Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 145

Friday, November 19 1999

• Re: Retraction, etc...
• Re: Retraction, etc.
• Re: Drush (was Down's Syndrome, hyperbole; Yitzchok had etc)(correction)
• Re: Netiquette
• Re: Retraction, etc.
• Retraction, etc.
• Retraction, etc.
• Re: What was wrong with the retraction
• What vs. Who,
• Re: Tzelem Elokim
• Re: Titzchak revisited
• [none]
• Re: Tzelem Elokim
• Re: RAW Derasha
• WWW, Shabbos, & Time Zones
• Re: WWW, Shabbos, & Time Zones
• Re: Yitzchok had Down's Syndrome?!
• Yitzchak revisited

I was recently apprised of the identity of Rabbi Anonymous. He happens to be
someone who does NOT identify with the chareidi community. In fact, I'm pretty
sure he agreed with Tradition's decision to print the "mabul is allegory"
article.

I therefore have to apologize for my use of the word "witch hunt". I do think
that "dan likaf zechus" would have you assume that RA Weiss meant it the way
he later claimed he did. Particularly since you were told even before the
clarification that many of us assumed that's what he meant.

I'm also upset that all this is distracting from the question of when and how
it's appropriate to quote "The Reconstructionist" (the confirmed source) --
even if you're using it as a foil for your ideas.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Nov-99: Shishi, Vayetzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 71a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Gershon Dubin wrote <<< What's wrong with that is that we're dealing with
the Avos. ...  to say that one of the Avos Hakedoshim could have had
Down's ...,  is a perversion of the concept of Avos in pursuit of making
a point. >>>

I don't understand what's going on here. Rabbi Weiss already explained
very clearly that that is NOT what he meant! People are seeing what they
want to see!

Rabbi Weiss wrote: <<< 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.
>>>

and then he explained even deeper: <<< The intent of the Forshpeis was
.... not about Yitzhak, but about Downs Syndrome. >>>

How much plainer can he make it ???

I am reminded of a quote attributed to President Nixon: "I know you
believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you
realize that what you heard is not what I meant. "

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.

Having reviewed my message after it was sent out, I see I made a horible
typo.  I meant to say that had R. Weiss made his comments at a Yachad
shabbaton. . .he would NOT appear as culpable. . .
DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Drush (was Down's Syndrome, hyperbole; Yitzchok had etc)


> I am the author of the below quoted material (V4 #135)  and I beleive RAB
> misunderstands my comments.  I was mainly addressing myself to what ought
to
> be an appropriate response to R. Weiss's statements.  Quite honestly, I
> don't believe he deserves the witch hunt to which he has been subjected. I
> believe that those most vehement against him at this time are actually the
> same people who probably never liked him in the first place for a myriad
of
> reasons (some good and probably most bad).  His weekly message, is merely
an
> excuse to further castigate and seek his degradation.    Indeed R. Weiss
> published a poor essay; for that he should be criticized.  Truth be told,
I
> was more amused by the piece's absurdity than I was horrified by the
> theological ramifications of it.  He inappropriately manipulated sources
and
> read in that which is neither containied in nor implied by the text; poor
> rabinic practice, but one which at times has happened as a result of
> genuinely good intentions.  That is a slightly unfortunate consequence of
> the imperfect condition called humanity.  We all make mistakes; we don't
> always deserve to be racked over the coals for them.  My other pont was
that
> had R. Weiss made his comments in the context of a Yachad shabbaton, for
> example, in an attempt ot bolster the spirits of the participants, he
would
> appear as culpable as he is being described.  He is guilty of taking Purim
> Torah too seriously, and of presenting it in the wrong context.  I find
> those two offenses unworthy of the type of vilification he suffered.  His
> subsequent remarks did contain some amount of contrition for the mix up,
and
> at the same time were slightly defensive.  What can I say, he's human.
> DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
> OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
> FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
> SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Allen Baruch <Abaruch@SINAI-BALT.COM>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 9:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Drush (was Down's Syndrome, hyperbole; Yitzchok had etc)
>
>
> > What bothers me most about the whole thing is that everyone
> > seems to agree that the "drosha" has no basis in fact, ie IS NOT TRUE.
> > If so, how can anyone defend it as per the following 2 examples:
> >
> > From V4 #135
> > "(This reading of the text, and probably the whole "drasha"
> > would probably be very meaningful and useful at a Yachad
> > Shabbaton. It would go a long way in providing chizuk to our
> > congnitively impaired co-religionists), I don't think the
> > characteristics presented demonstrate it....
> > While I think R. Weiss is guilty of poor analysis (usually I enjoy his
> > comments), I think it unfair to overly castigate him.  After all,
> > who hasn't "fudged" the sources a little in order to prove a
> > valid point?"
>
>

In Avodah 4#144, MBerger wrote:
> About acronyms: ...what's the solution? <
Somehow, I get the feeling that a takanah wouldn't work :-).  Personally, I
usually write the person's first initial and last name (e.g. MPoppers);
once in a while, I'll spell the first name out, too; and I reserve "Rabbi,"
"Rav," etc. for a chosen few (who are all not listmembers and, quite often,
are recognized tzaddikim z'l').  While hearing your point (about an acronym
not being cryptic when used in context [although I would prefer the
"hereafter" legalism, e.g. "John Public, hereafter 'JP'"]), I would ask
that we not use acronyms unless we have a truly good reason (e.g. the kids
are screaming and the wife needs help *now* :-).  Thanks, y'all, and have a
great Shabbos!

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 11/19/99 10:36:41 AM EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:

> I don't understand what's going on here. Rabbi Weiss already explained
>  very clearly that that is NOT what he meant! People are seeing what they
>  want to see!
>  
The one who said Higianee Kzanav Halto'oh also never meant to compare the 
Lechem Haponim to a Sheretz, but one has to be careful with his associations.

Gut Shabbos V'kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: Derech Eretz
> 
> Rabbi Bechhofer wrote <<< Astute research by certain individuals
> uncovered that this "mahalach" in Yitzchok Avinu was first brought 
> into the world in "The Reconstructionist" in 1990. >>>
> 
> I accept this at your word. And it is certainly *possible* that 
> Rabbi Saul Berman might have read that article, getting these ideas
from 
> there,  prior to passing those ideas to Rabbi Avi Weiss. 

	Interesting that this discussion comes up during the Daf Yomi's
discussion of Acher and the permissibility of learning from him or his
ilk.

Gershon
PS Before anyone jumps on me,  I mean Reconstructionists.

From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: Derech Eretz
> 
> Rabbi Bechhofer wrote <<< Astute research by certain individuals
> uncovered that this "mahalach" in Yitzchok Avinu was first brought 
> into the world in "The Reconstructionist" in 1990. >>>
> 
> I accept this at your word. And it is certainly *possible* that 
> Rabbi Saul Berman might have read that article, getting these ideas
from 
> there,  prior to passing those ideas to Rabbi Avi Weiss. 

	Interesting that this discussion comes up during the Daf Yomi's
discussion of Acher and the permissibility of learning from him or his
ilk.

Gershon
PS Before anyone jumps on me,  I mean Reconstructionists.

with regard to the attack on Rav Weiss
a poster on this esteemed mail group wrote

(v4 #132)
You raised an interesting question.  Do people with Down syndrome have a tzelem 
E-lokim?  It depends on your definition of tzelem E-lokim. 

Avi Weiss in his retraction wrote

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

the anonymous poster wrote in direct response to this  comment

> 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.

It would seem therefore that it is not Rav Weiss, but the poster, who is guilty
of character assassination.  The characterization of Rav Weiss as Avi Weiss also
seems to violate some darche noam criteria for this list.  Furthermore, the fact
that the individual is "generally associated with the the more "MO" segment of
our list" does not make him an objective or sympathetic evaluator of Rav Weiss,
and therefore give the anonymous poster credibility. Many on the right wing of
MO are among his most virulent critics (one tends to attack more those closer to
you)

Meir Shinnar

R. Meir was into mikol melamdei Hiskalti

Is its important to make havdodolo to distinguish the WHAT from the WHO?

why not focus on WHAT was said, not WHO said it!?

When I say/sing Mah Tovu I amd not saying hinee muchan umzemun to quote a rosho!
I overlook adn ignore that this cam out of Bil'ams mouth andd focus on the 
present Tents <pun>

Similarly we quote Lovon : "achocseinu at hayi..." it's not about Lovon it's 
about a brocho!

Is this so hard to understand?

Why not judge a statment on its own merits?

Disclaimeer, I am not saying we should not cite sources.  Rather we shoul focus 
upon the emes of the statement. period.

Rich Wolpoe

Gil Student <gil.student@citicorp.com> writes:
:                              My understanding, which certainly can be 
: flawed which is why I stated it so waveringly, is that according to many 
: medieval Jewish philosophers the intellect is primary in yahadus.

You also find the contrast of sichli vs gashmi repeatedly in the Maharal.
You wonder if he agreed with Des Cartes who identified mind with soul, or
if "seichel" doesn't mean what I had assumed it does.

The Maharal and the Gra (in possible contrast to the Ramchal) define the
Zohar's Naran (nefesh, ruach, neshamah) in a way that identifies mind with
ruach and the element of soul that is in contact with HKBH and aware of
the goings on in shamayim is the neshamah. (Nefesh is the animal soul in
this system, where ta'avos like food, comfort and procreation reside.) This
places mind and spirit as two different aspects or parts of a single whole.
But still distinct. (See Peirus al Kama Agados 10a [available as the appendix
to "The Juggler and the King"], Nefesh haChaim 1:15, Derech haChaim 1:2.)

Getting back to the Rambam, I wrote in the past that this is a problem I
have accepting his shitah. As I understand the Rambam's shitah, it goes as
follows:

There is a similarity between knower and known, because knowledge consists of
posessing an apporiximation of the Form of the thing known. This is a much
held philosophical position both within (e.g. the Maharal) and outside of our
masorah.

HKBH, of course, has nitzhiyus. By the above, knowledge of HKBH has nitzchius,
because it is somehow connected/similar to the Known.

The Rambam posits that it is this nitzchius that is the key to surviving death
into Olam haBa. (Which he defines as the non-physical afterlife, not
post-techiyas hameisim.) Therefore, man's goal is to acheive intellectual
d'veikus to HKBH. By contemplating and trying to understand Him, man can
merit Olam haBa (OhB).

This shows up in a number of places. One is his commentary to the intro to
avos, "ratza HKBH". "Yeish mi shekoneh olamo bisha'ah achas" -- because a
single epiphany can bring one sufficient yedi'ah to get to OhB. Therefore,
HKBH gave us many mitzvos, and therefore many opportunities to have that
single epiphany.

The Rambam takes this identification of soul and intellect very seriously. He
calls people who aren't capable of philosophical exploration "small souled".

As I said, I have a hard time accepting the Rambam on this. However, I truly
believe that even amongst our more philosophical rishonim, he is in the me'ut
here.

While the Rambam seems to define being good bein adam lachaveiro and laMakom
as a necessary part of acheiving that yedi'ah, I believe the more common
opinion is that such yedi'ah is a part -- albeit a/the central part -- of
being good.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Nov-99: Shishi, Vayetzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 71a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

R. Chaim,

     My apologies if I misunderstood you.  I still don't understand how u can
say Yitzchak was emotionally blind.  Also the absence of a prayer for others in
no way precludes it happening.

R. Richard,

     You are %100 correct that we should defend the weak & meek.  I don't
understand though why this precludes one from defending Yitzcak.  Not because he
needs my lowly defense, but because I as a member of this group does not want to
give the impression with my silence that I agree plus I think there is a serious
chiyuv to speak up in such cases.


          Moshe Luchins

RKG Miller wrote:

>>By the way, someone recently asked (and I don't remember seeing anyone
suggest an answer)... --- If tzelem Elokim is dependent on a certain type
or degree of intelligence, then does a newborn baby have tzelem Elokim?>>


You could differentiate by saying that a baby has the potential to gain 
that intelligence while someone mentally handicapped does not (see the 
first Nishmas Adam in hilchos shechitah).

OTOH, it is also possible to say that someone mentally handicapped also has 
that potential but due to external circumstances can never realize that 
potential.

--- gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
> I think RAW vocalized the question with which I've been struggling 
> throughout this discussion.  My understanding, which certainly can
> be 
> flawed which is why I stated it so waveringly, is that according to
> many 
> medieval Jewish philosophers the intellect is primary in yahadus. 
> I 
> believe that it is an underlying assumption throughout the Rambam's
> 
> writings.  For instance, in the Moreh Nevuchim (1:1) he defines a
> tzelem 
> Elokim as "hasagah sichlis" (RY Kaffih's translation from Arabic). 
> Later 
> (3:51) he discusses various levels of achievement in terms of
> intellectual 
> grasp.  
<snip>
> The way I 
> understand it, according to these philosophers the tachlis of man's
> life is 
> yedias Hashem.
> 
> That being the case, I am troubled in much the same way as RAW. 
> What about 
> those mentally handicapped or even those with average intellect? 
> The 
> average Joe does not have the ABILITY to understand difficult
> philosophical 
> or lomdishe concepts and CANNOT reach yedias Hashem.  Where do
> these people 
> fit into this Maimonidean worldview?  Granted, kabbalah offers
> other 
> alternative philosophies but must we discard the great heritage of
> these 
> philosophers?
> 
> My suggestion in my original post, that those handicapped have a
> tzelem 
> Elokim (intellectual ability) but are unable to use it, explains
> how they 
> have a tzelem Elokim but not how they fit into this worldview.
> 

I have often heard it said that (severely) autistic individuals have
the neshama of someone who lived previously; the neshama was sent
back to earth for a tikkun.  Perhaps such people do not have bechirah
chofshit, but neither do angels.

Rambam would not consider angels as lacking spirituality.  They just
don't have the ability to use bechirah chofshit to rise (or fall) in
this world.  Angels are different from animals, who don't have
spirituality.

Take a person who had bechirah chofshit his entire life and then
develops Alzheimer's.  Would you say that his tzelem Elokim has
disappeared?  No.  It's just that his neshamah cannot rise any
higher.  If his neshamah has risen higher than the average
individual's, then he is greater than the average individual even
though his rise has stopped.

Now, you might ask, how can the Alzheimer's patient have yediat
Hashem?  I would think that the answer is that his neshamah has
yediat Hashem.  Similarly in the case of the autistic individual.

My guess is that the Rambam wouldn't feel that comfortable with this
line of thinking, but it isn't that anti-Rambam.  And I don't have a
problem with saying that Jewish philosophy has moved beyond Rambam's
very intellect-oriented approach; I think that this move happened
before democracy and egalitarianism became the rage.

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

In a message dated 11/19/99 6:27:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
hojda@netvision.net.il writes:

<< Joel Rich wrote:
 >>"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" 
 
  
 Too bad that you were not offended. The time-honored Rabbinic tradition is 
to relate to the Avos HaKedoshim ONLY with absolute awe and trembling.
===============
I try my best to relate to the ratzon hashem as well as the avot with awe and 
trembling.  From my viewpoint -- which did not include accepting RAW's 
premise literally -- having Down's Syndrome would not be mutually exclusive 
with treating that person with awe and trembling. I share the ambivalence of 
other posters regarding  the role of intellectual ability. 
==================
  
 All I can suggest is, learn Chumash more deeply.  

===========
Always good advice for each of us. The levels on which chumash can teach us 
are infinite and we should always be sure to try to plumb its depths with 
intellectual honesty.
===========
  >>

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

Does anyone have any hora'os about accessing a website in a place where it 
is Shabbos.  For example, is it mutar on Friday afternoon to access an 
Israeli website when it is already Shabbos there on an hour after NY 
Shabbos to access a Californian website?

I recall a teshiva (I don't recall from who though) about sending a fax to
a place where it is Shabbat.  It was held to be mutar

DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
----- Original Message -----
From: <gil.student@citicorp.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 11:32 AM
Subject: WWW, Shabbos, & Time Zones


> Does anyone have any hora'os about accessing a website in a place where it
> is Shabbos.  For example, is it mutar on Friday afternoon to access an
> Israeli website when it is already Shabbos there on an hour after NY
> Shabbos to access a Californian website?
>
>

Re: Yitzchok had Down's Syndrome?!

Thank you, Micha B.& Akiva M., for focusing the issues on the topic at hand 
rather than on the bashing/lashon hara that certain people seem to be bent 
on. It's one thing to disagree with the premise of an article, it's another 
thing altogether to publicly vilify the author for his statements. I've 
refrained from commenting throughout this thread for the simple reason that 
as a relative of Rabbi Weiss, I'm a bit of a nogaiah badavar. Anyone who 
knows my uncle on a personal level or has discussed issues in halacha with 
him would have no doubt as to his sincerity on the matter - and would have 
understood the intent of his words from the onset.

For those who are determined to disagree, it would behoove us to keep the 
conversation on the *topic* instead of on the person. Personal agendae as it 
relates to trying to discredit members of the frum leadership have no place 
in this discussion group (IMHO). And to echo the theme of Akiva's words, 
anonymous posts spouting lashon hara should be ignored.

I must respond to the indication of RYGB

: 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. 

that it is erroneous on three counts: (a) it was written by Rabbi Avi Weiss 
(b) "R. Yitz Weiss" is not an "R" (but thanks for the compliment!) and (c) I 
do not believe stating that one is "pained" by an idea indicates that one is 
"denigrating" anyone. If I am upset by someone's actions or words I am 
relating my feeling on what they DID (or said) - focusing on the *issue* - 
not my feelings on the individual as a person. 

Please don't read things into statements that are not actually there. Again, 
anyone who knows my uncle would understand he's not the type to insult anyone 
- neither backhandedly nor directly.

To all: would it be too much to ask to use the same "Re:" when continuing the 
thread in any discussion? Changing the "title" of the responses makes it much 
more difficult to follow the conversation.

Yitz Weiss

Dear R. Moshe,

I believe we must defend our Avos, too!  Iam a shameless apologist for many 
things that seem apparently wrong.

BUT

When you equate calling Yitzchok Avinu as hving Down Syndrome as being an inslt 
you do the following (IMHO)

Yitzchok=down syndrome=insult

There are several ways to view this (my logic is not perfect, but give this a 
try anyway)

#1:
Down syndrom is NOT an intrinsically an insult . It's a diability and is 
therefore the MORAL equivalnet of lame or blind.  Yitzchok was blind - is this 
an insult?  Yaakov was lame is this an insult?  IOW one may seethe term Don 
Syndrome as benign

UlessUNELiownd 

#2 one has a prejudice towards teh mentrally handicapped and therefore sees 
Down Syhndrome was soemthing denigrating or degrading.

And 
#3 one who sees a denigration IS IMHO doing more harm to HKBH's goals than one 
who "insults" avos.

Or to put it another way was R. Avi Weiss implying and insuklt or were people 
inferring one!  (think of Ed Koch referring to Dinkins' as a "shvartze" was he 
benignly calling him a Black or insulting him.  I'll let you decide!)

Also if we are SO vigialnt about insulting Avos we should be at least abit 
vigilant in insults of their children.  why READ INTO his words something that 
he MIGHT not have meant at all!  Bettzedek Tishpot aes Amisecho.  People 
sometimes LOOK for an insult when none was intended!

To be fair to the critics we can say the following:

#1 It is not legit to posit Yitzchok s Down Syndrome will-nilly.  And it is a 
fair criticism that to do so to make a point, is a disservice to the chumash 
and the Avos unless they can muster some kind of solid source.  So in the 
realm of "emes" this drush leaves a lot to be desired, but what's new on that 
score!

#2 R. Weiss could have been more circumspect.  In his zeal to make us more 
senstive to Down syndrome, he short-shrifted the possible negative 
interpretation; and a disclaimer was in order.

The bottom line is that to me it is a more serious avlo from a moral/spiritual 
perspective to reamin insensitive to the needy than to remain insensitve to 
the Kovod of the Avos.  In case we didn;t know this already, but the term 
Elokei Yitachok is enshrined in our litrugy.  Yitzchok's Kovod is assured 
beyond the power of any single drusho!  Any single slight to Yitachok taht 
might appear in a periodicala pales in potency when compared to the power of 
our prayers.  So yitachok's honor is unlikely to really be damaged; the 
zealotry is like putting out a match with a fire hydrant!

OTOH, I can tell you fist hand that people look down at Down syndrom people.  
The vast amount of good obtained by rasing consiousness could be overwhemingly 
effective in seeing these peoples as mentally challenged yet spiritual able!  
Imagine if we empowered Down syndrome people by focusing upon their real 
ability to Love Hashem with a good heart, even despite their lack of 
intellectual acumen. Rachmon libo boi)

I have a member of our shul who has Downs syndrome and comes to minyan 
regularly, can lain a bit says the brocho, etc.  The doctors had writtent him 
off.  It's a neis mamosh!  He takes his turn reading Hebrew when we learn 
tikkun leil shavus and can read totally unfamiliar material.  Unrehearseed 
Chumash. He holds down a job.  He comes down to minyan.  

Ribbono shel Ololm!  I would think Yitzchok Ovinu would be so overjoyed to see 
people like him honored and valued1! Don't you realize that by honoring soone 
like that we are in affect serving a cirect descendant of Yitachok Ovinu (no 
to metnion the fact taht his grandfather's name was Yitzhok!)

So let's make a compromise.  Let's agree to zelously honor the Avos by 
zealously caring for their living children -the way they would have wnated us 
to!  Didn't Avrohom speak out for Yishmoel? didn't Yitzchok speak up on beahlf 
of Eisav?  Didn't they overlook their flaws to protect them?

Ok I'm off my soap box now
Good Shabbos
Rich Wolpoe
Good Shabd 













ovintoroin igish

neducIF you consider Down Syndrome insulting disn;t that betrayin a prejudcie 
towards teh mentally handicapped , and perhaps a very harm acs aren';t t 

#2: R. Avi Weiss was perhaps fudging the Torah to help out poor down Sydnroms 
people.  Is this so terrible? People stretch droshos in all kinds of ways (even 
puns!)  





______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


R. Richard,

     You are %100 correct that we should defend the weak & meek.  I don't
understand though why this precludes one from defending Yitzcak.  Not because he
needs my lowly defense, but because I as a member of this group does not want to
give the impression with my silence that I agree plus I think there is a serious
chiyuv to speak up in such cases.


          Moshe Luchins

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


[ 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         ]