the
opportunity to attend some of his Maamarim before it was too late, but I
am not R. Hutner's talmid. I know that he projected himself in different
ways to different talmidim, and in this respect he was certainly more
authoritarian in guiding them than was the Rav zt"l. I have neither the
prerogative nor the confidence to read more into his words than I did.

2. Moving to one of R. Hutner's rebbeim: R. Kook had a great deal to say
in favor of general education. David Shatz has written on the subject (I
forgot where). There were talmidim whose inclinations and R. Kook's
guidance, led towards an intensive mastery of particular fields
(philosophy, Semitics and so forth). He certainly maintained that cultural
matters were too important to abdicate to others. Overall, however, as
Shatz somewhat disappointedly concludes, I think he envisioned a talmid
hakham who was generally well-informed and thoughtful, able to apply an
understanding of the world to Torah and to formulate a Torah perspective
on cultural matters, but not necessarily a professional academic. His
comments in this vein run through his writings and can best be grasped in
the passages where he doesn't talk about it, but does it, that is, where
he discusses philosophical trends.

I'm not sure that R. Kook would be of much help in constructing a
curriculum, as his attempts to do this seem to presuppose not only gifted
students, but ones capable of very long days. He was an idealist in this
area as in others.

3. One of the reasons I avoided reference to the Rav's "Ramatayim Tsofim"
speech, apart from its unavailability in print, is that it is "idealistic"
in the same sense. Not everyone leaps from mountain peak to mountain peak.
The realistic educational goal, and one that, la-aniyut daati, is imposed
upon us, is that of being literate, educated people, able to benefit from
and criticize the culture we encounter. The ability to analyze literature
or philosophy or otehr disciplines requires some training, and, in my
opinion, demands substantial general bekiut (otherwise you lack
orientation in the field and you don't even know what might help you), but
it's not a full-time job. As the Netziv observed in this connection,
nobody seems able to master Torah without some period of full
concentration. If, to draw on R. Lichtenstein, the results of modern
Orthodox education don't quite measure up, it's not because the kids are
up all night struggling with Wittgenstein.

A close friend of mine (a BT, as it happens) once commented on the
amount of time that most people waste. His contact with Rabbi X, who is
well-versed in liberal arts, taught him that if you make it your business
to consistently waste less time than ordinary people do, over a period of
weeks, months, years, you can actually accomplish something.

On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil wrote:

> 3. Shakespeare.  Despite the posting's anti-humanities screed it appears
> that at heart we are all literary critics with well articulated
> positions So I will just mention that R Shraga's take on the Merchant of
> Venice and Shylock is hardly the only one and there are many who discern
> a positive shakespearean empathy for shylock quite at variance with
> elizabethan english norms.  i will leave that to r. Shraga and the
> english lit majors to untangle
> 

I just listened to The Merchant of Venice driving from Salt Lake City to
Craters of the Moon National Monument last week, and have to agree with
RSR. Forget about the person of Shylock, whether Shakespeare is
empathetic to him or not (I think not - empathetic is Sir Walter Scott to
Isaac the Jew in Ivanhoe). But the whole trial is really a condemnation of
Judaism (justice) and a triumph of Christianity (mercy).

(I do hope my sister, Dr. Ariella Brown, English Professor, has some
nachas from me :-) .) 

> 4.  And, while not a factual correction per se, it should be at least >
sobering that the Abravanel references Augustine and the City of God, as >
well as Aquinas, in quite favorable tones. Maybe that's another reason he
> was banned from some botei midrash -BTW how grata is his persona in >
Chicago? Of course, it is hardly necessary for everybody to read such
works, > or Dante, Milton etc and r. Lichtenstein was hardly suggesting
such a > course, but let's not throw stones at those who do. Can't tell
whom you'll > hit in a drive by shooting and surely we would not want to
accuse Abravanel > of citing avodoh zoroh with approval.

Sorry that the previous paragraph's formatting went awry. L'ma'aseh, I
wrote on MJ in the pre-Avodah daysthat the Abarbanel's citation of
Christian commentators to prove his approach to nevu'ah bothered me. It
still does.

YGB

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

At 1:30 PM EST my daughter, Rivkie, gave birth to a bouncing 9lb 2oz 
baby girl (to be named later).  Mother and baby are doing fine.  Grandpa 
needs to be scraped off the ceiling.

HM

Noah Witty wrote:
> 
> Who is "Roy Topaskin"?

a) Third Baseman for the single-A baseball team, Piedmont Boll Weevils?

b) Assistant deputy vice-chairman of Hillary Clinton's exploratory
committee?

c) Runner-up to Garth Brooks for best original country music CD?

d) Founder of the International Association of Bi-Lingual 
Transliterators
("I-ABLiTerate")?


None of the above.

It's my uncle Tibor Feketa, also known as "Jim, the baretender" who used 
to work for local color commentator, "Baby Face Leroy", as a 
Sheepherder/Tele-marketer.  Unfortunately, due to an old football injury 
she had to give up network television as a career and apply to The 
Chicago board of trade for a relief pitcher and a player to be named 
later.

HM 


P.S. Thanks for noticing my thinly disguised attemt at levity.

On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> Absolutely not.  As I think I made clear, one can read Rema's language
> of "nohagim le-hahmir" as drawing a distinction between the halakhah
> pesukah and the minhag that goes beyond it. 
> 

Nu, so? Let us grant your chiddush (shades of R' Rich Wolpoe) that a
minhag can become institutionalized as halacha if it gathered steam and
became a universal phenomenon - surely you can agree with me that this is
quite separate from nidon didan?

> I guess it depends how one characterizes "major."  For example,
> personally, I don't eat halak meat.  Do you? 
> 

No, but do explain the connection!

> She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 

YGB

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

 
> I guess it depends how one characterizes "major."  For example,
> personally, I don't eat halak meat.  Do you? 

I assumed you eant Beis Yosef Chalak. Correct?

YGB

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

Don't get me wrong, I love Jewish Music.  As a matter of fact I like all 
types of music, Jewish and otherwise. But...

It is my contention that, today, there is no such thing as Jewish 
Music (or more precisely, Jewish melody).  All music which passes for 
Jewish Music today is heavily borrowed from the various cultures in 
which Jewsih songwriters have been living. I happen to be a huge fan of 
Shlomo Carlebach, ZL, who was a melodic genius and the most prolific 
writer of melody of our time.  But his music is almost completely 
Russian Folk in it's orientation. MBD who revolutionized Jewish music, 
is almost completely Pop-Rock. There is nothing intrinsicly Jewish in 
the music of either of these two giants of modern Jewish music. 

There are two examples of how heavily borrowed Jewish Music of our day 
is.

1. The famous Zmira, "Harachama, hu Yishlach Lanu" has the same 
identical opening notes as the overture to the Georges Bizet's 19th 
century French opera, "Carmen".

2. Back in the late sixties there was an old Russian Folk song that was 
translated into english, recorded by a pop singer, and became a big hit. 
It was called 'Those were the Days" and for those of you who know the 
song you will notice the extreme similarity to Jewish Music. 

Furthermore, if you listen to Sefardi Jewish music you will note that it 
sounds nothing like the Euro-American Jewish music.  To my ear, it 
sounds more Arabic (the culture of Sefardi Jews) than Jewish.

Probably the only genuine Jewish music was that sung by the Leviim in 
the Bais HaMikdash. Too bad they didn't write down the musical notes.  
It is likely lost until Beas Goel Tzedek.

HM

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


[ 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         ]