Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 141

Thursday, November 18 1999

• Macho'o
• Simplicity & R.Twersky's recommended takanah
• Re: simplicity
• Kol Kevudah Bas Melech Penimah
• Re: Rabbi Twerski and Karl Marx
• Re: Response to R. Aaron Twersky Article in the JO
• Re: simplicity
• Re: Response to R. Aaron Twersky Article in the JO
• Re: simplicity
• Re: Ha-aretz article on Hillel
• Re: purity and smells
• Re: Macho'o
• Re: Response to R. Aaron Twersky Article in the JO
• Re: Simplicity
• Re: Simplicity & R.Twersky's recommended takanah

Aye there's the rub alright!.

Help me out, here
Hypotehtically speaking, if I labeled Yitzchok Ovinu as being short would that 
mean it was an intrinsic denigration of him?  Or would the perceived denigration
be a function of prejudice towards short people?

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
 It just seems to rub many of us the wrong way when 
anyone mentions a Patriarch, and a disability of this 
nature in the same sentence.  

Let's not "see" what isn't really there just to make a 
point about how to treat those who are less fortunate. 
There are real sources that can do an infinitely 
better job at this.

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

One difficulty with R. Twersky's wedding takanah, as opposed to a takanah
prohibiting people from buying luxury cars, is that the wedding industry
(unlike car sales) involves only frum Jews.  This means (as RJH's and RHM's
posts have made clear) that this is a great hurdle for a wedding takanah to
overcome; it's similar to domestic manufacturers lobbying against NAFTA.  It
might be easier to "try small" and go for a ban on some other extravagance.
In a similar vein, I wonder (and those in the industry might be able to
inform me) whether it might make sense to start with banning wedding halls
(just the halls, not caterers) which cost more than $x per person.  Am I
right in thinking that all the expensive wedding halls are owned largely by
non-Jews or non-frum Jews?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> Let us remember the recent Daf Yomi Gemara in
> Chagiga: "Ya'eh Anyiusa
> l'Yisroel". While I do not think it is to be tajken
> literally, I think it
> does indicate that simplicity is a good thing.

The idea there is that poverty breeds character.  No?

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

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>RSRH explicitely shows that the combined rule of a- mitzvos
>asei; b- shehazman geramah; c- that deal with "the outside" fits the
>halachah exactly. As I said before, in many cases Hirsch had some leeway,
>as the placement of a mitzvah he deems symbolic (osos) into the "inside" vs
>"outside" categories depends on his symbology. Of course, that symbology also
>has to explain the other features of the mitzvah -- remember that Hirsch's
>ta'amei hamitzvos address the minute features of the mitzvah, not just the
>large scale that the Moreh's or the Chinuch's studies of ta'amim do. So
>the leeway isn't /that/ great.

This seems to be going back over old ground, but may I remind you of the
difficulties in squaring that position with the fact that women are not
mechuyav in the two essential home related mitsvos:

- (a) marriage; 
- (b) having children.

>I think I'm also being unclear by my use of "inside" (with quotes) in an
>attempt to stick closely to the word "penimah". By penimah RSRH means "home
>first". In contrast to men who are OBLIGATED to build a community as well.
>This would mean (my own conjecture based on RSRH's base idea) that while a
>woman is permitted to build community as well, the lack of chiyuv is because
>that's not where "kevudah" is found.


>
>So giving Hirsch's spin to the "derashah" (really asmachta), all of a woman's
>religious riches are in the home, not the community. That doesn't mean that's
>where all of her religion or all of her life should be. Perhaps "riches" refers
>here to chiyuvim -- we know the value of being a metzuvah vi'osah.

But as indicated, women have virtually no chiyuvim in the home (she has
some to her husband, once she chooses to have one, and some to her
children while they are not yet weaned, but that's it).

On a more fundamental level though, I think I have a problem with how
you seem to be defining community.

To me, the essence of a community can be summed up as:

- (a)  g'milus chasadim;
- (b) hashkamas beis hamidrash shachris v'arvis;
- (c) hachnasas orchim;
- (d) bikur cholim;
- (e) hachnasas kala;
- (f) hal'vias hames;
 not to mention havias shalom ben adam l'chavero and general
provision of tzedaka.

Perhaps you see a community differently, but if a community does not
provide the above, IMHO, it is no community. And are these not the
essence of community organisations, to provide the above, or the
infrastructure for the above (shuls, schools, meals on wheels,
hospitals, security, mikvos etc).

Of that lot, only (b) and possibly (f) are generally regarded as
inappropriate for women's involvement and the rest are, by most people,
not only regarded as chiyuvim applicable to women, but by many as
particularly belonging to women.  Are you suggesting that RSRH
believes women should withdraw from these mitzvos in order to focus
on the home (where, as indicated above,  they have extremely limited
chyuvim)?  

And the whole point of these mitzvos, as we say every morning, is that
they do not have a zman or a shiur (and hence women are obligated as are
men).

In fact, one of the things you see in the charedi community is that the
fundamental community organisations that are keeping people afloat,
namely the g'machim, seem on the most part to be staffed by women. This
is, IMHO, community building at its finest, but if your definition is
right, then it is a violation of the basic tafkid of a woman.

Getting back to you women from the tanach - yes Sarah was famous for
being in her tent, but she was also famous for being m'karev the women
(while Avraham was being m'karev the men).  That is the essence of
community building, so according to your reading of RSRH it would seem
she was violating kol kavuda.

- Avgayil also is going out to give food to David's troops, which is
about the welfare of the nation.

- Miriam in engaging in leading the women in collective praise, is also
all about community building.

- The wise woman (aka Serach) in the time of David was engaged in
helping the townspeople formulate strategy that saved all their lives.

And of course, the essence of the navius of not only Devorah but Chulda
and even Esther was about the nation.  In fact Esther is probably the
antithesis to RSRH's thesis.  She was the quintecential "home girl" and
the choice she had to make was between ignoring the perils threatening
the wider community and keeping things "smooth" at home or
jeopardising her home situation, with the latter being the correct
response (and, of course, the one she ultimately took).   Mordechai did
point out that you cannot possibly preserve your own home if the
community itself is threatened (ie while salvation for the community may
arise from some other place if you do not act, you and your father's
house will surely perish).  But while wholesale distruction of the
community is an obvious and extreme threat, there are many threats to a
community, and most of community work is aimed at ameliorating them.
Therefore, in contrast to your thesis, you could learn from Esther that
it is imperative that a woman who can puts the wider needs of the
community first, or she may have no community for her children to grow
up into.

Thus while I know you are thinking about the kavod that comes with
having a prominent position in society, and that is certainly something
that exists, but, IMHO, if that is not only an incidental factor to the
essence of the community building taking place then I do not think you
have much of a community.  Holding a prominent position is a tremendous
amount of hard work, coupled with a little bit of kavod (in this day and
age laced with lots of griping by others not prepared to put in the
work, but still dissatisfied with the outcome).

To conclude, I would like to tell you a story from my extended family
(which is something the family is very proud of).  My grandmother's
great aunt, when she died in 1925, there were reputed to have been
25,000 people at her funeral, and they shut all the shops in the town in
Eastern Europe where she lived.  Not just the Jewish shops, but the
goyishe shops as well.  Why? Well besides being the wife of the Rav of
the town  (although he had passed on a good 20 years before) she had
run the entire network of tzedaka, for both Jews and Goyim, for the
entire town.   So everybody was touched by her, everybody knew her
and hence everybody mourned her.

But from what you are saying, one would have to concluded that such a
woman is not only not to be praised (and presumably the various
distinguished hespedim should not have been given) but is in violation
of kol kavuda.  But this explanation too seems to be very much at
variance with our tradition.

Regards

Chana


>
>- -mi
>

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

--- SAMUEL A DREBIN <sadbkd@juno.com> wrote:
> First of all HM, Los Angeles is the Second largest
> city in the US (jewish
> community as well), not Chicago.
> 
> In all seriousness, if the Gedolim are so eager to
> get involved, they
> might take a look at the "organized crime" practices
> as they relate to
> Matzo and esrogim as well as the anti-trust? CRIMES
> exercised by certain
> kosher wine producers. One can only wonder why this
> hasn't happened yet
> (It's pretty obvious isn't it?.  Save me the R'
> Heinamen. It didn't worK
> 
> Shmuel Akiva Drebin-poor capitalist pig

I don't think the Gedolim are really so eager to get
involved, or they would have by now.

Also, Chicago will always be the second city.  Who
cares about he left coast? :)

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

--- Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/18/99 1:31:25 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, 
> hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> 
> << 
>  Takanos are not the answer. As R. Twerski
> indicated,
>  many of our Gedolei Yisroel won't decree Takanos
>  because they know that they will be honored more in
>  the breach.  
>  
>  Re-education of society is the answer.
>   >>
> I agree with your answer but am not sure that
> Takanos would not be a part of 
> the reeducation process.  It's also unfortunate that
> we always look to "them" 
> (in this case Gedolei Yisrael) to solve our
> problems.  In this case, it 
> wouldn't hurt for lay leadership to actually lead.

Takanos are the wrong answer. See my reply to Gershon
Dubin.

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

I am posting this to the list because you again replied off list.  Maybe
you should check your reply settings.

Gershon

On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:16:44 -0800 (PST) harry maryles
<hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> 
> --- Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 	Even if the SS argument held,  I don't consider
> > this pile-up to be so
> > tragic as to use its specter as a reason not to have
> > takanos for simchos.
> >    So what if these items,  to the extent they are
> > overdone, are limited
> > by takanos?  Does anyone feel they absolutely must
> > have a Lexus and it is
> > a deprivation of their human rights for them to have
> > to buy a Taurus?
> > Unnecessary legislation if it ever lead to that, 
> > yes;  tragic,  no.
> > 
> > You write further that:
> > 
> > <<> Any Bar Mitzvah that extends beyond the day of
> > Shabbos
> > > itself  is far too lavish no matter what one's
> > income
> > > is.  There is no need to make a Bar Mitzvah that
> > looks
> > > like a wedding.  A sit down kiddush after davening
> > > should be the extent of it.  After kiddush,
> > everyone
> > > goes home to their own Shabbos Seudah. We need a
> > sense
> > > of proportion here.  A Bar Mitzvah is not a
> > wedding.>>
> > 
> > 	Hark,  I hear a takana!!
> 
> Takanos of this type are wrong.It doesn't matter  WHAT
> or  HOW MUCH we are limiting. We shouldn't be limiting
> at all. The point the advocates of Takanos are missing
> is that it is arbitrary and socialist to set up an
> artificial guidlines. Socialism has a noble goal.. the
> concept of ultimate egaltarianism... working for the
> group as a whole instead of the individual... working
> L'Shma, so to speak. But, how can anyone possibly
> determine the optimum level of expenditures... the
> perfect lifestyle of moderation?  Do we all follow a
> singular pre-determined model? Who is to set up this
> model? Is there no room for discretion when it comes
> to spending one's income?  What if someone wants to
> take a once in a lifetime vacation and saves up for
> this one time lavish expense at the expense of other
> extravagances?  Should we now deny him this
> opportunity because others will be jealous? This is
> patently unfair. 
> 
> I am not normally a big fan of R.Eliahu Dessler, but
> his apprpaoch here is the best one. He clearly points
> out the vacuosness of pursuing wealth.  His salvation
> is one of educating the masses to understand the
> illusory nature of pursuing  great wealth in
> contradistinction to pursuing the wealth of Torah with
> its concommitant rewards in Olam HaBa. 
> 
> One more point about my reference to lavish Bar
> Mitzvos. I am four square against making Takanos
> against even the most lavish Bar Mitzvah party, as
> long as it isn't obscene like the "Titanic" Bat
> Mitzvah that made the media awhile back. That
> particular afair was a Chilul HaShem, not because of
> it's lavishness but because of the obscene nature of
> the theme. Even I have my limits:)
> 
> One problem is with the relatedness of a Bar Mitzvah
> with the party itself.  There is no sense of
> proportion between the event and the party.  To the
> extent that one distances himself with the celebratory
> event by way of extravagance, is the extent where you
> lose sight of what you are celebrating.  Even though I
> am against TAKONOS, I do feel the EDUCATION proccess
> should begin here.
> 
> Another problem is what I refered to earlier as the
> concept of "inflicting your simcha on me".  R. Twersky
> is correct about the overburdening of society with
> sometimes multiple simchos on one day.  It is too
> much, and has become a burdon to accept every
> invitation with a positive response. Bar Mitzva
> parties have become an uneccesary burden on the
> Orthodox community.
> 
> Weddings are a different story.  No matter how big or
> extravagant the wedding, you never lose sight of the
> fact that it is a wedding and we are all there to be
> Misameach the Chassan and the Kallah.  So, I am not
> against any kind of wedding at all, no matter how
> lavish.
> 
> My posts are a little long, don't you think?
> 
> HM
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

In message , harry maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes
>Any Bar Mitzvah that extends beyond the day of Shabbos
>itself  is far too lavish no matter what one's income
>is.

Why?  I davka think that the nicest bar mitsvahs extend beyond the day
of shabbas, for a very simple reason.  In most of the world, *there is
not an eruv in the city* and that means a) elderly grandparents, and b)
small brothers and sisters (and their parents) may not be able to come.
I am not talking expense here, I am talking about whether you are able
to have the grandparents and close relatives partake in the simcha - I
can tell you it is pretty miserable simcha without them!

>  There is no need to make a Bar Mitzvah that looks
>like a wedding.  A sit down kiddush after davening
>should be the extent of it.  After kiddush, everyone
>goes home to their own Shabbos Seudah. We need a sense
>of proportion here.  A Bar Mitzvah is not a wedding.
>Most of the time it is an imposition on the invitees,
>who would rather be doing something else. One of my
>good friends calls it "inflicting your Simcha on me".
>

Again, it depends.  Firstly, it depends on the size of families and
their personal circumstances.  In my case, we did make rather a fuss of
my bas mitzvah (well not really of the do itself as we had a sit down
dinner in my parent's house, but the whole surrounding fuss which did
included activities for a couple of weeks).  But there was a reason for
that.  The reason was that my father is an only child.  I am the oldest
(of two) grandchildren on his side, and the oldest by a fair way on my
mother's.  All four of my grandparents, at that time, lived in South
Africa - which was not that accessible, a) because flying to Australia
itself was a major operation, involving landing about three times, and
b) because sanctions were making it even more difficult to get in and
out.  All four of my grandparents came, and I think everybody knew even
at that time that that would be the last simcha where that would be
possible (by the time of my brother's barmitzvah, my father's mother was
no longer with us, and my father's father was too ill to possibly
contemplate the journey). So not surprisingly, there was quite an
extensive amount of activity that was organised (although most of it
involved the pretty immediate family - ie the sort that flew out from
South Africa).  I don't think a fortune was spent (except perhaps on
aeroplane tickets) - but it seems to me that if you are too broad brush
with you takanos (eg nothing more than the day of the bar mitzvah), you
will catch simchas that you really don't want to catch, and shouldn't be
catching.

>HM 

Regards

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

--- Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now, in order to deal with #2, it is possible that
> even wealthy
> individuals will have to limit their wedding
> expenditures.  There is
> no doubt that caterers, musicians and others will be
> unfairly hurt as
> a result.  But that too must have been the result of
> R. Gamliel's
> takanah regarding funerals!  I would think that the
> advantage to
> society as a whole would not be outweighed by the
> disadvantage to
> individuals.  (Perhaps there could be a ten-year
> phase-in of the
> takanah to allow caterers and others to find
> different professions.)

It is a moral outrage to me that an individual's
rights should be curtailed on the premise that it is
for the greater good of society, when the greater good
can be equally served without that curtailment. 

HM

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

Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@hcs.harvard.edu> writes in v4n135 about two web
sites that have stories of people who left frumkeit:
: The sad thing about these stories --- on both sites --- is that they're 
: either specific to specific family circumstances or result from people
: being surprised at reading, say, Reform Torah commentary on the sly.  
: It sounds like most of them just make a clean break out of frustration 
: rather than trying to work things out.

I believe that people don't switch religious positions for intellectual
reasons. The aphorism I've coined and used ad nauseum on scj is "The mind
is a wonderful organ for justifying the conclusions the heart already
reached." Emotions provide our decisions with drive and momentum. Something
like religion, which has much emotional investment, isn't going to be
convinced away. Someone facing data that appears to challenge his religious
position (whether or not it really does) will either assume an answer exists
that he doesn't know or comparmentalize religion from the problem and ignore
it.

That's why I believe kiruv has had so much success with an experiential
approach -- try a Shabbos, see that it works. Even the Discovery Seminar
is a hook to get people to experience Yiddishkeit.

I therefore agree with your opinion, but primarily because of your wording.
The first class, who have family issues, are abandoning a context that is
painful to them, the belief system is just part of that. The second class
are leaving over FRUSTRATION. Not because the argument is true or false,
but because it comes as a surprise that there's a whole intellectual universe
that was kept hidden from them.

It's like a teenager who finds out surreptitiously that he's an adoptee. His
attitude toward his parents and his own identity is VERY different than if he
knew he was adopted from early on, and was told straightforwardly.

Because I think the underlying drive is emotional, I'm unsurprised that they
won't go to a Rabbi about it. Aside from the stigma associated with admitting
you read such sefarim chitzoniim, these people aren't seeking answers. They
aren't seeking facts -- they seeking emotional resolution.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 18-Nov-99: Chamishi, Vayetzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 70b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

David Riceman <driceman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> writes in v4n136:
: 2.  My impression is that smells were common in Jewish practice (and not
: only in the Beith HaMikdash) before the churban habayith....

How did you form that impression?

-mi

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> Aye there's the rub alright!.
> 
> Help me out, here
> Hypotehtically speaking, if I labeled Yitzchok Ovinu
> as being short would that 
> mean it was an intrinsic denigration of him?  Or
> would the perceived denigration
> be a function of prejudice towards short people?
> 
> Rich Wolpoe

I'm not letting you "trap" me here. Read my earlier
post on the way the Chazan Ish treated Downs or other
people that were similarly disabled.  I am not Chas
V'Shalom denigrating individuals with Downs syndrome.
But clearly it is a handicap, that, given the choice,
Downs people would be happy to get rid of.  

Shortness is not in the same leauge as Downs.
Eventhough I'm sure given the choice most short people
would be thrilled to be able to slam dunk a
basketball, it doesn't prevent them acheiving great
heights, in Torah Learning.  R. Moshe was under 5'
tall, as was R. Rogov.

HM


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

--- Chana/Heather Luntz
<Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message , harry maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> writes
> >Any Bar Mitzvah that extends beyond the day of
> Shabbos
> >itself  is far too lavish no matter what one's
> income
> >is.
> 
> Why?  I davka think that the nicest bar mitsvahs
> extend beyond the day
> of shabbas, for a very simple reason.  In most of
> the world, *there is
> not an eruv in the city* and that means a) elderly
> grandparents, and b)
> small brothers and sisters (and their parents) may
> not be able to come.
> I am not talking expense here, I am talking about
> whether you are able
> to have the grandparents and close relatives partake
> in the simcha - I
> can tell you it is pretty miserable simcha without
> them!

I never meant to imply that one can NEVER make a post
shabbos Bar Mitzvah.  The above case grandparents etc.
is certainly an understandable exception.  This is why
I am AGAINST TAKANOS. But I still believe that for the
most part, Bar/Bat Mitzvos should be confined to the
Shabbos Kiddush which can be as elaborate as one can
afford but not to include a Seudas Shabbos except for
extended family.  In cases where there is no Eruv or
for those who don't use a citywide Eruv... that's
life. you can't make all the people happy all of the
time.  Even non shabbos Bar/Bat Mitzvos will often
leave out someone who is out of town or someone who is
sick or in Aveilus.

Bottom line: The Shabbos Kiddush should be the
standard. But, NOT AS A TAKONA.

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

I copied Dr Aaron Twerski's article from the JO in v4n136 in which he writes:
: Why a multiplicity of gods? Upon reflection, one can discern a profound lesson
: about Jews: We either worship one G-d and fulfill His will, or we are pulled
: in a multiplicity of directions. One source of idolatry will not suffice.

Note the direction of this implication:
    IF we do not worship one G-d ch"b THEN we are pulled in multiple direction.

: The lesson is clear. When we suffer pizur hanefesh, when we are torn in many
: different directions, it is a sign of deep and serious trouble.

Note the direction of this one:
    IF we are pulled in multiple directions THEN we aren't properly worshipping
    that one G-d (ch"v).

This is the Fallacy of the Converse. 1- IF p THEN q; 2- q; therefore 3- p.

I happen to think the two -- worshipping HKBH and unity of purpose -- are
intimately connected. As I said in our discussion of RYGB's article about
forks in the hashkafic road: d'veikus and temimus are different descriptions
of the same end state. However, RDAT doesn't really prove his point here.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 18-Nov-99: Chamishi, Vayetzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 70b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In a message dated 11/18/99 5:45:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:

<<  This means (as RJH's and RHM's
 posts have made clear) that this is a great hurdle for a wedding takanah to
 overcome; it's similar to domestic manufacturers lobbying against NAFTA.  It
 might be easier to "try small" and go for a ban on some other extravagance.
 In a similar vein, I wonder (and those in the industry might be able to
 inform me) whether it might make sense to start with banning wedding halls
 (just the halls, not caterers) which cost more than $x per person.  Am I
 right in thinking that all the expensive wedding halls are owned largely by
 non-Jews or non-frum Jews?
  >>

One of the things I would recommend is to establish standard practices, in 
conjunction with the vendors involved, to coordinate size-expense 
relationships. In other words, urging those who want to make a larger weding, 
to do so within certain extravegance limits, which won't impact as severely 
the caterers income.
I have some other ideas, but I also have two kids in the bathtub right now, 
and my wife is calling......

Jordan
 

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


[ 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         ]