Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 143

Friday, November 19 1999

• Extravegant Simchas
• RE: simplicity
• Re: RAW apology
• Re: chabad messianic minyan [mail jewish 30-11]
• Re: simplicity
• Re: Simplicity & R.Twersky's recommended takanah
• Macho'o
• The Retraction
• Re: Extravegant Simchas
• Netiquette
• What was wrong with "what was wrong with the retraction"
• Re: Netiquette
• Re: Ha-aretz article on Hillel
• Re: Netiquette
• Derech Eretz
• Fw: Chagigah 007: Olas Re'iyah
• RE: What was wrong with "what was wrong with the retraction"
• Re: Derech Eretz

It is so hard to set a dollar value on Simchas, etc. there are so many 
variable.  Why not have a way for the communities to set up a 10 or 20% 
tax on all Simcha related expenses.

The money would then go into a fund to cover scholarships for Chinuch.  
Every one will gain.


Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@netcom.com

From: harry maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> - --- 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. 
> 

I chuckle a bit at the "moral outrage" since you have a pecuniary stake
here.  In any case, the entire premise here (as I and others have discussed
previously) is that "education" by itself doesn't work, and it must be
supplemented by takanot.  In fact, many of us have learned R. Dessler and
heard plenty of rabbinic drashot, with little effect.

I was responding to RJH's separate argument that takanot will hurt those in
the industry.  My response is that sometimes the individual must suffer for
the greater good. 

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 11/18/99 7:25:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
hojda@netvision.net.il writes:

<< The "D'Var Torah" was horribly offensive and absolutely obscene. I am new 
to this list and held back from asking why we were not sent an apology for 
being exposed to such material. The "addendum" adds the sin of dishonesty and 
geneivas da'as, perfect for Parshas V'Yetzei:   >>

I was not offended by the dvar Tora and whether I "agree" with it or not 
assumed that I was observing  the time honored rabbinic tradition of tying 
what the particular Rav viewed as an important point to be made to parshat 
hashavua 

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS I wouldn't agree about the "sin" of the addendum either

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes at the end
> of v4n137:
> : 4. There is a caterer here in Chicago that has a
> : Mashiachist as it's Mashgiach Timidi.  Can one eat
> : from this caterer?
> 
> Why not? Why would it be any worse than trusting a
> Kusi's shechitah? Once
> we eliminate the problem that Kusiim don't hold by
> "lifnei iver" (except
> literally) and possible lack of dikduk in certain
> hilchos shechitah, we're
> allowed to eat their shechitah. (Chullin 4a) Here
> too we're talking about
> someone who has an identical definition of the
> halachos as we do, but differs
> in belief system.
> 
> I can see tefillah bedavkah being a problem, since
> many meshichtzin take
> tzaddik gozeir to extents that most of us would
> consider a violation of
> the Rambam's 3rd ikkar (that only Hashem is the
> target of prayer). As it's
> oso inyan, it is possible R' Elyashiv's p'sak
> applies only to this.
> 
> Also, the boreinuniks (a minority of the minority)
> consitute halachic problems
> WRT ovdei avodah zarah -- stam yeinam, etc... But
> this is such a miut, what
> are the odds that one is the 10th man in your
> minyan?
 
My question was asked in reposnse to R. Elyashav's
Psak. I don't really know what kind of Mashichists he
was refering to.  But, by proccess of elimination,  we
can assume that he wasn't talking about the
boreinuniks because that Pashut.  The other
categories, while they may be shtuyos, they do not
necessarily constitute Avodah Zarah.  If he really
said that you cna't count them intoa minyan, then it
questions their very status as maaminim.  The Kusim
were not consisdered Apikursim but rather quasi Jews
which Chazal legislated halachos about how we were to
deal with them in specific instsances.  I don't think
we can extrapolate from kusim to Meshichists.
In the case of this particular Meshichist-Mashgiach,
on a personal level (I know him well) he is as
honorable, Ehrlich, and Midakdek an individual as one
can imagine; a real gentle person. But then again, so
was Mother Teresa and we couldn't trust her hashgacha
either.

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

In a message dated 11/18/99 8:19:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:

<< I was responding to RJH's separate argument that takanot will hurt those in
 the industry.  My response is that sometimes the individual must suffer for
 the greater good. 
  >>

I don't actually disagree that sometimes the greater good requires temporary 
setbacks for some. My main objection to takkanos of this nature is that they 
tend to be proposed without regard to their financial impact, and with some 
forethought, and the participation of those who have something at stake, 
those negative consequences could be avoided.

Jordan  

In a message dated 11/18/99 8:29:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< 
 Your solution and Moshe's Solutions address only on
 part of the problem: the way a particular Takana might
 affect certain members of the community, who are in
 the Simcha business.
 
 It does not address the fact that by trying to reduce
 the jealousy engenderd by extravagant weddings with
 "Limits" Takanos, you are prevneting the wealthy from
 enjoying their wealth in a manner that they see fit.
  >>

Your point is well taken, but I do not believe that just because someone has 
a great deal of wealth means he can spend it any way he wants, even if there 
is a negative effect on the moral and spiritual character of the community.

Look, I can send a five piece band to a Bar Mitzvah, where the dancing and 
singing and Divrei Torah are the main focii, or I can send a five piece band 
to a Bar Mitzvah where the game room and Caricaturist and elaborate giveaways 
and lit signs of the Boys name and the dresses which look like something 
Scarlett Ohara ripped off her window frame (sorry, old Carol Burnett 
reference), and I will make the same money. The money is not the only issue 
here. 

Jordan  

From Shlomo B Abeles <sba@blaze.net.au>

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
Subject: Macho'o

>>>I am intrigued how some zealously stand up for Yitzhock's honor. and soemtimes
>>>for Hashem's honor too..... I figure Yitachok Ovinu and KvCH
>>>Hashem can pretty much stand-up and defend their own honor. Who stands up for
>>>the honor of those who've been slighted or insulted who are to weak or too meek
>>>to stand up for themselves?

Are you forgetting..."Al Kvodi Lo Mechisem, Al Kevod Bosor VeDom Mechisem..."?

SBA

Gee, I think people forgot the critique of the retraction was written by one
of the respected members of our list associated with Modern Orthodoxy and
just assumed *I* wrote it. That is the only way I can account for the
vehement reaction it provoked :-).

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

--- Harry Weiss <hjweiss@netcom.com> wrote:
> It is so hard to set a dollar value on Simchas, etc. there are so
> many 
> variable.  Why not have a way for the communities to set up a 10 or
> 20% 
> tax on all Simcha related expenses.
> 
> The money would then go into a fund to cover scholarships for
> Chinuch.  
> Every one will gain.

This doesn't solve the problem addressed by R. Twersky regarding
those "middle-class" people who can barely get by because of the
"requirement" of expensive weddings.

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

Rabbosai! Please!

<<< Even if the SS argument held >>>

I had to read this several times until I figured out that "SS" refers to
the "Slippery Slope", and not Nazi Germany's organization, yemach sh'mam.

I've finally gotten used to telling the difference between RYGB and RYBS.

Pop quiz. Translate the following: RAW, RAA, RAE, RAM

I understand that our seforim are full of rashei taivos, and the internet
is full of acronyms. But they develop over time. Is it really necessary
to invent new ones twice a week?

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

RYGB wrote:
> I forward a reply not written by 
> myself, but,
> far more eloquently, by a member of Avodah, who prefers 
> anonymity, 

<snip>
>
> > I am pained that some individuals, when caught out in their 
> reckless,
> > thoughtless, irresponsible fantasizing about dvar Hashem, 
<snip>
> > "Spirituality" emerges not only from hot air and pompous 
> gesticulations,
<snip>
> > Rabbotay, this "clarification" is even sadder than the 
> original silliness.
> > Why do I feel this way? Probably because, in order to cover 
> up its own
> > foolishness, 
<snip>


What was wrong with this posting is that it was written anonymously.
Because it was written anonymously, the poster felt no compunction in making
ad homenim attacks.  If the poster had not written anonymously he would have
felt it incumbent upon himself to address the real issues.

Anonymous postings should be discouraged.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> I've finally gotten used to telling the difference between RYGB and RYBS.
> 
> Akiva Miller
> 

I'd much rather you could not tell the difference :-).

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

In a message dated 11/18/99 5:26:51 PM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 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.
  >>

Few of us facing a great emotional and religious crisis would feel 
comfortable going to a rabbi who has the "facts" and the "answers." Most of 
us would prefer a rabbi who understands the questions, and can guide us 
toward the answers ourselves. Rabbis without pastoral abilities aren't going 
to save many Jewish souls.

David Finch

In a message dated 11/18/99 8:57:09 PM US Central Standard Time, 
kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:

<< Pop quiz. Translate the following: RAW, RAA, RAE, RAM >>


RAW:  (1) Real Awful Wording. This can be bad grammar, repeated misspellings, 
and some of the more ludicrous yeshivishisms that creep into Avodah messages. 
(2) The physical condition of the authors of some Avodah messages, especially 
if composed late at night. (3) Rashi Always Wins. A truism in Talmudic 
debate. (4) Rambam Always Wins. Another truism in Talmudic debate. 

RAA:  (1) Reductio ad absurdum, or something like that. (This is a Latinism I 
learned, or supposedly learned, in high school that has some application to 
on-line Avodah debate). (2) Ridiculously Arrogant Attitude. See above.

RAE:  I have no idea what this means.

RAM:  (1) Random Access Memory. (2) Rabbi 'Arry Maryles. 

David Finch

Rabbi Weiss published an addendum to his article of last week. Via Rabbi
Bechhofer, someone responded to that addendum. I must respond to the
outrageous charges made by that anonymous person.



Rabbi Weiss wrote <<< The purpose of that Dvar Torah was not to assert
that Yitzhak (Isaac) had Downs Syndrome.  That assertion has no basis.
>>>

Anonymous asks <<< Why then does the dvar Torah make a great deal of the
fact that Abraham and Sarah were elderly and therefore likely to have a
Downs child? >>>

I say: Anonymous is wrong. The original dvar Torah did NOT make a "great
deal" of it, but simply pointed it out. Rabbi Weiss' exact words were <<<
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. >>>



Rabbi Weiss wrote <<< The intent of the Forshpeis was to indicate that
from the perspective of drush, Yitzhak possessed some characteristics
that teach us something, not about Yitzhak, but about Downs Syndrome. 
Specifically, that those who have Downs have the capacity to spiritually
reach the highest levels and to inspire others to reach extraordinary
heights. >>>

Anonymous said <<< What it actually demonstrated is that some people who
don't have Downs have the capacity to reach the highest levels of
stupidity and, through persistent and unintelligible "clarifications," to
attribute even greater stupidity to their audience. >>>

I say: Anonymous is not explaining WHY he thinks Rabbi Weiss is stupid.
What is unintelligible here? Perhaps you object to his use of the phrase
"highEST levels". Okay. Fine. Let's take out those three letters and try
it again: <<< those who have Downs have the capacity to spiritually reach
high levels and to inspire others to reach extraordinary heights. >>>
What's wrong with that?



Rabbi Weiss wrote <<< I was pained that some individuals, in reacting to
this idea, even went so far as to state that those with Downs may not
have been created in the image of God. >>>

Anonymous could have let this comment slip by. Choosing not to ignore it,
he could either agree with Rabbi Weiss that they are indeed created with
tzelem Elokim, or offer a theory as to why they are not created with
tzelem Elokim. But Anonymous did none of those things. Anonymous'
sarcastic response was: <<< I am pained that some individuals, when
caught out in their reckless, thoughtless, irresponsible fantasizing
about dvar Hashem, can only defend themselves by character assassination.
After they have changed the subject by maligning their critics, they go
back to talking about ahavat Yisrael. >>>

I am missing something here. It appears to me that Anonymous is accusing
Rabbi Weiss of character assasination. Whose? Whose character was Rabbi
Weiss assassinating? My guess is that the reference is to Yitzchak. Rabbi
Weiss wrote in his first piece that <<< Yitzhak is easy to deceive, he
lacks individuality, is spared grief, is compliant and is even laughed
at. >>> and Anonymous considers this to be a character assasination of
Yitzchak Avinu. Well, I think that Rabbi Weiss is making a valid
observation. Anonymous is free to disagree, but to accuse Rabbi Weiss of
character assassination is quite extreme and uncalled for.

Several people have written to Avodah, explaining why they disagree with
Rabbi Weiss. This Anonymous person has neither offered an explanation of
his own, nor even made a reference to someone else's comments. All I hear
is ranting and raving. I think that *Anonymous* is the one assasinating
Rabbi Weiss' character!



Near the end of his post, Anonymous writes <<< Rabbotay, this
"clarification" is even sadder than the original silliness. Why do I feel
this way? Probably because, in order to cover up its own foolishness, it
stoops to name-calling. >>>

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY PREPOSTEROUS!!! RABBI WEISS DID NOT CALL ANYONE ANY
KIND OF NAMES.

AS EVIDENCE OF MY CLAIM, I AM NOW GOING TO REPOST RABBI WIESS' ENTIRE
ADDENDUM, AS POSTED BY MICHA BERGER IN DIGEST 4:140, AT 14:19:08 -0500
(EST) ON THU, NOV 18. IF ANYONE CAN FIND WHERE RABBI WEISS "STOOPS TO
NAME-CALLING", PLEASE SHOW ME THE WORDS, AND I WILL APOLOGIZE.



AN ADDENDUM TO LAST WEEK'S FORSHPEIS ON DOWNS SYNDROME 

Last week's Forshpeis precipitated significant discussion. People have
misunderstood my words and as the author I assume full responsibility. 
The purpose of that Dvar Torah was not to assert that Yitzhak (Isaac) had
Downs Syndrome.  That assertion has no basis.   

The intent of the Forshpeis was to indicate that from the perspective of
drush, Yitzhak possessed some characteristics that teach us something,
not about Yitzhak, but about Downs Syndrome.  Specifically, that those
who have Downs have the capacity to spiritually reach the highest levels
and to inspire others to reach extraordinary heights. 

I was pained that some individuals, in reacting to this idea, even went
so far as to state that those with Downs may not have been created in the
image of God.

For some, spirituality is exclusively bound with the intellect.  Those of
lesser intelligence are not viewed as having the capacity to have
spiritual depth.  The Forshpeis was an attempt to say that spirituality
emerges from the whole being-not only from the mind, but also from the
soul.  Those with Downs may be blessed with the spiritual brilliance to
become the greatest tsadikim or tsidkaniot of their generation. 

[end of quote from Rabbi Weiss' Addendum]


I hope that I have not offended anyone by deleting the ">" arrows which
appear at the beginning of each line of quoted material in many email
programs. I found that the way Anonymous' comments were published in
Avodah was difficult to read, since it combined lines beginning with ">>"
and other lines which begin with ">", and yet other lines with only a
word or two on them. I think my method of identifying the start and end
of a quote is be easier to follow. If there is anyone out there who finds
my method difficult, and would prefer that I use the ">" method, please
let me know.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mordecai Kornfeld <kornfeld@netvision.net.il>
To: <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>; <daf-discuss@jencom.com>;
<nzion@dafyomi.co.il>; <nzion@galanet.net>; <avisfeld@netvision.net.il>;
<DPKINZ@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 10:51 PM
Subject: Chagigah 007: Olas Re'iyah


> (Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material as long as
> this header and the footer at the end of the mailing are included.)
> Join our free E-mail lists - instructions at end of this mailing
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>                THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
>
>        Brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
>             Rosh Kollel - Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
>                       ask@dafyomi.co.il
>
> [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> Chagigah 007: Olas Re'iyah
> Rabbi Yosef G. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> asked:
>
> What is the halacha of a tourist that comes le'heira'os at any time of
year
> other than a regel? Is he mechuyav in olas re'iyah (not b'toras nedava,
but
> b'toras chiyuv)?
>
> YGB
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> -------------------------------
> The Kollel replies:
>
> It would seem clear that one is not obligated to bring a Korban Chovah
upon
> visiting the Azarah not during a Regel. In Chagigah 7a, even though
according
> to Reish Lakish (as the Gemara originally thought), a new Korban is
required
> for every day one enters the Azarah during a Regel, nevertheless this
Reish
> Lakish limits this obligation to "the days of the Regel." [It is Dachuk to
> explain that Reish Lakish holds that one is obligated even after the
> holidays, and that the only reason he mentioned the holidays is because
even
> Rebbi Yochanan would agree that he must bring a Korban *after* the
holiday.
> Why should Rebbi Yochanan require a Korban after the holiday if he does
not
> require one for every day of the holiday itself?]
>
> The only possible source for bringing a Korban Re'iyah on a day other than
> during a Regel would be from the Gemara on 6a: "the Olah that Bnei Yisroel
> sacrificed in the desert (before Matan Torah) was an Olas Re'iyah'"..
> According to Rashi this is called an Olas Re'iyah since it was brought
upon
> "experiencing the Divine presence" although it did not occur during a
Regel!
> However, it is pretty clear from the wording of Rashi that he does not
mean
> that this Korban was an authentic Olas Re'iyah; Rashi is explaining that
the
> term "Olas Re'iyah" in this Sugya is just a borrowed term.
>
> (It could be added that the reason for bringing the Olas Re'iyah on the
> holidays is because when all Bnei Yisrael came together in the Mikdash the
> glory of Hashem was revealed in full (as in Berachos 17b, by the days of
> Kalah), as opposed to the other days of the year, when His glory was not
> revealed in full even in the Mikdash. This explains the wording of Chazal
> "just as Hashem *comes to be seen*" (Chagigah 2a), which implies that
Hashem
> "comes" to the Mikdash, as it were, during the holidays -- which answers
the
> question on Rashi asked by Tosfos  2a DH Yir'eh.)
>
> Mordecai Kornfeld
>
>
> >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
> The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
>
> For information on joining the Kollel's free Dafyomi mailing lists,
> write to info@dafyomi.co.il, or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
> Tel(IL):02-652-2633 -- Off(IL):02-651-5004 -- Fax(US):603-737-5728
>

> Anonymous postings should be discouraged.
> 

And the Chafetz Chayim? Should that have been discouraged?

Sometimes anonymous posts allow a person to speak freely.
(ask any reporter) 



===========================
Akiva Atwood                 
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274  

Now, I will respond for myself.

Let me make this clear, to begin with. Astute research by certain
individuals uncovered that this "mahalach" in Yitzchok Avinu was first
brought into the world in "The Reconstructionist" in 1990. This is, of
course, very fitting. It is entirely in line with Reconstructionism to take
the Torah and the Avos and twist their qualities and messages for some
politically correct point. It is not appropriate for a person with Eima,
Yirah, Reses v'Zei'ah. "Ha'Avos heim heim ha'merkovo".

----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 11:33 PM
Subject: Derech Eretz


> Rabbi Weiss wrote <<< The purpose of that Dvar Torah was not to assert
> that Yitzhak (Isaac) had Downs Syndrome.  That assertion has no basis.
> >>>
>
> Anonymous asks <<< Why then does the dvar Torah make a great deal of the
> fact that Abraham and Sarah were elderly and therefore likely to have a
> Downs child? >>>
>
> I say: Anonymous is wrong. The original dvar Torah did NOT make a "great
> deal" of it, but simply pointed it out. Rabbi Weiss' exact words were <<<
> 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. >>>
>

That is "a great deal". If you are not seriously implying that there is some
validity to your point, and we are just having fun with drush, we will not
try to muster evidence to a point we know is incorrect. If we do, we are
misleading our audience to believe that there may be some truth, chas
v'shalom, to what we are saying.

> Rabbi Weiss wrote <<< The intent of the Forshpeis was to indicate that
> from the perspective of drush, Yitzhak possessed some characteristics
> that teach us something, not about Yitzhak, but about Downs Syndrome.
> Specifically, that those who have Downs have the capacity to spiritually
> reach the highest levels and to inspire others to reach extraordinary
> heights. >>>
>
> Anonymous said <<< What it actually demonstrated is that some people who
> don't have Downs have the capacity to reach the highest levels of
> stupidity and, through persistent and unintelligible "clarifications," to
> attribute even greater stupidity to their audience. >>>
>
> I say: Anonymous is not explaining WHY he thinks Rabbi Weiss is stupid.
> What is unintelligible here? Perhaps you object to his use of the phrase
> "highEST levels". Okay. Fine. Let's take out those three letters and try
> it again: <<< those who have Downs have the capacity to spiritually reach
> high levels and to inspire others to reach extraordinary heights. >>>
> What's wrong with that?
>

1. Drush has no perspective. Certainly not this drush. That is like saying
"From the perspective of Purim Torah".
2. I thought we agreed that Yitzchok did NOT possess these characteristics?
I thought the point of the clarification was that we really di not mean to
say what the "Dvar Torah" implied. It, theredore, cannot follow that
Yitzchok *teaches* us A THING about Downs.

> Rabbi Weiss wrote <<< I was pained that some individuals, in reacting to
> this idea, even went so far as to state that those with Downs may not
> have been created in the image of God. >>>
>
> Anonymous could have let this comment slip by. Choosing not to ignore it,
> he could either agree with Rabbi Weiss that they are indeed created with
> tzelem Elokim, or offer a theory as to why they are not created with
> tzelem Elokim. But Anonymous did none of those things. Anonymous'
> sarcastic response was: <<< I am pained that some individuals, when
> caught out in their reckless, thoughtless, irresponsible fantasizing
> about dvar Hashem, can only defend themselves by character assassination.
> After they have changed the subject by maligning their critics, they go
> back to talking about ahavat Yisrael. >>>
>
> I am missing something here. It appears to me that Anonymous is accusing
> Rabbi Weiss of character assasination. Whose? Whose character was Rabbi
> Weiss assassinating? My guess is that the reference is to Yitzchak. Rabbi
> Weiss wrote in his first piece that <<< Yitzhak is easy to deceive, he
> lacks individuality, is spared grief, is compliant and is even laughed
> at. >>> and Anonymous considers this to be a character assasination of
> Yitzchak Avinu. Well, I think that Rabbi Weiss is making a valid
> observation. Anonymous is free to disagree, but to accuse Rabbi Weiss of
> character assassination is quite extreme and uncalled for.
>

R' Weiss (BTW, this, I believe, is R' Yitz Weiss, editor of  Toras Aish, not
R' Avi Weiss) is denigrating those who tried, unsuccessfully, to carry on an
objective discussion of whether the specific defintion of tzelem raised by
the Nefesh Ha'Chaim and other Mekubbalim applies to those with Downs. This
is a very legitimate question (without getting into the question of whether
this is the forum for its discussion). To clearly indicate that persons who
raise this legitimate intellectual query lack some sensitivity or humanity
is, truly, character assassination (not just of the individual who posted
the question here, but of R' Chaim Volozhiner).

> Several people have written to Avodah, explaining why they disagree with
> Rabbi Weiss. This Anonymous person has neither offered an explanation of
> his own, nor even made a reference to someone else's comments. All I hear
> is ranting and raving. I think that *Anonymous* is the one assasinating
> Rabbi Weiss' character!
>

You are entitled to your opinion, but R' Weiss might have just apologized,
promised to be more careful and not publish offensive material, and we could
have gone forward. Rather, he counterattacked.

> Near the end of his post, Anonymous writes <<< Rabbotay, this
> "clarification" is even sadder than the original silliness. Why do I feel
> this way? Probably because, in order to cover up its own foolishness, it
> stoops to name-calling. >>>
>
> THIS IS ABSOLUTELY PREPOSTEROUS!!! RABBI WEISS DID NOT CALL ANYONE ANY
> KIND OF NAMES.
>

Name-calling is not limited to saying "You are an idiot" outright. There is
name-calling by implication. Here, I will highlight those implications for
you:


> I was pained that some individuals, in reacting to this idea, even went

> For some, spirituality is exclusively bound with the intellect.  Those of

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

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


[ 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         ]