Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 289

Thursday, January 13 2000

• Re: Sadigora - and Epistemology
• RE: The Internet issur
• Conservatives
• Spirituality clarification
• The Internet issur
• Politics. Money. Power. Control. (was: Conservative/Reform/Orthodox/Whatever - Who cares?)
• Mixed seating at weddings
• Re:
• Re: The Internet issur
• RE: The Internet issur
• The Internet issur -- hebrew text posted on my web site
• Re: Sadigora - and Epistemology
• RE: The Internet issur
• Re: Mixed seating at weddings
• Re: The Internet issur
• RE: mixed seating/socializing

That english writer who thought facts were stubborn things evidently never
met a frum jew  -which come to think of it is likely since they had not yet
been allowed back in the country.

I decided to respond a last time to the latest protest posting by RYZirkind
since I believe it helps illumine a broader thesis -modestly, my own- part
of the philosophical game which identifies the thematic differences which
distinguish the self-identified charedi from the non-charedi frum.  (of
course i am not personally acquainted with ryz and do not know whether he
would personally accept either of those labels, in which case i apologize in
advance)  In an interesting essay in one of those Ortho Forum publications
R. Aaron Lichtenstein homed in on the different relationship to authority as
a distinguishing hall mark , i.e with the non-charedim ever more ready to
trust themselves or exercise independent judgement vice the greater
deference placed on received wisdom or pronouncements by authoritative
interpreters by the charedi . a one liner which doubtless does violence to
R. Lichtenstein's precisely nuanced and quite lengthy essay, and a subject
perhaps for discussion at another time.  I would like to suggest that we may
also deconstruct the frum taxonomy by its adherence to different
epistemologies.  This was brought home to me in RYZ's response to a number
of en passant assertions made in an earlier posting of mine which evidently
conflicted violently with (presumed) pietistic sensibilities sense of how
things must have been.  My initial reflex was to recall Mark Twain's remark
to the effect that first, we must get the facts, only then can we proceed to
distort them - and suggest that he had leapt directly to the latter stage
without getting a firm grip on the former, but further reflection persuades
me that we may lack a mutually acceptable mechanism for ever accepting what
"facts" are, and when he rejects my version he may be acting within the
context of a consistent, but alternative to my own, epistemology.  E.g.
consider some assertions related to "facts" (not their interpretation)
-details below - whose very existence seems to be rejected by RYZ.  While i
may assume that certain modes of acquiring knowledge are valid - i.e. allow
one to form true opinions of reality ,(e.g. contemporary govt documents,
court archives, articles in newspapers, writings by eyewitnesses, historical
researches, etc), in other words  about the same mechanisms which have
helped imbue me with my current firm belief that george washington crossed
the deleware one winter evening and attacked the hessians in trenton.  Many
charedim however, are able to completely reject the value of such mechanisms
for acquiring true beliefs, substituting instead some alternative mechanism
(i'm  a little hazy exactly what, but then i'm not mi'baalei soa'dom) which
must give the very greatest weight to the state of common communal beliefs.
And "facts" which are neither validated by such a mechanism and which also
conflict with it are simply not recognizable as facts. So, if we can't agree
on the epistemology employed it is not surprising that we may come to
recognize different ontologies. 

Now that I've started down this road I'll comment RYZKs response in light of
the epistemological divide noted above:
RYZK writes: < it's a free country, and you are free to take whatever
exception you wish,..Actually IMHO in Bei Gazoh Drachmonoh (Chulin 139a
etc.), the freedom requires Uvochartoh Bachayim.>
sound like a non-sequitor to me. sometimes one can be too elliptical.

<This reminds me (at least Bderech Remez) to the earlier discussion on this
list about Yitzchok Avinu (Yishtaku Hadvorim). ..Ksav Veloshon are very
important as we see in the sugia of Umoh Hogenes (Gitin 80a), many Mitzvohs
are dependent on reading and writing.>
not sure how many are required to get through a day.  personally i haven't
written any sifrei torah. if  the general importance of reading and writing
(and who would disagree with you?) is being brought to prove your assertion
that a specifc individual must have been so able, your chain of logic is
missing a few links - to put it  mildly.

>  to start with some kosher li'mihadrin eidus from within the chasidic
camp, >  you might check out the Ohalei Yaacov written by R. Yitzchoq
Friedman - the >  rebbe's direct descendent and a Husitener - who
acknowledges that the rebbe >  got his job very early in life (he became
admor about the age of 15) and >  thus never really had much opportunity to
acquire an education before being >  swept up into the daily grind of the
admorate.....What does this have to do with dyslexia, and there are many
stories of 
questions and answers that he gave his Mlamdim.>
you are too focused on mention or non-mentions of dyslexia (which wasn't
even defined until modern times) and is admittedly only a speculative
explanation (not my own BTW) offered to reasonably account for an otherwise
puzzling fact which is not speculative at all (but see below)

< The Tiferes Yisroel (a >  modern series of Rhyziner publications)
acknowledges that the rebbe's >  preference for "hiding" his torah greatness
brought many outsiders to >  question its existence, though as we see from
the ohelei yaacov, it was >  questioned internally as well...Again no
mention of dyslexia, ..
the rebbe himself is quoted in chasidic >  sources - check out the shaar
ho'oasios - as remarking that the time to >  learn to write was when one is
a na'ar, but that he himself had never been a >  na'ar and the accompanying
comment in the same source that it was known that >  the rebbe haqodosh
mirhyzin was barely able to write the correct tsuros >  ho'oasios...
So never being a Naar is the code word for dyslexia?>

responding to this sort of thing has its frustrations. but this section is
illustrative of my epistemological claims above.  to buttress an original en
passant remark related to literacy, i offered -only when challenged- a quote
from chasidic sources to the effect he had trouble forming tsuros ho'oasios.
i cited a quote from the rebbe himself acknowledging that he himself had
never had the time to learn  reading, and yet the response manages to ignore
those glaring in your face statements (as well as many non-chasidic source
materials which i alluded to) and responded with what i would view as
another non-sequitor, about na'rus and dyslexia whose point i am unable to
parse.  it must be that  my reliance on such means (documents,quotes,..) of
acquiring a belief about a fact are simply not shared by ryz, and my
citations are thus irrlevant to him..

<Reminds me of another great Rebbe, who people formed ideas about, which is
nothing more then conjecture (and since it involves an Odom Godol it touches
on Es Has-hem E-lokecho Tiroh,) Umadua Lo Yereisem Ldabeir Bavde Bmoshe.>
Another good example, at least if i'm mind reading ryz properly and thinking
of the same fellow.  here we have a case that unfolded over a period of many
months in the most public of ways.  oodles of official public records, press
articles, pamphleting, books, etc. i.e. a major cause celebre.  indeed what
do you think initiated the divrei chaim's spin up in the first place?  but
these sorts of ways of reaching conclusions about factual matters do not
seem to have much weight. i can only explain this by assuming we inhabit
different epistemological planets. 

 <As you also mentioned about the murder implication, I assume that in
discussing Moshe Rabbeinu one would bring up the Vayatminehu Bachoil, and
would question the Loi Chamor Echod etc Rachmonoh Litzlan>
possibly another good example (and how did moshe and shimuel get into this
anyway?). i mentioned the rebbes implication in a murder charge. i am unsure
whether ryz means to question that fact as well, though if he does i am not
sure how he explains why he was thrown into jail by the authorities for
around two years with the official records (quotes available upon request)
describing the offense he was suspected of, or explain exactly why  the
authorities were keeping him under town arrest after his release from jail,
forcing him to flee russia for sadigora..  lots of documentation that these
"facts" occurred - just the fund raising for the bribery of russian
government officials engulfed much of the jewish world, from other chasidim
to moses montefiore - there's even a letter on this subject from ziqeini the
yismach moshe and you can imagine the paperwork trail- unless documentation
doesn't count in such circumstances which violate communal perspectives.
Please note, and perhaps this was not adequately conveyed by my prose, that
to be  'implicated" by authorities does not convey any assessment of the
actual culpability in the crime, an opinion i have not offered in this
forum. In any event the rebbe was not suspected, even by the authorities, of
personally participationin the deed's execution - the murder of a two jewish
"mosirim" who probably deserved it. they were looking for young people to
moseir for 25 year stints in the czar's army.. 

(  Also, question for you, what/who is the "ARi Hachai", i.e. who is chai in
>  that phrase? ...Gdolim Tzadikim Sheaf Bmisosom Kruyim Chayim.>
thought you might have meant that but was unaware that this is a common
appellation these days in some circles.  in these interesting lubavitcher
days, people tend to be hyper sensitive to certain allusions.

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

The actual articles (3-4 pages worth) in this weeks PRINTED Yated here in
Israel uses those words many times:

Front page headline: DAAS TORAH: DO NOT USE THE INTERNET

Keep in mind the e-mail Yated is the AMERICAN version, with no real
connection with the Israeli Yated.

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

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

Ms. Janet Rosenbaum took issue with some comments I made about the
Conservative elite:

>I think you're assuming a unidirectional selection process:  those who
>are C seek to make halacha together with their views.  I think there may
>actually be something of a bidirectional selection process in that
>anyone who was O and would make a certain type of ruling would find
>himself marginalized and may decide preemptively to go to C.

Assuming I understand your suggestion, I find it theoretically possible
but fairly dubious when applied to reality.  First, in the current
generation, there are very few, if any, halakhists who have started in
the Orthodox camp, then joined the Conservatives.  Second, the vast
majority of defections that I am aware of -- from previous generations
-- were primarily motivated by mundane issues of employment or
fundamental theological issues, especially Torah mi-Sinai, rather than
specific practical halakhic rulings.  Indeed, the older Conservative
halakhists, like Isaac Klein and Boaz Cohen, diverged very little in
their practical rulings from normative Orthodox halakhah.  But when I
read the work of contemporary Conservative writers on Halakhah, I find a
clear tendency to analyze sources so as to arrive at a desried
conclusion.  Note too that R. Eliezer Berkovits, whose practical
approach to various issues was viewed by many as far too liberal -- and
in practice no different from Conservatives -- never defected.

>On your specific claims, I don't think any of the educated C are
>actually making policy in favor of egalitarianism or homosexual activity
>Egalitarianism is an ideal of the uneducated C, but my impression is
>that no one has tried to make C halacha using this as an axiom, although
>the uneducated might have the impression that it were axiomatic.  Notably,
>there are many observant single C women who don't cover their heads
>for davening, don't lay tefillin, and don't wear tallis except for
>leading.  (I think the opinion they rely on wrt leading is from Dr.
>Hauptman who says that since the purpose of the shaliach tzibbur is for
>saying amida for the community and since woman and men are equally
>obligated, women may discharge the obligation of others in this respect.)

I wonder if we are looking at the same evidence.  From the 1960's on,
there has been a general trend toward egalitarianism, with official
rulings permitting women to be counted for a minyan, receive aliyot and
read from the Torah, culminating in the (in)famous vote on women's
ordination.  If one reads the papers presented to the CJLS (Committe on
Jewish Law and Standards) regarding women's ordination and homosexual
marriages, I think one will be struck by the degree the sources were
manipulated by some.   Joel Roth's famous teshuvah is premised on the
dubious notion that a woman who takes a neder to keep mitzvot aseh
she-ha-zeman geramah has the same level of obligation as a man.  Judith
Hauptman's essay utterly disregards the distinction (which developed
late but nevertheless exists) between an obligation in tefillah and an
obligation in tefillah be-tzibbur.  Now papers have been written
defending homosexual marriage; though that position was voted down by
the committee.

The issue is not whether all observant Conservative women cover their
head (not a mitzvah in any case), lay tefillin or wear a tallit (an
obligation, but not one that is related to serving as shaliah tzibbur).
The question is whether leading Conservative thinkers have argued that
they can and should.  We both know the answer to that question is yes.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I was asked to clarify why I thought the risk of focusing on spirituality
greater in our times then it was when Hassidut began.  Two hundred years
ago in Eastern Europe Jews lived as part of a Jewish community where
halachic observance was the norm and there was little influence from the
outside culture.  Today we are part of a larger materialistic world which
defines spirituality in individualistic terms.  Connecting feel spiritually
uplifted with formal halachic behavior is no longer automatic as there are
so many spiritual movements that are non-halachic.  The very term
Yeshiva-ashram reflects the influence of eastern religions.  
Since the stress is on feelings even those who learn Torah need not focus
on the traditional interpretations of the sources but rather on what it
says to them.  The influence on those university trained of
deconstructionism increases the danger that Torah texts can be distorted to
mean almost anything. The assumption that a Jewish spirituality can
successfully isolate itself from broader societal trends I find unrealistic.
Sincerely yours,
Yosef Blau

> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:24:47 -0800 (PST)
> From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: The Internet issur
> 
> - --- aviva fee <aviva613@hotmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,33583,00.html

<<I hate defending the Yated but... >>

	It may allow you to keep your black hat after all <g>

<<after reading  the more complete version of the Yated on the subject
(forwarded by Allen Baruch), I must admit that the so called "ban" is not
a ban at all but more about a call  for awareness as to what is both good
and bad about the internet.  I don't recall seeing the word ban or
anything like it in the entire article.>>

	Someone posted here that the actual "ban" if that's what it was,  was
not printed in the Yated.  We still need to see the original or at least
a translation in order to draw our conclusions.

	BTW, I clicked on the Koshernet link on that Wired article and found
that,  contrary to what has been posted here recently,  they appear to
still be in business.

Gershon

The new subject line of this post is a quote from one of R' Carl Sherer's
recent insightful looks into Israeli life.

<<< And this is just one issue of many between the Rabbanut and C and R.
There are millions of shekels in budgets to be fought over. The Rabbanut
controls a lot of patronage (remember that it is a government body here) and
C and R would love to get some of that patronage. Not to mention things like
youth group budgets >>>

This patronage business bothers me whenever I see it in the headlines. It
seems that whenever any of the religious parties makes any kind of political
deal, part of the deal is that the party gets more money for their schools.
The part that bothers me is that they fight for their own schools, not
anyone else's.

Has there ever been a party which voluntarily chose to divide the money
fairly among all the various school systems? It seems to me this could be a
decent litmus test to separate the L'Shem Shamayim-niks from the
politicians.

Akiva Miller

R. Yitzchok Zirkind cites Bet Shemuel, Even ha-Ezer 62:11 in support of
the notion that men and women should not sit together at weddings.
Having researched this issue thoroughly (and published an article on the
subject in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society), I would
like to add the following.

B.M.K.T., the Bet Shemuel is in my view (and the view of the Bet Meir)
unreliable.

Some details:  The BS writes that, according to the Bah, one should not
recite the berakhah of she-ha-simhah bi-mono when men and women sit
together.  But that is not what the Bah says.  In fact, the source for
that idea is the Sefer Hasidim.  Well, you might think, if the source is
a Rishon, then the issur is even more authoritative!  Not quite.  The
Levush (end of Levush ha-Hur, Minhagim, no. 36) cites the Sefer Hasidim,
but says we are no longer nizhar in this, and explains that this may be
because men and women are now accustomed to each other's presence,
thereby eliminating the problem of hirhur (by analogy to R. Gidal in
Berakhot 20a

If you read the Bah (EH 62, s.v. ve-yesh omerim) you will see that he
brings the Sefer Hasidim only to explain a strange minhag in Cracow.
See also his more expanded discussion in his teshuvot ha-hadashot, YD
no. 55.  Also see Bet Meir, sham.

In my article, I survey a substantial number of Aharonim, most of whom
seem to rely on the heter of the Levush.  Indeed, for those of us (men)
today who interact with women on a daily basis, the Levush's argument is
probably even stronger than it was in his day.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

--- Daniel Levine <daniel2121_99@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My son once commented to me that the reason so many
> Yeshiva Bachurim in Israel smoke Cigarettes is that
> all other forms of pleasure have been taken away
> from
> them and that is the only vice they have left.  (!)
> 
> If this theory is correct, one would expect to see
> an
> equal amount of smoking among charedi women.  
> 
> Yet, it is my understanding that smoking among
> orthodox women, for whatever reason, is almost
> nonexistent (unless I have my facts wrong).  

That's probably because amongst Charedim, cultural
taboos on women smoking are so strong that it's a
non-starter for them.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Gershon Dubin wrote:


> 	BTW, I clicked on the Koshernet link on that Wired article and found
> that,  contrary to what has been posted here recently,  they appear to
> still be in business.


Which, as I would hope is obvious, means we won't be starting another
kosher ISP.

Thanks to those who responded about investing. I actually sat down and
wrote a business plan last night (based on an idea I'm pursuing
otherwise).


---sam

--- Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> The actual articles (3-4 pages worth) in this weeks
> PRINTED Yated here in
> Israel uses those words many times:
> 
> Front page headline: DAAS TORAH: DO NOT USE THE
> INTERNET

Headlines are often meant to grab your attention. In
any case, the above headline can be interpreted as
general advise and not actual Issur. The article that
I read could have been written by almost anyone on
this list (perhaps with one minor exception). If the
article  in the Israeli version was so radically
different, I would like to see a copy of it.  If what
you say is true, what does that say about the
integrity of the paper?

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

I took some pictures of the actual hebrew -- 

www.bereshitsoftware.com/bin/ban.zip

Sorry for the quality.

Akiva



A reality check a day keeps 
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

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




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avodah@aishdas.org [mailto:owner-avodah@aishdas.org]On
> Behalf Of Gershon Dubin
> Sent: 13 January 2000 21:33
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Cc: hmaryles@yahoo.com
> Subject: The Internet issur
> 
> 
> > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:24:47 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: The Internet issur
> > 
> > - --- aviva fee <aviva613@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,33583,00.html
> 
> <<I hate defending the Yated but... >>
> 
> 	It may allow you to keep your black hat after all <g>
> 
> <<after reading  the more complete version of the Yated on the subject
> (forwarded by Allen Baruch), I must admit that the so called 
> "ban" is not
> a ban at all but more about a call  for awareness as to what 
> is both good
> and bad about the internet.  I don't recall seeing the word ban or
> anything like it in the entire article.>>
> 
> 	Someone posted here that the actual "ban" if that's 
> what it was,  was
> not printed in the Yated.  We still need to see the original 
> or at least
> a translation in order to draw our conclusions.
> 
> 	BTW, I clicked on the Koshernet link on that Wired 
> article and found
> that,  contrary to what has been posted here recently,  they appear to
> still be in business.
> 
> Gershon
> 

In a message dated 1/13/00 2:14:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil writes:

>  if  the general importance of reading and writing
>  (and who would disagree with you?) is being brought to prove your assertion
>  that a specifc individual must have been so able, your chain of logic is
>  missing a few links - to put it  mildly.

It was brought to underline that the lack of such is a Chisoron.

>  you are too focused on mention or non-mentions of dyslexia (which wasn't
>  even defined until modern times) and is admittedly only a speculative
>  explanation (not my own BTW) offered to reasonably account for an otherwise
>  puzzling fact which is not speculative at all (but see below)

Any interpertation is IMHO just speculative (OTOH there are stories of him in 
Cheder).

  to start with some kosher li'mihadrin eidus from within the chasidic
camp, >  you might check out the Ohalei Yaacov written by R. Yitzchoq
Friedman - the >  rebbe's direct descendent and a Husitener - who
acknowledges that the rebbe >  got his job very early in life (he became
admor about the age of 15) and >  thus never really had much opportunity to
acquire an education before being >  swept up into the daily grind of the
admorate.....

So here too we mix Kvod E-lokim Hasteir Davar with Mgaleh Tefach Umchaseh 
Tfochayim.

>  
>  < The Tiferes Yisroel (a >  modern series of Rhyziner publications)
>  acknowledges that the rebbe's >  preference for "hiding" his torah 
greatness
>  brought many outsiders to >  question its existence, though as we see from
>  the ohelei yaacov, it was >  questioned internally as well...Again no
>  mention of dyslexia, ..

Ditto.

>  i offered -only when challenged- a quote
>  from chasidic sources to the effect he had trouble forming tsuros 
ho'oasios.
>  i cited a quote from the rebbe himself acknowledging that he himself had
>  never had the time to learn  reading,

The earlier quote refers to "writing".

 and yet the response manages to ignore
>  those glaring in your face statements (as well as many non-chasidic source
>  materials which i alluded to) and responded with what i would view as
>  another non-sequitor, about na'rus and dyslexia whose point i am unable to
>  parse.  it must be that  my reliance on such means (documents,quotes,..) of
>  acquiring a belief about a fact are simply not shared by ryz, and my
>  citations are thus irrlevant to him..

Implied citations from a Mokor Nemon are just that implied.

>  but
>  these sorts of ways of reaching conclusions about factual matters do not
>  seem to have much weight. 

Clear statements Memokor Nemon is what counts by me, U'lhosif even if all 
those facts are true the fact that in Mkoros Nemonim it is not mentioned then 
why mention it (as the Gemara says in the begining of Hazorek, if it is false 
you are Motzee Laaz on that Tzadik, and if it is true the Torah covered it 
and you reveal it).


>  i mentioned the rebbes implication in a murder charge. i am unsure
>  whether ryz means to question that fact as well, 

My contention was the manner in which it was brought up, implication in the 
murder of a Mosrim that have Din of Rodfim and obligation of Lo Samoid Al 
Daam Reiacho would just illustrate his greatness.

>  thought you might have meant that but was unaware that this is a common
>  appellation these days in some circles.  in these interesting lubavitcher
>  days, people tend to be hyper sensitive to certain allusions.

At least I could finish off with a :-)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> different, I would like to see a copy of it.  If what
> you say is true, what does that say about the
> integrity of the paper?

TWO different papers, US and Israel -- they are not the same paper. (There
is a strong "rivalry" between them).

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

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

In a message dated 1/13/00 2:37:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

> In my article, I survey a substantial number of Aharonim, most of whom
>  seem to rely on the heter of the Levush.  Indeed, for those of us (men)
>  today who interact with women on a daily basis, the Levush's argument is
>  probably even stronger than it was in his day.
>  
The L. Rebbe quotes the B"S and writes regarding the Heter of the Lvush that 
unfortunately in our times in cannot be said that they are like Kaki Chivrah.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Harry Maryles wrote:



> Headlines are often meant to grab your attention. In
> any case, the above headline can be interpreted as
> general advise and not actual Issur. The article that
> I read could have been written by almost anyone on
> this list (perhaps with one minor exception). If the
> article  in the Israeli version was so radically
> different, I would like to see a copy of it.  If what
> you say is true, what does that say about the
> integrity of the paper?



I don't have the Hebrew Yated, but I did find the text of the
pronouncement. Ironic, isn't it?

http://www.thekosher.net/chareidi/BOad1intrnt.htm


---sam

I heard R' SY Weinberg, zt"l speak at a community-wide asifa on tsnius, and
he voiced similar sentiments to those that Sender mentioned.  He expressed
genuine surprise at the notion that couples would go out together bowling.
BTW, he also mentioned that men should not call (unrelated) women by their
first name.

KT
Aryeh
 
------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:10:47 -0500
From: "Allen Baruch" <Abaruch@SINAI-BALT.COM>
Subject: mixed seating/socializing

RMT wrote (v4#283):
"I asked a respected Rav about the Minhagim of couples eating
together, etc, which seem to be firmly entrenched and equally firmly
against this Siman. I was Nidhcheh beKash on three separate 
occasions, and took that to mean there was no real answer."

When we asked R' SY Weinberg zt'l about this in chaburah once,
he said its "a davar pashut that the men talk with the men and the 
women with the women".  Another quote on the topic was "your 
wife's friends are not your friends".

Kol Tuv
Sender Baruch

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


[ 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         ]