Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 131

Friday, November 12 1999

• Re: Genetically engineered foods
• Re: Brain death:Rav Moshe accepted it?
• RE: Avodah V4 #130
• Re: Brain death
• Re: Jastrow
• Re: Brain death
• Yitchak had Downs Syndrome!?!
• Re: Techiyas HaMaysim (was: Sidelight on Brain stem dead)
• Jastrow
• Re: Avodah V4 #122 SINAS CHINAM/Lashon Harah ALERT!
• RYBS and Psak
• Yitchak had Downs Syndrome!?!
• Daniel - A Prophet?
• RE: Avodah V4 #129
• Re: Acknowledging internal problems
• Re: Trig - a waste of time?
• Re: The jewish bear (humor alert)
• Rebbes
• Re: Avodah V4 #130 reply to RYGB's post on Chassidus study
• Learning from others
• Baseball and Torah

Looking at the way the Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Deah Hilchot Trefot 79 #13)
explains the gemara in Bechorot (re: behema tehora she'yalda k'min behema
t'meya mutar b'achila, u't'meya she'yalda k'min tehora asur b'achila,
she'hayotze min ha'tamei tamei, umin ha'tahor tahor) we see that we don't
ask how we are allowed the eat a nonkosher looking animal born to a kosher
animal since "amru chazal d'tameh v'tahor EIN MITAVRIN ZEH BAZEH" [caps,
mine].

He seems to stress the actual *impregnation* [mit'abrin] that is necessary.
Ergo, gene *implantation* isn't "mitabrin".

Josh

David Eisenman wrote:

> One of the interesting points of R. Moshe's teshuvas is that he
> specifically does not redefine halachic death in accepting BD=D.

Against my better judgment I am entering this discussion of brain death.
*Warning -  I am only commenting as a bal habas who is ignorant of medicine
and the current state of the literature.*

As anyone who has read through the Igros Moshe knows - Rav Moshe's position
on brain death is not stated clearly. The declaration of whether he did nor
did not hold by brain death is thus left to interpretation and to the
pronouncements of others. Even knowing the particular definition issue of
brain death or rather brain stem death is unclear in the various
discussions-  in particular of whether it is established by directed testing
or by presumption of external signs and whether in fact whether it makes a
difference whether radioactive tracers are used to establish the condition..
Rav Moshe Tendler himself acknowledges this fact in the RJJ journal article
on death and says that Rav Moshe's written positions [which Rav Tendler
based himself on] are ambiguous and legitimately lend themselves to
conflicting understandings (unfortunately I just lent out that issue and I
can't give the precise quote). Furthermore I was told by a family member
that Rav Dovid Feinstein never discussed the issue with his father and is
thus dependent upon what others told him.
When I was in America over 10 years ago - a number of poskim got very
agitated when I mentioned Rav Moshe Tendler's position of what his
father-in-law held. They held - and I presume still hold that that was not
Rav Moshe's position. In contrast I was told that most frum doctors accept
Rav Tendler's view which is in accord with the current medical position.
*I want to make it clear that I don't question Rav Tendler's status as a
posek or the legitimacy of doctors following his psak.* The only point I am
asserting is that there is no consensus of whether Rav Moshe himself
actually accepted that BD=D.
It was with great interest 10 years ago that I read an article in Assia by
Rabbi Shabstai Rappaport - Rav Tendler's son in law and editor of the recent
volumes of Igros Moshe. In it he states that he had asked Rav Moshe point
blank what his position was and that Rav Moshe's reply was in agreement with
Rav Moshe Dovid Tendler's assertions. As far as I know this information was
never publicized prior to its appearance in the Assia journal of about 10
years ago. I mentioned this observation to Rabbi Dr. Halperin - the editor
of the journal and he acknowledged that to be true to the best of his
knowledge. He said simply that "now we know Rav Moshe's position and
hopefully the debate will cease". Apparently this information was
satisfactory for Rav Dovid Feinstein but there are others who are not
convinced. [This state of affairs is not unusual when dealing with a
controversial issue. It is not c.v. an issue of honesty but of being
convinced that the posek was responding to the information that the
questioner thought he was.]

In sum. There has been no consensus amongst poskim as to whether Rav Moshe
held that BD=D. Though in certain circles such is assumed.  If anyone knows
that there is *now* such a consensus - I would appreciate hearing about it.
Thus it is more appropriate to say "according to the view that Rav Moshe
accepted BD=D".


                              Daniel Eidensohn

	DFinchPC@aol.com wrote 

	Perhaps the bear is a real Jew. In that case, one real Jew is
preparing to 
	devour another real Jew. Imagine what Shas might say of this! Is the
bear a 
	Chassid? Is he some other form of RW? The bear has more hair than
the other 
	Jew, suggesting this probably is the case. Is this cannibalism, at
least 
	symbolically speaking? Isn't that really what's been happening to
our 
	community? The RW is, in fact, devouring the MO among us . . . . 


	I'm not sure I fully comprehend the point of the story but this bear
was obviously an Am Haertz.lWhat hava amina was there to make a Hamotzi
lechem..? A person is at the very least comparable to an animal and
therefore the bracha should be Sh'hakol.
	Or if you want to get lomdish-Borei Pri Ha'adama since a person is
called "Adam-min Ha'adama"

AM wrote:

<<I would like to see what other poskim say to R' Halperin's examples
of the revived man's wife being single, and his sons having already
inherited from him. Bizarre as it sounds, they make sense to me. >>

I don't think it would be an issue for someone who uses R. Moshe's
logic.  R. Moshe did not redefine halachic death like R. Halperin does. 
Halachic death is, and always was, l'shitaso, irreversible cessation of
breathing or decapitation (and this second one possibly only because of
its 100% association with irreversible cessation of breathing, though
that is not clear).  The only thing that has changed is the metzius
definition of irreversible.  Metzius can change; absolute halachic
categories do not.  The person in R. Halperin's heichi timtzi is not and
never was dead according to R. Moshe.

Shabbat shalom, 
David Eisenman

     Gershon Dubin wrote:
     
     >>The Jastrow is tolerated as a necessary evil for younger bachurim 
     (ever try looking up "teitch" in the Aruch?) which is outgrown after a 
     while.  The proof is that R. Liberman's work is nowhere to be found,  
     nor other works by sources of questionable,  as you say,  
     historiography.>>
     
     
     A few years back (within the last 10 years) someone published an 
     article (I don't know who or where) which listed dozens of places 
     where Jastrow gave the wrong pshat on a gemara.  The article was 
     basically a polemic to remove Jastrow from battei midrash.  I remember 
     R. Hershel Schachter mentioned it in shiur and said that it was OK to 
     use Jastrow but to only accept his translation and not his pshat on 
     gemara.  Anyone want to try to locate the article?  It might have been 
     in the Jewish Observer.
     
     
     Moshe Feldman wrote:
     
     >>I seem to recall R. Lieberman's work in the Gush Bet Midrash and I
     think (?) that it was also in the YU Bet Midrash (definitely in their
     library, but that's no chiddush).  Can anybody corroborate my 
     recollections?  Certainly no one in YU ever expressed to me any doubt 
     as to RL's trustworthiness.>>
     
     It isn't in the YU Beis Medrash (at least it wasn't in my time).  
     However, I'm glad someone finally distinguished between RSL and 
     Jastrow.  RSL was essentially modern orthodox who, for various 
     reasons, taught in a conservative school (as told to me by an unnamed 
     respected rabbi when I asked a shaila whether it was muttar to use his 
     sefarim - he also added that RSL will have to give din vecheshbon over 
     his place of employment).  Regarding its absence in most battei 
     medrash, so are many scholarly works by orthodox rabbis such as RA 
     Hildesheimer and RDZ Hoffman.

----- Original Message -----

> <<I would like to see what other poskim say to R' Halperin's examples
> of the revived man's wife being single, and his sons having already
> inherited from him. Bizarre as it sounds, they make sense to me. >>
>

L'ma'aseh, there is literature on these topics. See Kovetz Shiurim vol. 2 on
Eishes Eliyahu Ha'Navi and on someone who underwent Techiyas Ha'Mesim. The
Tzitz Eliezer rejects, from some earlier acharon, a heter to marry the
sister of a wife who is a treifa.

If  R' Halpern belittled the discussion of these topics, then his approach
was not appropriate.

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

     The following was taken from R. Avi Weiss' dvar Torah which was 
     included in this week's Toras Aish.  I find it totally appalling.
     
     >>The upshot: Yitzhak is easy to deceive, he lacks individuality, is 
     spared grief, is compliant and is even laughed at. My dear friend, 
     Rabbi Saul Berman points out that there is a common thread that weaves 
     itself through each of these characteristics - they are often found in 
     those who have Downs Syndrome. It should be pointed out that aged 
     parents are more vulnerable to having a Downs child.  Avraham and 
     Sarah were elderly when Yitzhak was born. 
        There is no classical opinion that suggests that Yitzhak had Downs. 
     Still, the fact that his attributes fit into this mold, teaches a 
     vital lesson - those with Downs possess the image of God and have the 
     ability to spiritually soar, to spiritually inspire and yes, even to 
     lead.>>

Regarding reconnecting a head please see Tshuva of Bal Hatanyoh end of # 28 
(printed in back of last Vol. of  his S"A pg. 912) D"H V'ulom.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 06:45:26PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
> I remember seeing copies of "Jastrow" in Telshe.  Of
> course, at that time (9th and 10th grade), I had no
> knowledege that he was one of the founding fathers of
> the Conservative Movement.  I wonder if the Telsher
> RH's were aware of Prof. Jastrow's Historiography.

What do you see as the difference between Jastrow and rabbis 
(such as R. Hertz) educated at JTS before it was exclusively 
conservative?

Janet

--- Shlomo Yaffe <syaffe@juno.com> wrote:

> ***Reb Harry! You have Rabbis in a Shul you claim to
> go to whose whole
> being refutes this premise and you have the
> Brazeness to make a statement
> like that? 

As I cannot know the minds and knowledge of all
individuals,  I can attest to at least the knowledge
of one whom I respect, He is a Lubavitcher, and one of
the Ziknei HaIr, Rabbi Harold P. Shusterman. He has
probably learned Shas many times and is a Baki in all
of R.Moshe's Teshuvos.  When asked a Shaila, he will
paskin for you according to your hashkafa: If a
Lubavitcher he will tell you the Chabad psak, if not
he will tell you R. Moshe's Psak. His education took
place in Torah VoDaas. His shul, Bnei Ruven was for
many years a Modern Orthodox shul which happened to
Daven Nusach Ari.  Over the years he earned the
respect and admiration of many people of all stripes
because of his knowledge, Kavod HaBrios, eriudite
speaking style, and inclusive attitude vis-a-vis the
shul.  (example: when asked by a certain Baal Habas if
they could establish daily a Nusach Ashkenaz Minyan in
the shul he gave it his enthusiiastic approval).

Of course the mainstream Lubavitchers didn'tlike that.
 He was too accomodating to non-Lubavitchers.  The
Shul looked too much like a shul and not enough like
770.  What really upset them was his disdain for the
Mashichists.  As a result of a major influx of
Mashiachist (or tolerant to Mashichissm) Lubavitchers
and the attrition of MO memebers for various different
reasons, R. Shusterman has been marginalized.  He
"retired" a couple of years ago, totally burned out
trying to fight the Machiachists.  He now is almost
never here for Yomim Tovim. He was pushed out (being
the gentleman that he is, he denies it but it is so
transparent as to what really happened) of the main
Bais Hamedrash on Friday nights, and davens in the
small Beis Hamedrash with what few old, non-Lubavitch
Baal HaBatim that still remain. He gets virtually no
respect from his new Baal HaBatim, only lip service. 

It's hard for me to agree to the claim that Lubavitch
respects learning. It is obvious to me that the
Lubavitcher members of this main Shul, of Chabad do
not respect this Talmid Chcham, Poseik, and Zakein. 
They only respect themselves.

HM

=====

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

And I can tell you that the Rav often resufed to pasken in NYC; though I cannot 
say he never did.

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


This is not the case. I know a number of Talmidim and even non- Talmidim in 
NYC  for whom the Rav extended himself and offered psak when asked.

Jordan

The following was taken from R. Avi Weiss' dvar Torah which was 
     included in this week's Toras Aish.  I find it totally appalling.
     
     >>The upshot: Yitzhak is easy to deceive, he lacks individuality, is 
     spared grief, is compliant and is even laughed at. My dear friend, 
     Rabbi Saul Berman points out that there is a common thread that weaves 
     itself through each of these characteristics - they are often found in 
     those who have Downs Syndrome. It should be pointed out that aged 
     parents are more vulnerable to having a Downs child.  Avraham and 
     Sarah were elderly when Yitzhak was born. 
        There is no classical opinion that suggests that Yitzhak had Downs. 
     Still, the fact that his attributes fit into this mold, teaches a 
     vital lesson - those with Downs possess the image of God and have the 
     ability to spiritually soar, to spiritually inspire and yes, even to 
     lead.>>

<<

Totally appalling?


By totaally appaling are you suggesting that EVERYTHING written was literally 
appalling?

EG Is the fact that Down syndrome possessing teh image of G-d appaling?

Rich Wolpoe

Hello,

Came across an interesting problem: Megilah 3a states that Daniel was not a 
prophet (context is a comparison with Chananiah/Mishael/Azaryah), and then 
Megilah 15a states that Daniel was a prophet (context is a list of 
contemporary prophets).

I'm not sure what is odder - the apparent contradiction, or the Maharsha's 
silence on it!

Have a good Shabbos,
Mordechai
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave

Yesterday, Rabbi Yosef Blau wrote:

>This morning's Israeli
> papers reported on an impressive number of Rabbis who were character
> witnesses for a former Rosh Yeshiva who admitted to sexual 
> improprieties
> with tens of High School students over many years.  The 
> compassion for his
> suffering does not appear to be matched with equal concern 
> for the damage
> caused to the students. They mean well but the instinctive 
> protection of
> one's colleague coupled with ignoring the impact of his 
> actions sends a
> terrible message.  

I am not familiar with Israeli criminal law, but I would think the court
looks at a criminal's character in weighing the severity of the sentence
(this is the sentencing phase; Kopelovich already admitted his guilt).
Criminal A, who has otherwise been a model citizen, will be punished less
than Criminal B, who is rotten to the core (compare to the idea of early
release for good behavior).  Thus, those who serve as character witnesses
(after the guilt of the criminal has been determined) are not implying that
they do not believe that the criminal should be punished, or that his crimes
are not heinous.

Of course, Ha'aretz (whose report you may have read) reported this in a
biased way (k'darko ba'chol).  It wrote:

<<Numerous rabbis and yeshiva graduates testified on Kopelovich's behalf,
all citing his great devotion to his students. When queried by the court and
the prosecution, all but one said that they had known of Kopelovich's acts
only in a general way, and had not concerned themselves with the details. >>

Were they condoning his acts?  No.  Is it required that they know the sordid
details (after Kopelovich had already admitted his guilt)?  I don't want to
know them either.

The use of the word "concerned" implies that they had a lack of concern for
the victims.  I think that that is an unfair trick being pulled by Ha'aretz.
It should have written "did not investigate the details."

Kol tuv,
Moshe

P.S. The two rabbis who are accused of having known of the sordid acts as
they were occurring but did nothing about it are certainly worthy of being
denounced.

Sorry.  The previous post should have been entitled "Acknowledging internal
problems".

The remark by SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>'s anonymous friend is quite accurate.
no trig at all is required. the only addendum one might add is that the
mishnoh doesn't quite use pythagoras either, but only the usual talmudic
approximation for diagonals of squares which take their diagonal as seven
fifths of a side. of course, this could be termed pythagorean if we restrict
ourselves only to equilateral right triangles and replace the irrational
root of two with the rational seven fifths. The only other approximation
then required to replicate the mishnoh's calculation is the usual (tanachic)
substitution of pi equal to three. but in no event is any trig called for
and thus the friend's final remark that <according to both Pythagoras and
trig, it can be a lot less...> is somewhat puzzling. 

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil		H: (301) 593-3949

<From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject: Trig - a waste of time?
From Shlomo B Abeles <sba@blaze.net.au>
Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com> wrote
Subject: The Kedusha of Trig
Trig...a waist of time??
There is a beautiful law in OHALOTH about a dead
sheretz that lies underneath a log. Given that you
need an ohel (Tent) of dimensions a cubic tefach
to confer toomah (an actual cube not just volume)
how big does the log have to be in Diameter in order
to confer toomah thru its air space(under the log)

A friend who knows a lot more than I do about the subject matter 
(but wishes toi remain anonymous)
sent me the following:
OK, there are two things you can tell him:
>There is a beautiful law in OHALOTH about a dead
>sheretz that lies underneath a log.
1. It's not a sheretz but a kezayis min hameis, because a sheretz is not
metame b'oihel.
>Given that you
>need an ohel (Tent) of dimensions a cubic tefach
>to confer toomah (an actual cube not just volume)
>how big does the log have to be in Diameter in order
>to confer toomah thru its air space(under the log)
>
>NO....I am not going to give the answer next week
>If you want to know this halachah you will have
>to go learn trig.
You can work it out without any trig. by using Pythagoras.
 Btw, the mishna is Oholois 12:7, and it gives the circumference as 24
tefochim, but according to both Pythagoras and trig, it can be a lot less,
i.e. just
under than 21 1/2. SBA>

------------------------------

In a message dated 11/12/99 12:22:06 AM US Central Standard Time, 
atwood@netvision.net.il writes:

<< It's easy to insult.
 
 Seriously, WHY do so many people on this list feel the NEED to slam the RW
 (whoever they are -- are Satmar and Gush both RW)?
 
 Why does *every* issue turn into a RW slamming fest? Small wonder the
 RW/chassidic element either lurk or leave.
 
 Attacks like these usually indicate insicurity with one's self-image/belief
 system. Something to think about. >>

Honestly, in analyzing Shlomo's deceptively funny bear joke, I did not mean 
to attack the RW. I am attracted to the RW, at least emotionally, and suspect 
that one day I will end up among them. Certain secular demands make such a 
conversion impossible for me at present. 

Still, apropros the bear joke, you must admit the following: (a) bears have 
more hair than humans; (b) bears are stronger than humans; (c) RW Jews 
generally have more hair than MO Jews; and (d) RW Jews are stronger than MO 
Jews, at least in the sense of controlling the agenda and setting the 
parameters of debate. 

A religiously minded political theorist might have explanations for this. 
Knowing no such theories, I suggest something more prosaic. We know that hair 
itself is power (Judges 13-16). Many N.H.L. defensemen wear small beards to 
strike fear in the hearts of puck-loving forwards. A lusty beard is, well, a 
lusty beard. Balding men suffer loss of self-esteem, and sometimes spend 
thousands of dollars to sow new growths on barren fields in the hope that 
their sense of selfhood -- their power -- will be restored. 

So why look further? Excessive intellectualization can lead to misleading 
results.

David Finch

Reb Shlomo Yaffe writes, "This idea of Chassidic Rebbeim not paskening is
not universal. For example, The 1st Munkatcher Rebbe - the Minchas Elozor
was also a major and prolific Posek whose Teshuvot remain a staple of the
genre.
The Divrei Chayim -the first Rebbe of Tzanz is known by the same name as
his Sefer of teshuvos. His son the Shinover was also a much turned to
Posek."
Let me add the Sochatchover Rebbe to this list, otherwise known as the
Avnei Nezer.
Shaul Weinreb

Perhaps you misunderstood. I was not referring to Nigleh. Chabad is for
studying Nigleh in the same manner, more or less, as a standard Litvishe
Yeshiva.

I was referring to what in Chabad is called Da"ach, I believe, Divrei
Elokim
Chaim. In Chabad, study of other Chassidus, such as, for example, R'
Tzadok,
Sefas Emes, etc., is discouraged. As is study of the works of many of the
mekubbalim after the Arizal (such as the Ramchal). I have spoken to my
uncles about this. Haven't you noticed the kinds of sources that my Uncle
Immanuel uses in his footnotes? They are overwhelmingly either from the
Beis
Medrash of the Ari or from Nesi'ei Chabad.

OTOH, I do not know that, say, Gerrers study any Chassidus other than
that
which originated with their Nesi'im (plus some classics that antedate the
Chiddushei ha'Rim. Since Chabad was founded early on, I think the
exclusionary policy stretches further back, historically, than with the
other Chasiduyos), or that Tzanzers study anything from other Battei
Medrash
either. Most of us, however, grew up perceiving that Chabad is "breiter"
than other Chasiduyos, so it is more jarring, at first glance, to realize
that they, too, curtail their area of pursuit in Da"ach.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
=========================================================================
======
Reply: since you were being "Mosif" on HM's narishkeit, I thought you
were maskim but with "additions" -al derech the midrash "if you go into a
perfumers you smell of perfume" and if you go in to a......you..... but I
am sorry to have misconstrued your meaning. ( BTY, others whos saw the
post had the same "Hava Aminah" in your words that I did)

Well, it is true that the primary nistar learning of Chabad Chassidim is
*suprise* Chabad Chassidus. A few points though:

1. Chassidus Chabad is a very extensive and comprehensive system (I think
in terms of sheer volume of writing by the Rebbeim no one would argue
that Chabad is the most prolific Chassidus) that brings down many Sifrei
Kabbalah and other Sifrei Chassidus in the works of the Rebbeim of Chabad
themselves. Chassidus Chabad does not shy away from discussing
alternative viewpoints in Nistar (e.g. on the isuue of Oros Metzuyarim or
Peshutim).
 Hence, the study of Chabad Chassidus alone gives one a very broad view 
of the world of Nistar and Chassidus. 

2.Anyone who knows Chabad well, knows that many Chabad Chassidim do study
other types of Chassidus regularly for a broad range of reasons.

3.There is a well known Mesorah of the ARI that is current in several
Sefardic and Chassidic circles that he said to rely primarily (or
entirely) on R.Chayim Vital's transmission of his teachings. also,to
Chassidim (and i believe, also the GRA, Maybe somone on the list can
enlighten me on this) the Kabbalas Ha'ari represents an essential level
of authority (like the Gemara Bavli vs. all susequent works). Hence, the
reliance on Kisvei Ha'ari and the absence of qoutes from shitos that
diverge (even ocasionally) from The ARI. This does not apply to Mekubalim
who came before the ARI who are qouted often in Chassidus Chabad.

4.Focus is not a bad thing: If one concentrates on ones own  derech and
lives it and it leads someone to ever higher heights in Torah, Avodah and
Kiyum Mitzvos Be'hiddur, this is an absolute good.
 Provided of course, that this is coupled with Ahavas Yisroel for all
Jews and respect for any approach "Hamolich Beis Hashem". 
 Our Rebbe often pointed out that we must learn lessons in Avodas Hashem
from Minhagim and Tefilos that other Jews have even if we don't practice
them ourselves.

Shlomo Dov Yaffe

Mikol melamdei hiskalti

It's one reason I generally oppose deleting textual discrepancies or 
homogenezing minhogim.  Contrasting girsos and contrasting minhogim can teach us
a lot.

EG: The historical background of the Av Horachamim prayer said before Shabbos 
Mussaf.

German Kehillos omit this prayer except twice a year, Shabbos Chazon and the 
Shabbos before Shavuos.   When you realize that in fact this minhog equates the 
Shabbos before Shavuos with Shabbos Chazon one asks why?  The answer is that is 
the time of year that the crusaders destroyed many kehillos in Western Europe; 
adn that the Av Horachamim is a "hazkoras neshomos" for those who perished 
during those tragedies.

Rich Wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #130 reply to RYGB's post on Chassidus study 

 Our Rebbe often pointed out that we must learn lessons in Avodas Hashem
from Minhagim and Tefilos that other Jews have even if we don't practice 
them ourselves.

Shlomo Dov Yaffe

>>
I note the fact that in a subsequent issue, RYGB wrote a letter to the editor 
taking issue with R. Schiller with regard to the joys of baseball, noting that 
many highschoolers are more enthralled with sports than with learning.  R. 
Schiller answered that this was an abuse but did not undermine the essence of 
the argument that Hashem in His beneficence grants us pleasures.  I wonder 
whether RYGB was satisfied with R. Schiller's response. Maybe he could write our
Avodah list what he would have written in response to R. Schiller.

Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,
Moshe<<

FWIW, I recall a mussar shmuz from R. Naftali Kaplan of Ner Yisroel in which he 
said  (paraprhasing) hal'vai the batter would utter a bakosho before geting up 
to bat, it would justify the entire game (IOW the bittul zman) And I vaguely 
recall this being (loosely?) based upon R. Nachman's concept of talking to 
Hashem about any mundane need.

Rich Wolpoe

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


[ 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/              ]

Status: RO

]