Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 089

Monday, November 1 1999

• Re: Pepsi Generation?
• Re: Conspicuous Consumption
• Re: Anonymity and list demographics
• Re: Extremes
• Re: 420 years
• Re: Abarbanel
• RE: Eid Echad (Avodah V4 #86)
• Re: 600,000
• Re: Derech Chibah
• Limudei Chol
• Re: Derech Chibah
• Re: Anonymity and list demographics
• majority rules
• Tzni'us in Material Acquisitions
• Limudei Chol and Parnassa
• Luxury, Conspicuous Consumption, Tzni'us, Etc. [was What Els
• Ortho activist - Toward Tradition
• FW: Orthodox Attitudes to Food
• B'rich Sh'may
• Re: Derech Chibah
• Re: Limudei Chol and Parnassa

> In the rather brief summary of differing attitudes
> about physical contact between the sexes I did not
> mean for it a definitive or ehaustive description. 
> Obviously incidental contact is not considered Yhrog
> VeAl Yavor by anyone.  I was just trying to give a
> brief description of various attitudes within
> different communties
> 
> HM

Understood- no criticism intended, only a little expansion.  GA

Why concede the Goyim one of their stupid excuses
> for anti-semitism? I don't much care if flashy materialistic behavior
offends
> non-Jews. We should concentrate on when and why it offends us, and what we
> should be doing about it as a community.
>
> David Finch

IMHO we should care from the point of view of kidush and chilul Hashem.
Yes,  some of them will use it as an excuse, and yes, it's kin'ah.  There
are quite a lot of goyim out there who don't care about excuses and are not
"into" kinah, but are still offended by any lavish displays of wealth
whether it's an exceptionally lavish wedding in NY or a party in Beverley
hills. (e.g. Yehuda HaNassi who imported fruits in their season)   I agree
that the wealthy can and should enjoy their wealth but with tzniut. Wealth
can be a cli for avodah or a consuming distraction from avodah.  The
question here is the manner of presentation, and the parameters are often
subtle, subjective and relative to the surrounding culture so it's not
pashut to draw guidelines. A wealthy person has to develop a sensitivity for
the appropriate use of his money and how it will appear, both to other Jews
and to goyim.

Mrs. G.Atwood

OK I'll pitch in-  form your own opinion- :-)

>     Please indicate your usual Shabbos/Shabbat head covering:
>
>  1. Shtreimel (any color)
>  2. Beaver hat (black)
>  3. Upturned felt hat (black)
>  4. Downturned felt hat (black)
>  5. Kipa Sruga (any color)


6-  crocheted net snood with lining.
White on Shabbos with fancy hat.

Akiva would wear Reuven Prager's "Beged Ivri" but the neighbourhood isn't
ready for it yet. It's waiting in the machsan for Mashiach.  Default  plain
black kipah.
>
>     Please indicate your Internet access:
>
>  1.  Email only but not if anyone is looking
>  2.  Email only no matter who is looking
>  3.  WWW for work only
>  4.  WWW and chat rooms
>  5.  T-1 line at home

2 and 3.
>
>     Please indicate your television access:
>
>  1.  No TV, radio or newspapers
>  2.  No TV
>  3.  Only for the news
>  4.  We censor what the kids watch
>  5.  DVD projection set

OK this gets complicated.
Pentium has TV card but we don't use the TV setting-  only video.
News by e mail. Radio only in time of war. (we're not opposed to radio, but
it's just not our lifestyle)
We censor what our kids watch and hear and read. Everything is screened
including Disney.  Yes our computer shows DVDs.
>
>     Please indicate your preference of newspaper:
>
>  1.  Der Yid
>  2.  Yoseid (sorry!)
>  3.  Yated
>  4.  New York Times
>  5.  Village Voice

HaModiah-  for the divrei Torah and stories for Shabbos.  Brief news scan.
>
>     Please indicate your level of secular education:
>
>  1.  Fors gred
>  2.  High School
>  3.  COPE or equivalent
>  4.  Bachelor's degree
>  5.  Professional (MD/JD/DDS/PhD)

We both had University education-  (bachelor hons level) Akiva in the hard,
shiny sciences,  myself in the soft, gooey ones.  (though we're interested
in psychology)  - probably learned more independently- (Akiva was also an
Eagle and an Arrow)
Kids entrenched in the frum Israeli school system and developing very
nicely, thank you.

btw We don't believe in giving land away and invite offlist debate.
Breslov, old yishuv affiliations-  generic chassidic  - howzat?

Respects- A & G Atwood.
>

Kenneth G Miller offered:


> If anyone wants to start a new thread about
> sociological differences between Ashkenazim and Sefaradim, I'll
> *consider* mentioning it then,


I'll bite. I've been curious on just this topic for quite a long time.

You want to start? 


---sam

     RYGB asked how Yechezkel 29-30 and Daniel 9:24-27 can be reconciled 
     with the secular dating method.  R. Yakov Ellman in The Living Nach 
     says that Yechezkel is referring to Egypt under king Hofra from the 
     26th Egyptian dynasty.  The Da'as Mikra, in footnote 1 to its 
     introduction to Yechezkel 29-32 lists many different Egyptian 
     dynasties with years corresponding to their reigns.  Hofra (Chofra) 
     started ruling in 588 BCE (2 years before the churban).  I don't think 
     this answers the question but I hope it provides a beginning.
     
     Da'as Mikra to Daniel quotes R. Moshe Tzvi Segal who wrote a peirush 
     on Daniel based on secular dating.  He claims that Daniel 9:24-27 
     refers to the end of the "kosher" Hasmonean dynasty with Alexander 
     Yannai.  The same explanation is given by Gerald Sigal of Jews For 
     Judaism on their website at www.jewsforjudaism.org click on resources, 
     knowledge base, in the pulldown menu click on Daniel 9.
     
     Re: Shmittah - There is no nafka mina regarding shmittah because we 
     count from the second churban which was the year after a shmittah (see 
     Avodah Zara 9b and rishonim).  The dating of the early Second Temple 
     should not affect this.  Even if we could calculate that Chazal's 
     dating was incorrect, we could not just divide the total number of 
     years by seven because yovels, WHEN OBSERVED, subtract one year every 
     50 from the count (according to most poskim).  Therefore, we have to 
     know which yovels were observed in order to calculate it correctly and 
     we don't know about those "missing years."
     
     My approach to this matter is that of the Rambam's (Hilchos Shmittah 
     VeYovel ch. 10).  He historically calculates based on the number of 
     yovels that were observed and the number of years in history exactly 
     which year should be shmittah.  When this disagreed with the shmittah 
     year according to the mesorah he deferred to the mesorah.  When our 
     historical calculations disagree with the mesorah I follow the 
     Rambam's example and defer to the mesorah.

     The Bais Yosef in O"C 168 quotes the Abrabanel as 'hanesher hagadol 
     HR"R Yitzchak Abarbanel.'

Russell Hendel writes:
"My point is simple. Torah Law (ala Moshe Rabaynu) trusts
the woman in Case 1. My point then is that the same criteria
apply to case 2--in other words the woman is equally trusted
to pasken for herself or her friend (what is the difference)."

Assuming that the 2 situations are indeed identical, It seems 
that your claim is - if Mr X tells me that the S"A says 
"abc"  - a) He's paskening for me and b) I can believe him 
because of Eid Echad.

We've had this discussion ( if repeating a halocha is 
considered psak)before. Regardless of this, I still don't see 
how it has anything to do with Eid Echad.  

Regarding your point about the Am Haaretz - in place of
"he saw a piece of meat salted and soaked", read "the meat 
was purchased from the local kosher butcher"....

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

     I'm new to Avodah and saw some interesting issues in the archives 
     about which I'd like to add my two cents.  I apologize if I'm being 
     repetetive, redundant, or superfluous.
     
     R. Mark Dratch posed an interesting question in vol 3 #205 (Sep 8, 
     '99).  To rephrase it, Bamidbar (3:43) says that in the 2nd year after 
     yetziyas mitzrayim there were 22,273 firstborns.  Add 300 for Levi'im 
     and there are about 23k (I'm using k as an abbreviation for thousand). 
      However, there were 600k men and also presumably 600k women.  If 24k 
     women had firstborn sons and presumably 23k had firstborn daughters 
     there are a total of 46k women out of 600k having children.  What 
     happened to the other 554k women?
     
     I saw that R. Ya'akov Kaminetsky asked a version of that question but 
     left it unanswered.  I was thinking that many of the firstborns were 
     killed during Makas Choshech but the question arises why they died so 
     disproportionally to the rest of the nation.  R. Aryeh Kaplan in The 
     Living Torah suggests that many Jews did not observe the first Pesach 
     and did not put blood on their doorpost.  Therefore, their firstborns 
     were killed in the makkah.  He also suggests that maybe Hashem 
     intentionally caused women to give birth to girls first but does not 
     offer any explanation as to why Hashem would do this.
     
     I was thinking that maybe when Moshe declared that all the firstborns 
     were kodesh (Shemos 13:2) it only applied to those born AFTER that 
     time.  That means that during the counting in Bamidbar only those 
     firstborns who were born in the preceding two years were counted.  
     This only makes the reverse problem, why are there so many firstborns. 
      It could be that Amram's suggestion to separate from their spouses 
     from 80+ years earlier was acted upon again during that time.  It was 
     only upon Yetzias Mitzrayim that a lot of people started having 
     children.  This is all total speculation and I haven't taken the time 
     to look for midrashim for or against.  Although, I think there is a 
     midrash that the firstborns did the avodah until they were switched 
     with the Levi'im.  According to my suggestion, only those firstborns 
     under two years old would be fit for the avodah.
     
     RMD also asked about the historical reality of so many Jews leaving 
     Egypt.  The book Permission To Receive by Lawrence Kelemen spends a 
     lot of time "proving" the historical viability of the Torah from 
     historians and archaeologists.  I don't know enough to evaluate 
     whether it is an honest representation of the fields or just selective 
     quotations but it is an excellent presentation.

     I am not chas veshalom suggesting that it is muttar to kiss shelo 
     bederech chibah (I have kids who will eventually need shiduchim) but 
     if someone were to matir it they might point to B'reishis 29:11 and 
     Avodah Zara 9b.  There are also acharonim who discus the question of 
     "chibuk venishuk" and if chibuk is permitted then nishuk should 
     follow.  Not that I'm chas veshalom advocating any such thing.

> From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
> Subject: Re: Limudei Chol
> 
> I see already four positions, although not clearly spelled out. If I 
> may take a moment to do so:
> 
> 1- Limudei chol are treif;
> 2- L"C are a necessary evil for parnasah;
> 3- There is kedushah to earning a parnasah k'halachah, so L"C for a 
> parnasah has kedushah as well;
> 4- L"C in general, not just what is needed to earn income, has 
> kedushah as such knowledge is part of what it means to live biderech
haTorah.
>    4a vs. 4b would be whether (a) or not (b) we limit this idea to 
> the sciences.
> 4a would probably be based around "mil'u es ha'aretz *vikivshuha*" 
> and would promote the study of science and technology. 4b, as
articulated by 
> R' Aharon Soloveitchik, would ascribe positive value to the study of
liberal 
> arts. I believe the S'ridei Eish (as I've cited on Avodah in the past) 
> understood RSRH to be in the 4b camp as well.
	Micha, is this your contribution to my questionnaire <g>?

Gershon

In a message dated 11/1/99 9:56:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
gil.student@citicorp.com writes:

<<  I am not chas veshalom suggesting that it is muttar to kiss shelo 
      bederech chibah (I have kids who will eventually need shiduchim) but 
      if someone were to matir it they might point to B'reishis 29:11 and 
      Avodah Zara 9b.  There are also acharonim who discus the question of 
      "chibuk venishuk" and if chibuk is permitted then nishuk should 
      follow.  Not that I'm chas veshalom advocating any such thing.
  >>
Bereishis 29:11

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 11/1/99 9:22:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
gatwood@netvision.net.il writes:

<< 
 Akiva would wear Reuven Prager's "Beged Ivri" but the neighbourhood isn't
 ready for it yet >>
What is the source for beged ivri ? Did  Avraham Avinu wear different 
clothing styles than his neighbors? 

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

RET writes:
>There is no such concept in Halakha as majority rules in terms
>of poskim in an era - only in a sanhedrin.

The Chazon Ish makes this point in Kovetz Igros, vol. III, no. 48

Your original posting:
<<
To this I would add only that the phenomena in question involve more than
just breaches of tzni'us. The materialistic values and acquisitiveness in
question
violate the isur of bal tashchis (Peleh Yo'etz, erech Mosaros and erech
Sipuk),
are inconsistent with what HKB"H requires of Jews living in galus (Kli
Yakar,
end
of parshas Vayigash) and constitute a hesech hada'as in the anticipation of
the
g'ula (Shal"a, end of M'seches Suka).
>>

You claim that these cites have nothing to do with asceticism.  But might
they derive from an ascetic mentality?  I was particularly struck by the
notion of ". . . hesech hada'as in the anticipation of the g'ula" which
would seem to me to preclude any pleasure which is very enjoyable.

I would appreciate it if the historical experts on our list could give some
background on Peleh Yo'etz, Kli Yakar and Shal"a.  To what extent were they
ascetic?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I found the juxtaposition of separate discussions regarding a) the lack of
secular studies and b) destitute families in the RW yeshivishe/ chassidishe
communities interesting. I think that there is a close relationship.

In the book that was recently translated into English from portions of
"Michtavim Umaamarim" of Rav Shach Shlit'a ("Rav Shach Speaks"), there is an
interesting section on the necessity to eliminate secular studies. His
argument is that the gedolim who come from institutions where secular
studies are taught are somehow tainted in that their Torah is not "pure".
Thus, if any such students were to become Gedolim and manhigei Yisrael,
their shitot would be colored by  the impure secular influences which they
studied. Not that they won't become gedolim - it's that their gadlus is
tainted. Interestingly, R. Elya Svei Shlit'a made precisely the same point
at the Motzei Shabbos session of the Agudah convention last year. 

Perhaps the subtext here is that we must do all we can in order not to
create another RYBS, who obviously remains a thorn in the side of the RW. 

I have tremendous cognitive dissonance when it comes to these
pronouncements. On the one hand, these are arguably the preeminent gedolim
of our time, bar none. If Torah means anything at all to me, I cannot
summarily dismiss this opinion. Yet, at the same time this shita is so
noxious to me on so many levels that I simply cannot deal with it. 

But even assuming that one were to hold one's nose and accept the basic
premise on face value and the world view that is espoused therein, I believe
that there is a clear relationship between lack of secular studies and lack
of parnassa through the preclusion (or at least strong denigration) of a
professional career for those who are not on the gadol track (the supposed
irrelevance of trigonometry and Tolstoy notwithstanding). 

Thus the conclusion is that RW poverty in Bnei Brak as well as Lakewood, and
the associated pain and suffering as reflected in Carl Sherer's post, is a
direct result of the Gedolei Torah. 

I pashut cannot deal with the implications of this statement.

Arnie Lustiger

Josh wrote in V4#88:

<<Apart from the ban on instrumental music (the Iggrot Moshe Orach Chaim I:166
suggests that the *baal nefesh* stay away from such affairs) there is
the halacha in Orach Chaim 560:1 how we are to treat our homes (leave an
unpainted wall, etc.) as *zecher l'churban* and this is discussed in the
Mishna Brura in detail.

I don't think million dollar mansions and opulent homes coincides with
following this halacha.>>

I think another relevant halacha to consider in this regard is O.Ch. 231, which
requires that all of our choices and actions be l'shem shamayim and contribute
to avodas Hashem.

Kol Tuv,
David

Agreed.  My basic point is that Orthodox and other committed Jews felt the need 
to take up the political cudgels.  And THAT aspect can be considered a precedent
for other Ortho's to get involved in political or social action - even if it 
means coming from a different perspective.

The common enemy of both the left and the right is apathy!
The common goal of both left and right is better society.

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Ortho activist  


<< I do mean to neither advocate nor to denigrate Toward Tradition on-line; 
merely 
 to note that it exists as a Traditional/Ortho Jewish repsonse to our 
society's 
 increasing permissiveness. >>

Toward Tradition is not a bad start conceptually, although all its positions 
are incorrect.
Oh, I forgot to warn you, my politics are rather to the left.

Jordan

As this is relevant to our tzniut/materialism discussion, I am posting this
from mail-jewish (with Mr. Schimmel's permission).
------------------
> From: Solomon Schimmel <sschimme@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:04:05 -0400
> Subject: Orthodox Attitudes to Food
> 
> I am interested in locating articles or responsa from the orthodox
> Jewish community in the United States, that address and/or
> criticize the Americanized, consumption-oriented food culture that has
> developed in this population. To what extent do the elaborate wedding,
> kiddush and bar-mitzva feasts, the proliferation of glatt kosher, halav
> yisrael etc. food products, the Passover and other carnival cruises and
> vacation resorts with their own chefs and mashgihim, the kosher
> restaurants from fast-food to gourmet,- to what extent do they
> contradict the spiritual values of traditional Judaism, especially of
> the Lithuanian musar orientation, which advocates mild to moderate
> asceticism rather than hedonism and preoccupations with "gashmiyut", as
> the proper spiritual path for a Torah true Jew? Do the leaders of these
> communities see any religious/spiritual problem in these developments,
> and if so where and how do they convey their views to their communities?
> 
> 	 I have searched the Bar-Ilan Responsa Database, Rambi, the
> Index to Jewish Periodical Literature, using search terms such as
> glutttony, "akhila gasa", "balaan", "raavtan", and other related terms
> and combinations of terms, but have come up with almost no references.
> 
>         If anyone can direct me to material published on this subject I
> would greatly appreciate it. Articles or responsa on a similar
> phenomenon in Israel and in the modern orthodox community would also be
> welcome.
> 
>  Sol Schimmel
>  Hebrew College

I just took the time to review the postings on this subject from the past
week or so, and it seems to me that some misinformation and questionable
statements have not been adequately addressed.

1. In v4#78 someone says:
"The major poskim and earlier authorities all railed against it.... Please
correct me - but I believe that the GR"A also did not say this tefilah."
Who are these poskim and earlier authorities? Magen Avraham, B'er Haytayv and
numerous
other authorities with which I am familiar hold it should be said and mention no
contrary views.
I know of no source in Be'ur Hagra or Ma'aseh Rav suggesting the Gra did not say
B'rich
Sh'may.

2. In v4#79, someone wrote that the Ari did not say B'rich Sh'may. This is
clearly wrong. Ben
Ish Chai cites several places in the kisvay ha'Ari in which R' Chaim Vital
terstifies
that he did say it. (See Sod Yesharim # 8, in Shu"t Rav Pe'olim, vol. 3.) Chida
agrees that the
Ari said it, although Ben Ish Chai and Chida differ on whether the Ari said it
only on Shabbos.

3. Someone else wites in v4#79 that Briskers hold we shouldn't say B'rich
Sh'may because it's a bracha that is not brought down in the gemara. This is
difficult
to credit given that, as someone already pointed out, there's no shem u'malchus
in
this prayer. Do any of the contemporary Brisker really hold this position?

4. Mention has been made of the fact that the source for B'rich Sh'May is
Zohar, Vayakhel 210. It should be noted that the Zohar does not bring this
prayer
just as one that was "m'ragla b'pumya" of someone (like many private bakoshos
brought in m'seches B'rachos), but as a a prayer that, according to R' Shimon
ben
Yochai, -should- be said. I am not saying this makes it obligatory, but I am
skeptical
of the claim that serious poskim hold it shouldn't be said at all. To my
knowledge,
the only dispute among the poskim is whether it should be said on weekdays and
yom tov when the Torah is taken out or only on Shabbos.

Kol tuv,
David

--- gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
>      I am not chas veshalom suggesting that it is muttar to kiss
> shelo 
>      bederech chibah (I have kids who will eventually need
> shiduchim) but 
>      if someone were to matir it they might point to B'reishis
> 29:11 and 
>      Avodah Zara 9b.  There are also acharonim who discus the
> question of 
>      "chibuk venishuk" and if chibuk is permitted then nishuk
> should 
>      follow.  Not that I'm chas veshalom advocating any such thing.
> 

Funny.  I was looking for my kids a shidduch who is extremely
open-minded! ;-)

As to Bereshit 29:11, Rachel wasn't necessarily a niddah (according
to Midrashim? that she was three years old).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

On 1 Nov 99, at 10:44, Arnold Lustiger wrote:

> I found the juxtaposition of separate discussions regarding a) the lack of
> secular studies and b) destitute families in the RW yeshivishe/ chassidishe
> communities interesting. I think that there is a close relationship.

Actually in EY it's more of a problem in the Yeshivishe 
communities and less so in many of the Chassidishe communities. 
Lubavitch, Ger (at least until the current Rebbe), Toldos Aharon 
and others all work.

> In the book that was recently translated into English from portions of
> "Michtavim Umaamarim" of Rav Shach Shlit'a ("Rav Shach Speaks"), 

I saw that in the bookstore on Friday. Was any of it censored? :-) 
(Sorry, I couldn't resist...).

there is an
> interesting section on the necessity to eliminate secular studies. His
> argument is that the gedolim who come from institutions where secular
> studies are taught are somehow tainted in that their Torah is not "pure".
> Thus, if any such students were to become Gedolim and manhigei Yisrael,
> their shitot would be colored by  the impure secular influences which they
> studied. Not that they won't become gedolim - it's that their gadlus is
> tainted. Interestingly, R. Elya Svei Shlit'a made precisely the same point
> at the Motzei Shabbos session of the Agudah convention last year. 

I have less of a problem with this than I do with EVERYONE having 
to be put into institutions where there are no secular studies. There 
are those for whom learning Torah and nothing else from a young 
age is appropriate, and the Gdolei HaTorah are likely to come from 
such places. What concerns me more is that there are many who 
are clearly not cut out to sit and learn full time (and it is clear at a 
young age; certainly by the beginnning of Yeshiva Gdola there are 
a lot of candidates who can be eliminated), who continue to sit and 
learn full time because of peer pressure and other reasons. The 
idea that there are schools in EY (and not just one or two) that will 
not take your kids if the father is not sitting and learning full time 
bothers me greatly. But those types of schools put pressure on 
people who are clearly not going to be the next gadol hador to 
continue to sit and learn (or at least to put on the pretense of doing 
so), draining resources away from others who could potentially 
become gdolim if they were able to concentrate on their studies 
and not have to live in constant worry about where the chicken for 
Shabbos will come from. 

With all that you guys talk about Lakewood as if it is some 
monolith trying to bring this type of situation to the US, my 
recollection is (and they started this before I went on aliya) that the 
entire premise behind the Lakewood Kollels in places like Chicago 
and Boston is that (1) they will pay a stipend that will allow the 
yungerman and his family to live like mentchen, (2) while he is 
learning there, the yungerman will be involved in teaching Torah to 
the community at large, and (3) he will leave the Kollel after a 
certain number of years and hopefully will take some position as a 
Rabbinic leader within the community. I thought program was great 
(has it changed?). You won't find anything like that here, partly 
because across the board (even in the MO Yeshivas), the message 
is that if you're not sitting and learning in Yeshiva all the time, you 
won't sit and learn at all. The idea of the baalebus who learns the 
Daf every day is SO unusual here, I cannot begin to tell you. 
Suffice it to say that there were many more people at the last 
Siyum HaShas in the States (and probably at each location in the 
States) than there were here. Kvias itim doesn't exist in the Israeli 
mindset - it's an all or nothing approach.

> Perhaps the subtext here is that we must do all we can in order not to
> create another RYBS, who obviously remains a thorn in the side of the RW. 

I think you're reading too much into this. There is not quite the 
obsession with RYBS in EY that there is in the States. I don't think 
that's who R. Schach, for example, is after.

> I have tremendous cognitive dissonance when it comes to these
> pronouncements. On the one hand, these are arguably the preeminent gedolim
> of our time, bar none. If Torah means anything at all to me, I cannot
> summarily dismiss this opinion. Yet, at the same time this shita is so
> noxious to me on so many levels that I simply cannot deal with it. 

I think that to some extent many of the Gdolim are saying things 
that the masses want to hear. While Rav Schach is known to be 
vehemently opposed to secular education (kind of ironic when you 
consider how much of his own family went to university and where 
he was before he came to Ponevich), I question whether other 
Gdolim are quite so opposed, or whether they are paying lip service 
to what the masses want to hear. Cf. the Meiri in the last perek of 
Psachim in the discussion about zugos.

> But even assuming that one were to hold one's nose and accept the basic
> premise on face value and the world view that is espoused therein, I believe
> that there is a clear relationship between lack of secular studies and lack
> of parnassa through the preclusion (or at least strong denigration) of a
> professional career for those who are not on the gadol track (the supposed
> irrelevance of trigonometry and Tolstoy notwithstanding). 

I think that's the point - for those who are NOT on the gadol track, 
they shouldn't be taking up the resources of the Yeshivas and the 
community. And I think that the Roshei Yeshiva have to recognize 
this and push them to go out and find jobs.

I have the impression that in chutz la'aretz at least some Roshei 
Yeshiva do apply a 5-year/3-child test and push guys who are 
clearly not on the gadol track out into the workforce. Here that 
really does not happen on any appreciable scale.

Of course the reason it does not happen in EY is because of the 
army, and I think that issue is starting to be quietly addressed (out 
of economic necessity if nothing else). As many of you know, there 
is now a "charedi nachal" which is sending charedi boys to the 
army. I know one of the people who was active in setting it up, and 
he told me that although none of the Gdolim was willing to go out 
on a limb and endorse it outright, what they found was that at least 
most of the Gdolim would not oppose it. I should add that most of 
the street notices against the Charedi nachal have been unsigned 
(and lately the notices themselves have been few and far between), 
and the biggest names have been noticeably absent from the 
notices that have been signed.

To this point, the charedi nachal has only been taking boys who 
otherwise would be wandering the streets, the so-called 
Shababnikim. They have more than enough material to work with. 
While I see this development as positive (especially if they get 
these boys some career training when they are through), there is 
still a lot longer to go before there is a solid base of baalebatim in 
Israel to support Charedi institutions and their students.

> Thus the conclusion is that RW poverty in Bnei Brak as well as Lakewood, 

Actually I'm in Yerushalayim, not Bnei Brak.

and
> the associated pain and suffering as reflected in Carl Sherer's post, is a
> direct result of the Gedolei Torah. 

Again, I'm not sure I would attribute it directly to the Gdolim. To 
some extent I think they're just giving the masses what the 
masses want. 

-- Carl


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

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

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]