Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 148

Monday, November 22 1999

• Re: simplicity
• The pirhana-like frenzy about Lubavitch
• Re: The pirhana-like frenzy about Lubavitch
• Re: Tzelem Elokim
• Re: The pirhana-like frenzy about Lubavitch
• Re: The pirhana-like frenzy about Lubavitch
• Conspicuous Consumption
• Re: Macho'o
• Re: Mitzvos Ma'asiyos
• Re: Brisker kulos
• Chicago as the second city ??
• Hungarian Roshei Yeshiva
• Retraction, etc.
• re: Simplicity
• Avelus
• Re: Simplicity
• RE: Avelus
• RE: Retraction, etc.
• Sources for Da'as Torah and Emunas Chochomin

In a message dated 11/21/99 8:57:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
gatwood@netvision.net.il writes:

<<  Toward the beginning of the century it was commonplace to celebrate
 the wedding on Erev Shabbos-  the Leil Shabbos meal would double up as the
 Wedding Seuda and be limited to family and perhaps very closest friends. >>

That type of wedding goes as far back as the time of the Gemara.

Jordan

What kind of garbage is being spouted on the list these days? If a Jew
belives (whatever the problems with this belief that one can find in
Chazal) that the Lubavitcher Rebber Zt'l will arise in the process of
Techiyas Hamesim (an ikar of belief) and be Moshiach (another Ikar) -
This belief (even if it is mistaken) makes him/her an Ovaid Avodah Zara
and you question their Kashrus (which is known for it's Tachlis Hahidur)
R"L?

How can any torah observant Jew (and a member of this list) be silent
when Jews who keep Torah and Mitzvos Be'hiddur - (far more behiddur than
their detractors!) are being besmirched in such a disgusting fashion?

It seems that that we have reached a point of being mehader R"L to engage
in gross Sinas Chinam so as to make sure that Moshiach doesn't have a
CHANCE of getting here soon!
SDY

Seems to me you have more of a problem with Mail Jewish than Avodah. I did
not see that much bashing here, and the ikkar post about Meshichistin being
pasul for a minyan was there, not here.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Shlomo Yaffe <syaffe@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 8:28 AM
Subject: The pirhana-like frenzy about Lubavitch


> What kind of garbage is being spouted on the list these days? If a Jew

On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 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.  He even goes so far as to say that those without yedias Hashem do 
> not have hashgachah pratis and are left to mikreh.  The Chovos Halevavos 
> (beginning of intro) also defines man's task in this world in terms of 
> intellectual grasp.  See also in sha'ar avodas Hashem (ch. 2) where he 
> define a yetzer hatov as the "seichel."  What little I know of the Ralbag's 
> hashkafah indicates that he whole-heartedly agrees with this.  The Sefer 
> Haikkarim (1:11) defines a tzelem Elokim as a "koach sichli."  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?

1. For the Rambam, the minimum for Olam haBa is belief in the ikkarei
emuna. I know individuals who are seriously handicapped intellectually who
have a rudimentary intellectual apprehension of the intellectual content
of our faith; experientially, I guess, their apprehension is probably
greater than that of many "normal" people. [Excuse lack of
elaboration--for reasons of privacy]

Thus for the Rambam, as I understand him, intellect (=sekhel ha-nikneh) is
not something we are born with, but something we acquire. But it is not
limited to intellectuals. It is available to anyone who brings their
thinking to the religious encounter.

2. All Yahadut is elitist, insofar as G-d revealed Himself not to a
herd of animals, but to a species capable of individuated distinction.
Individual achievement is not entirely a reflection of desert and effort.
Not everyone is equal in intellectual capacity. Not everyone is equal in
emotional capacity and so forth. Our circumstances differ: Hashgaha in
Eretz Yisrael is not the same as that in Hutz la_Aretz; we are subject, to
a large degree, to the deficiencies of our society, and so forth.
Individuals who have successfully undertaken certain family obligations
are spiritually deeper than those who haven't faced the same challenge, or
who have failed the test. To invite an intellectually challenged,
physically unattractive child, into one's religious world is more
demanding, in purely intellectual terms, than the most difficult passage
in R. Barukh Ber.

3. From a purely academic perspective, those who would assimilate Rambam
and Ralbag to Aristotelian philosophy would argue that my definition of
the manner in which intellect is integrated into the other dimensions of
the human condition is influenced by modern existential thinking, and is
not as one-sidedly rationalistic as they see things. In response: (a) In
our discussion this morning, I am more interested in overall Yahadut than
in the particular negotiations between Rambam, Ralbag and the
Aristotelians; in the final analysis, their loyalty was to Torah rather
than to Greek philosophy. (b) Even Aristotle is more complicated: see the
heavy-duty scholarship in Essays on A's Ethics edited by AO Rorty and the
brief remarks in a recent book called Rational Dependent Animals, by the
Christian philosopher A. MacIntyre.

4. I could also apologize for interpreting the Rambam as I do by pointing
to the work of mori ve-Rabbi zt"l. R. Soloveitchik was certainly not an
enemy of the intellect. Yet in his major work of mahashava, U-Vikkashtem
miSham, at the crucial point where he is discussing devekut, he refers to
the Sifre: "How can one have devekut? Is G-d not burning fire? But one may
cleave unto Torah scholars..." And the Rav glosses this statement:
"klomar, yihyeh hayyim baalei mashmaut" (quoting from memory)= "In other
words, let him live a meaningful life." A meaningful life must mobilize
whatever intellectual capacities one has, but it is much more than that.

At one level, of course, Yahadut, in the Rav's conception, is
"democratic," everyone can perform mitzvot. At another level, it is highly
individualistic: the Vilna Gaon's study of Torah is different from the
shoemaker's study. And each individual has to make that meaning of the
capacity and circumstances which the Ribbono shel Olam gives us.

[For further discussion of these issues, see my Jewish Perspectives on the
Experience of Suffering.]

5. Two stories in closing: On the inequality of reward: R. Lichtenstein
once told the shiur that Boswell posed this question to Samuel Johnson,
and Johnson alluded to a mashal: Two people may be drinking from unequal
glasses, but each one's glass is full. Meaning: we may not be equal in
capacity and therefore we may not be equal in achievement-- yet each one
gets a fulfilling reward. [Yes, I checked up on him & the story is indeed
in Boswell's Life of Johnson.]

More to the point: Oliver Sacks' Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat,
contains a chapter called "The Lost Mariner." Jimmy suffered from
Korsakoff's Syndrome= severe amnesia consequent upon chronic alcoholism.
In his mind he was 19 years old; it was 1945. If you showed him a mirror
and asked him whether his face was that of a 19 year old sailor or a used
up alcoholic he'd just shake his head in consternation and admit, with
admirable honesty, that there was a contradiction & he had no answer. (A
moment later he had forgotten this too.) Jimmy was housed in a Catholic
hospital & one day Sacks asked a nun whether Jimmy had a soul. She
responded--"Doctor, you've never seen him in chapel." And Sacks testified
that when he was praying, Jimmy had all the concentration and earnestness
of a healthy person standing before the Infinite.

May the same be said of us!

In a message dated 11/21/99 10:47:25 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
writes:

> Seems to me you have more of a problem with Mail Jewish than Avodah. I did
>  not see that much bashing here, and the ikkar post about Meshichistin being
>  pasul for a minyan was there, not here.
>  

Reb YG N"Y

I will not have much time over the next 2 weeks to read or respond, I agree 
that the Avodah list was Davkoh not into bashing this time around.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I think RYZKD probably intended for this to come to me privately, but once
(no harm done) it has gone out to the list, let me note: I disagree with R'
Rich Wolpoe's application of his sentiment to the effect that it is better
to defend the weak and meek than Yitzchok Avinu. I am of the opinion that
efshar v'efshar l'kayem sheneihem. Nevertheless, I believe in defending the
"weak and/or meek". I believe that applies to non-Meshichist Lubavitchers. I
am happy to defend them (although not agreeing with much they hold, eilu
va'eilu) on the list.

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


----- Original Message -----
From: <Yzkd@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: The pirhana-like frenzy about Lubavitch


> In a message dated 11/21/99 10:47:25 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
> writes:
>
> > Seems to me you have more of a problem with Mail Jewish than Avodah. I
did
> >  not see that much bashing here, and the ikkar post about Meshichistin
being
> >  pasul for a minyan was there, not here.
> >
>
> Reb YG N"Y
>
> I will not have much time over the next 2 weeks to read or respond, I
agree
> that the Avodah list was Davkoh not into bashing this time around.
>
> Kol Tuv
>
> Yitzchok Zirkind
>

Dear Rabbi Dratch,

I would appreciate if you would post the following short article on the 
Avodah list, as a postscript to the recent discussion there on conspicuous 
consumption. It is from my recent book in English, “Equality Lost: Essays in 
Torah Commentary, Halacha, and Jewish Thought.” Permission to post has been 
given by the copyright holder, Urim Publications and Lambda Publishers, tel. 
(Israel) 02-673-7776 and (Brooklyn) 718-972-5449.

With Torah blessings,

Rabbi Yehuda Henkin



Chapter Fourteen

IT MAY BE GLATT....

A confusion between two terms often used interchangeably today, glatt and 
limehadrin, offers a glimpse into contemporary sides of an ancient problem: 
the substitution of externals for internals, rote for purposeful action, 
habit for kavanah. 

The prophets grappled with this. Yishayah complained:

Because this people drew near, honored Me with their mouths and lips but 
distanced their hearts from me, and their worship of Me became a routine 
(mitzvat anashim melumadah). (Isaiah 9:13)

Given sufficient familiarity with them, positive mitzvot can require little 
thought and can be performed while ignoring their message. Mere technical 
compliance becomes the norm, even with negative commandments. Ramban 
commented:

The Torah forbade forbidden sexual relations and forbidden foods, but 
permitted marital relations and consumption of [kosher] meat and wine. The 
lustful person can therefore find room for constant relations with his wife 
or many wives, and for gorging himself on wine and meat....He will 
consequently be a knave within the letter of the law (naval bireshut hatorah. 
(1)

What do the terms glatt and limehadrin mean? Glatt in Yiddish/English or 
chalak in Hebrew, refers to an animal whose lungs are “smooth,” i.e. contain 
no adhesions (sirchot) which render its kashrut questionable. In many cases 
the Halachah would rule that the animal is indeed kosher; nevertheless, there 
is a chumra not to rely on such rulings. In popular usage, glatt has taken on 
the meaning of rigorous standards of kashrut in general, even in foods such 
as fish or fowl where lung adhesions have no Halachic significance.

Mehadrin, on the other hand, are those who perform mitzvot in the finest way 
possible. The term comes from Shabbat (21a): 

The mitzvah of Chanukah is a single light for each man and his household. 
Those who are meticulous (mehadrin), kindle a light for each member of the 
household. And for those who are especially meticulous (mehadrin min 
hamehadrin)---the school of Shamai states that one should kindle eight lights 
on the first night and subtract one every subsequent night, while the school 
of Hillel states that one should kindle one light on the first night and 
subsequently add [an additional light each night].

What is the difference between “glatt kosher” and “kosher limehadrin”? 
First, glatt refers to the food, while mehadrin refers to the person. Second, 
glatt is an objective quality: either the animal has lung adhesions or other 
problems, or it does not. Mehadrin, by contrast, is relative, in that what 
may be a sign of care in performance of the mitzvot in one community or 
generation may not be in another. Today, for instance, lighting one Chanukah 
candle the first night, two the second night, and so forth, following the 
opinion of the school of Hillel, indicates nothing particular about religious 
standards, since everyone lights that way.

The difference represented by glatt versus mehadrin manifests itself in 
unexpected ways. For example, a fancy restaurant may be glatt kosher, but if 
the food is too rich, the furnishings over-ornate and the bill astronomical, 
it is hardly limehadrin. Those who are meticulous about peforming mitzvot do 
not waste money on such frivolities.

A bar mitzvah or wedding may have the finest caterer and the best rabbinical 
supervision, but if tens of thousands of dollars are expended on outdoing the 
neighbors, the affair is certainly not limehadrin.(2)  A mehader bemitzvot 
would rather give a large or equal amount of money to tzedakah.

Nor is the distinction confined to matters of food. Women who dress in 
opulent or extravagant fashion may display the sartorial equivalent of 
“glatt” by being fully clothed and covered, but mehadrot know that tzniut 
(modesty) is not just a matter of not showing skin.

A publishing house behaves in a manner equivalent to “glatt” by declining to 
publish anything but pietistic works, but the effusive encomiums with which 
it praises its writers and sponsors are not the hallmark of mehadrin. The 
same applies to speeches at testimonials, and to the all-too-common bar 
mitzvah celebrations and pre-wedding vorts where rabbis, teachers and friends 
vie in lauding the boy or groom to his face.

Seldom, it seems, has the gap between public endorsement of Halachah and 
disregard for the spirit and midot of Torah been as wide as today. The next 
time we plan or attend an affair or event, we should ask ourselves, "It may 
be glatt--but is it limehadrin?"

Notes

1. Commentary to Vayikra 19:1.

2. From time to time, Jewish communities enacted sumptuary regulations 
restricting the amount of guests and expenditures permitted at festive 
occasions; see, for example, Maaseh Rav, printed at the end of some editions 
of Resp. Noda Biyehudah. Often the need was felt to counter the social 
pressures on the principals to spend on these events more than they could 
afford.

A recent Gerrer Rebbe limited not only the size of celebrations of his 
chassidim, but also the amount parents could spend on apartments for 
newlyweds. It is told that a wealthy follower complained to him that it was 
well within his means to spend more. The Rebbe retorted, “Then go buy 
yourself a different Rebbe.”

Subject: Macho'o


> 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

It seems to me that the chief problem with a Yitzhak Avinu/Down's syndrome
comparison is the diminishment of Yitzhak's original cognition and the
spiritual context of what it is to be an Olah Temimah.  According to the
midrashim the tears of the angels blinded Yitzhak.  By analogy, imagine a
spiritual version of a medication which dilates the pupils.  Any light
appears very bright and material detail becomes blurred-  an ugly lampshade
would be very hard to discern because of the overwhelming perception of the
light flooding through it.
When Yitzhak ascended Har Moriah with Avraham he was about 37 years old his
cognition was very well developed. He already manifested the trait of
gevurah-  not directly translatable as introverted, though some common
elements-  though far from being preoccupied with himself, he was able to
achieve a high degree of bitul hayesh by virtue of the midah of gevurah. The
experience of the akeda brought Yitzhak in touch with spiritual reality to
such a degree that he was unable to relate to the negative klipas in the
people around him. He was so intensely aware of Esav's spiritual light and
potential that he simply did not see the cruddy exterior- as with the lamp.
Does a person with Down's syndrome see people that way? Perhaps they see the
klipah but simply don't register the negativity in it so are not distracted
from the essential wonder of the person. I don't know. It's an interesting
idea, but Yitzhak had to achieve a developed degree of bitul hayesh to get
to his level of spiritual perception- probably several quantum leaps beyond.
So I'm not happy with Rabbi Weiss's approach- though nothing personal- met
him once- seems to be a terrific guy.   Mrs. G.Atwood.

>
> According to Dayan Grunfeld's into to Choreiv, haynu hach. RSRH's
symbology
> is an explanation of the metaphysical causality system. IMHO, this asserts
> a very central role of mind in metaphysics, by saying that *the* vehicle
> for metaphysical causality is learning. I'm not sure that this assertion
> isn't itself the key divergence between RSR Hirsch and more mystical
dirachim.
> He eliminates mysticism (the glory of the unkowable) by replacing it with
a
> comprehensible system, a psychology. Or is that stating it too strongly?
>
> -mi

See Tanya-  in the final essays of the work-  the Ba'al haTanya points out
that learning about the metaphysical hishtalshlut & effects of a mitzva does
not accomplish the metaphysical effects of that particular mitzva. That can
only be accomplished by actually doing that mitzvah le'ma'eseh.
This kind of learning does accomplish the metaphysical effect of the mitzvah
of learning itself.  Compare with RSRH.   Mrs. G. Atwood

The Beis haLevi kula list is as follows.

A young half-religious half-maskil asks the Rav, since koach dehetera
adif, surely you have some kulos?

He gives seven:

1) One may daven maariv after midnight

2) Anyone may wear Rabbnenu Tam tefillin, not just the gedolim

3) Piyutim may be said

4) One may continue to say the bracha on the Omer if one misses
a night (according to the opinion that counting days & weeks are
separate mitzvot, so one didn't lose count of the weeks, even if
he lost count of the days)

5) One may learn Torah on erev Tisha B'Av afternoon which falls
on Shabbat

6) One may fast on Rosh Hashanah

7) One may observe 2 days of Yom Kippur.

R' Naftali Maskil l'Eisan said that these seven kulot are like
the seven planets.  Someone whispered to R' Naftali that to the
maskil, they should be like seven levels of gehinnom.

(from My Uncle the Netziv pp 48-50)

They are sort of puzzling, in that they are kulos that allow
one to impose extra obligations on oneself.

HM wrote: <<
Also, Chicago will always be the second city.  Who
cares about the left coast? :)   >> 

If we are talking here about the relative sizes of Jewish communities,
then Philadelphia is third, after Los Angeles (and it *is* on the east
(or *right*)  coast.  The Jewish population of  greater Philadelphia
numbers approx. a third of a million Jews,  bli ayin hara.
Unfortunately, the frum community there is disproportionately small.

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

In Avodah V4 #139, SBA wrote:

>There were dozens (if not hundreds - see A. Fuchs'
>book on this subject) of Yeshivos in Hungary/Rumania
>/Czechoslovakia where the Rav was also the Rosh>
>Yeshiva. Some that come to mind: Pressburg, Galanta,>
>Nitra, Kashau, Unsdorf, Szerdehely, Chust, Sopron,>
>Veitzen, Pupa, Kalev, Szemihaly,  etc etc.

Very true. (I also have the Fuchs book - both volumes do come to hundreds of
yeshivos and thousands of talmidim); but Fuchs wrote primarily about the
yeshivos and purposely glossed over of the Rebbes of those communities;
presumably because of the contention which existed on the subject -
especially just before the War.

Also, in those of SBA's examples from Oberland, the Rav was in fact the Rosh
Yeshiva, in the tradition of the Chasam Sofer.

Chust also had the same tradition from the Maharam Shick who was also a
Chasam Sofer Talmid, and from Rav Dushinsky and Dayan Weiss - both
Oberlanderists who had, in turn, come to Chust from Galante and went on
afterwards to head the Eidah in Yerushalayim.


Yaakov Schachter

In Avodah V4 #139, Kenneth Miller wrote:

>How much plainer can he make it ???


He might consider, "Im heim k'bnei-adam, anu ka'chamorim". (Did I get the
quote right?)
Or, Chazal, and therefore KVBBSKV (for the uninitiated, that's kal-vachomer
ben-beno shel kal-vachomer) the Avos ha-kedoshim) CANNOT be viewed or
discussed by the likes of us "in human terms".


Yaakov Schachter

Nowadays, we perceive lavish funerals as being "non-Jewish", but
originally Jewish funerals were very expensive too, and beyond the
finances of many people. Several posters recently have referred to a
takkanah which put a stop to that proactice.

This past Shabbos I was privileged to review my son's gemara with him,
and we found the following at the bottom of Kesubos 8b:

<<< Originally, the funeral was more difficult for one's relatives than
the death, so much so that they would just leave him and escape. Finally,
Rabban Gamliel came and acted lightly for himself, and they took him out
in linen clothing. "V'nahagu kol ha'am acharav" - And all the people
followed his practice, to go out in linen clothing. Rav Papa said: And
nowadays, "nahug alma" - everyone is used to even a Tzarda Bar Zuza
[Rashi: a canvas garment worth only a dinar]. >>>

The gemara is repeated almost verbatim in Moed Katan 27b. It seems to me
that this is NOT an example of the leaders imposing a takanah upon the
people. Rather, a leader took the initiative and set an example; the
people took the example to heart, accepted his actions upon themselves,
and ever since, Jewish funerals have become known for their simple
dignity, rather than lavish ostentatiousness.

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.

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

"Mrs. Gila Atwood" <gatwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
Subject: Re: simplicity

>>>.......Example-  our own, a very pleasant affair....photos were
>>>taken by family members and friends in avelus who would otherwise be unable
>>>to come. <<<<

A Heter for aveilim to attend a simcha - by being photographers??
Could we have a source or name of Posek approving of this?

SBA

>I think this is a great idea.  From now on we chould
>only use paper plates and plasticware for all our
>simchas.

Oh, great.  So now we have the environmentalists on our backs!

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<daniel@cfd.ame.arizona.edu>
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

>
> A Heter for aveilim to attend a simcha - by being photographers??
> Could we have a source or name of Posek approving of this?
>

First off -- *was* it a simcha l'halacha? It was a reception, not the seudas
mitzvah, with no live music. No meat or wine was served. To many opinions,
that would be enough right there.

Secondly -- the general psak in meah shearim (regarding weddings) is that
aveilim have to serve at the wedding in some way.

We had two friends there who were in aveilus -- one (a breslover chassid)
came, sat down, stayed for about an hour talking with people, and left.
Another, more litvish leaning to MO, took the pictures.

Akiva


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

> ben-beno shel kal-vachomer) the Avos ha-kedoshim) CANNOT be viewed or
> discussed by the likes of us "in human terms".
>

The problem with that approach is that we therefore CANNOT learn anything
from the Avos that is relevant to our lives.

Akiva

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

Shalom,

As a regular contributor in a frum magazine in France, we choose to
publicize an issue on Emunas Chochomin and Da'as Torah.

Can you, plese, give me some sources for this issue, as articles in English
or in Hebrew ? 

Thank you for all.

Shlomo Ouaknine, Paris  - France
salomon.ouaknine@etam.fr

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


[ 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         ]