Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 290

Thursday, January 13 2000

• RE: Vending Machines on Shabbos
• Re: The Internet issur
• Re: Do the Masses Need Sanitized Gdolim
• Yated Esdt vs. Yated West. From 'The Internet issur' posting
• RE:Mixed Seating
• Re: Intrinsic value, kashrus vs arlah
• RE: The Internet issur
• RE: The Internet issur
• Mixed seating at weddings
• Re: Mixed seating at weddings
• RE:Mixed Seating
• Re: Annoyance
• [none]
• Re: The Internet issur
• Re: Politics. Money. Power. Control. (was: Conservative/Reform/Orthodox/Whate...
• Re: From Arutz-7

It's not practical to turn the vending machines off.  A friend of mine is
actually in the business, and he owns hundreds of machines in many, many
different locations.  As for your other concerns, I don't have any answers
offhand (and I don't remember R' Frand discussing them).  

Perhaps since the owner of the machines doesn't know definitively that any
specific item was sold on Shabbos, and since rov of the money in the machine
came from weekday transactions, each coin is mutar because of the rov. 

~ Aryeh

=========================================

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:54:40 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Vending Machines on Shabbos

On 12 Jan 00, at 10:15, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:

> With respect to vending machines on Shabbos, I recently heard R' Frand
> discuss this issue, and he explained that, in order to alleviate problems
of
> doing business on Shabbos, the owner of the vending machine should have in
> mind (before Shabbos) the following two things regarding any person who
buys
> something from the machine on Shabbos:
> 
> 	1) to be makneh the item to the person before shabbos; and
> 	2) not to be koneh the money that is deposited in the machine until
> after Shabbos (while a person's chotzeir is koneh shelo midaas, it is
not
> koneh if the person has specific daas not to be koneh). 

Why wouldn't the money be assur altogether as schar Shabbos? 
Why not just turn the machine off? Or donate all the money from 
Shabbos to tzedaka?

- -- Carl

On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 08:34:39AM -0800, aviva fee wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,33583,00.html

macaddict had a story about it, also.  
they are amusingly unclear on the meaning of "secular".

http://www.macaddict.com/news/news/01_11_2000/nono.html
 
And You Thought  Quake Was Bad... 
 
Internet Deemed Evil

We all know that there's some sometimes wacky, sometimes unpredictable,
sometimes scary stuff going on online — but most of us keep our cool
about it. Not so the secular world, it seems; as noted by the Register,
the ultra-orthodox Council of Torah Sages (an important leadership group
in the Jewish community, based out of Israel) signed a ruling banning
the Internet from the homes of all Jews. The Web, said the ruling,
represents the "world's leading cause of temptation;" just to be safe,
the ban also extends to computers, CD players and films. 

Jewish families are now technically forbidden to have any connection to
the Internet; those who must use it at their place of work are allowed
to, but are instructed to "seek every way to reduce usage." Users at
home, meanwhile, are instructed to remove the browsers from their
operating systems altogether — something which would require divine
intervention under Windows 98, a fact which the Council seems to be
quietly ignoring, which given how impossibly rare Macs are in Israel may
prove to be a bit of an issue. 

The council isn't alone in it's declamations either; An extremist sect
called Haredi labeled the Internet "a deadly poison [which] burns
souls". You almost have to wonder if these guys have any connection with
the authors of the Communications Decency Act... 

Whether or not the ruling will have any impact on most Jewish homes
remains to be seen; one source cited in the Register's story said that
most Jewish homes are non-secular and that the ultra-orthodox make up
"less than 1%" of the total Jewish community. On the other hand, the
source didn't feel like taking on the Council and so hid behind a cloak
of anonymity. 

On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 06:39:23PM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
> > this seems dangerously close to, for instance, catholicism.  
> How so?

infallibility, the ability to transcend human weaknesses.  (transcend as
opposed to overcome.)

janet

Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>  wrote in Avodah V4 #289 RE: The 
Internet issur

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

Can you explain the ‘rivalry’ between the Israeli & US versions?

Thanks,
/af



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>>"Especially when the Previous RY of Chaim Berlin, R
Yitzchak Hutner, ZTL did not act that way. Why does R.
Aharon Schechter do this?  Is he saying that mixed
seating is Assur? Is he saying that he is Frummer than
R. Hutner?  There are Photos of R. Moshe Fienstien and
R. Yaakov Kaminetsky sitting mixed. Rav  Aaron
Soloveitchik actually requests sitting next to his
wife even at a seperate seating affair. So it can't be
Assur.  I DON'T GET IT!!!  R. Rogov ZTL, when asked
about mixed seating by one of his brightest talmidim,
Rabbi Erwin Giffen ZL, whose wedding was mixed,
answered, "In Lita zennen mir nit geven makpid" (In
Lithuania we weren't Makpid)."
>>

I don't see what difference who did what when makes.  I know a great Rav who
used to watch television to relax and probably just to get a glimpse of the
popular culture.  Does that mean he would do so today.  There is a big
difference between wholesomeness of the Andy Griffith Show and I Love Lucy
and the constant barrage of licentiousness in today's shows such as Friends
and Seinfeld. Can it not be argued that the our society's acceptance of what
is clearly immoral has subtly, or maybe not so subtly, worked its way into
the psyche's of those of us who spend much of our time in, and try to take
advantage of the best of, popular culture. I remember my parents (Europeans)
regulary visiting with close friends who they always addressed as Mr. or
Mrs. rather than by their first names.  Today there is a much more informal
attitude between people, and that informal attitude coupled with all of the
emphasis placed on sexuality in the adverstising and media, puts us more at
risk than ever. If that's the case why doesn't it make sense to put
additional Harchokas in place.

Gad Frenkel

On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 02:02:41AM +0200, Mrs. Gila Atwood wrote:
:                     So this would seem to imply that re mila there WAS no
: chisaron before the tzivui.

Or perhaps, being an arel no chisaron before the covenant. Which would make
sense as the milah is an "os b'ris". This would still save the notion of
milah having inherent value, but still Avraham didn't feel a lack before he
entered into a b'ris with HKBH.

:                             Could we say that Avraham Avinu reached a stage
: in his spiritual development where his status changed in such a way that
: something which was not a chisaron, now becomes a chisaron?

This is close to the same notion as the one I'm now suggesting, although not
identical. I am refraining from accepting your notion that the change was
associated with growth since Hashem expects us to do a b'ris on a baby
before kashrus becomes an issue. This implies that the chisaron of "areil"
exists on an earlier level. Yet Avraham observed kashrus first.

: Both revelation and a 'feeling of lack' would imply a level of da'as. Is
: this da'as inherent to the Avos or did it come to them later as a result of
: their spiritual refinement?

Good question. Since the young Avraham is described as reasoning his way to
HKBH, not directly percieving His presence, I would guess the latter. But
I don't know.

:                                   Could you please explain what you mean by
: imposing a value and expressing a value in terms of the succa, and of a
: woman's choice to sit in it?

There is a cycle: thought leads to action, and action leads to thought.

If something is a chiyuv that means we are expected to do it whether or not
the thought or desire is there. The focus is therefore on the half of the
cycle going from action to thought. We're trying to create an idea, mood,
or value in the metzuvah vi'oseh.

A non-metzuveh vi'oseh would apparantly not require this act in order to
acheive the right state of mind. Either because she has other means of doing
so, or because the thing being taught is inherent to her nature. However, since
she still gets sichar we know that the thing being taught has value to her.
There's still the value of the other half of the cycle: going from thought
to action, expressing the idea as it already exists.

Unlike "zar hakareiv yumas", where not only isn't he metzuveh, he is very much
prohibited. Or a non-Jew keeping Shabbos. These are values that are important
to one person, in one role, but are a detriment to someone else in another.

Succah is one example. A man must sit in the succah, because he needs the act
to learn and reinforce some value (should probably read: values), whatever
it is, in his mind and soul. A woman does not, so she somehow has this value
or could acquire it through means not available to men.

If a woman would choose to keep the mitzvah of succah, and at least part of
the reason is because of the mitzvah (as opposed to just wanting to be with
her husband, or whatnot), then she is expressing a love of the mitzvah and
the value, the thought, it conveys. Her kiyum is primarily in the other half
of the cycle: going from thought to action.

I wonder if mitoch shelo lishmah ba lishmah applies to an eino mitzveh. My
guess is the question becomes whether the mitzvah is a meaningful alternative
route to the thought (or "value" as I called it last time) even for someone
other than the person the chiyuv was designed for. Or if the lesson to
be learnt can only be learnt through this channel by the mechuyav.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Jan-00: Chamishi, Bo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 98b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

And see http://www.thekosher.net/chareidi/BOainternt.htm

Akiva



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

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

and http://www.thekosher.net/chareidi/ad2intrnt.htm

Akiva


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

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

I wrote:

>>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.

>>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.

And R. Yitzchok Zirkind replies:

>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.

At the risk of treading on R. Mechy's territory, I think that this
discussion too may expose an epistemological divide.

As I wrote, I believe the Bet Shemuel mischaracterized the words of the
Bah.  And the fact that the BS is quoted by the L. Rebbe does not change
my mind.  However, I do invite the learned tzibbur to examine the Bah
themselves and make up their own mind.  (Uh-oh, autonomy vs. deference.
R. Mechy I think I have labelled myself!)

Moreover, if one accepts the Levush's analysis (and not all Aharonim
do), then I respectfully submit that the question of whether men are
liable to have hirhurim from sharing a table with women is an empirical
question.  If so, the L. Rebbe's statement, while interesting, does not
strike me as dispositive.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 1/13/00 3:58:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

> Moreover, if one accepts the Levush's analysis (and not all Aharonim
>  do),

What about Bochurim in Yeshiva who come to the wedding???

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

--- "Frenkel, Garry J." <garry.j.frenkel@ssa.gov>
wrote:
> 
> >>"Especially when the Previous RY of Chaim Berlin,
> R
> Yitzchak Hutner, ZTL did not act that way. Why does
> R.
> Aharon Schechter do this?  Is he saying that mixed
> seating is Assur? Is he saying that he is Frummer
> than
> R. Hutner?  There are Photos of R. Moshe Fienstien
> and
> R. Yaakov Kaminetsky sitting mixed. Rav  Aaron
> Soloveitchik actually requests sitting next to his
> wife even at a seperate seating affair. So it can't
> be
> Assur.  I DON'T GET IT!!!  R. Rogov ZTL, when asked
> about mixed seating by one of his brightest
> talmidim,
> Rabbi Erwin Giffen ZL, whose wedding was mixed,
> answered, "In Lita zennen mir nit geven makpid" (In
> Lithuania we weren't Makpid)."
> >>
> 
> I don't see what difference who did what when makes.
>  I know a great Rav who
> used to watch television to relax and probably just
> to get a glimpse of the
> popular culture.  Does that mean he would do so
> today.  There is a big
> difference between wholesomeness of the Andy
> Griffith Show and I Love Lucy
> and the constant barrage of licentiousness in
> today's shows such as Friends
> and Seinfeld. Can it not be argued that the our
> society's acceptance of what
> is clearly immoral has subtly, or maybe not so
> subtly, worked its way into
> the psyche's of those of us who spend much of our
> time in, and try to take
> advantage of the best of, popular culture. I
> remember my parents (Europeans)
> regulary visiting with close friends who they always
> addressed as Mr. or
> Mrs. rather than by their first names.  Today there
> is a much more informal
> attitude between people, and that informal attitude
> coupled with all of the
> emphasis placed on sexuality in the adverstising and
> media, puts us more at
> risk than ever. If that's the case why doesn't it
> make sense to put
> additional Harchokas in place.

I think you are mixing apples and cranberries. (I'm
tired of oranges)

There is a major difference between sitting at a mixed
table at a wedding and watching pritzus in the
entertainment media. In the first instance there are
no issurei ervah, tznius, or, in our day an age,
michsholim to hirhurei ervah.  Women at O weddings,
even MO weddings, by and large dress in a Tznius
fashion. We have plenty of poskim who are matir mixed
seating (see Eli Clark's post on the well known
rationale by LeVush on his heter for mixed seating)).
OTOH TV shows like "Friends" offer us the absolute
worst of moral attitudes in our American culture. Even
though I own a TV and do watch it on occasion, I am
appalled by what passes for acceptable family
entertainment these days.  I can certainly understand
those who wish to ban it even though I don't agree
with an outright ban.

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

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> This report from the e-mail Yated drives me
> (specifically) crazy. You would
> think, from reading it, that there are no female
> principals in schools that
> are under the TuM umbrella. The irony is that the
> essay was written by a
> woman!
> 
> As the husband of the principal of a Bais Yaakov HS,
> I am annoyed.
> 
> It is almost enough to make pro-yo'atzot (don't
> worry, not quite :-) ).

Isn't it a cardinal tenent of Judaism that women are
to be kept barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen? :) 

What emense benefit could be had by getting the 
perspective of bright and cutting edge principals such
as Shoshanah M. Bechhofer, perhaps the brightest star 
in Chicago Chinuch today!  Could the reason possibly
be the "unspoken" Agudist  rule against publicly
featuring women speakers in  front of men?  If that's
it then it shows what a bad  rule it is. We are
eliminating some of the best and  the brightest from
publicly addressing issues which affect our children.
These are front line people that  we all need to hear
from and can learn a lot from. IMHO  this is a major
flaw in the conference and diminishes it's relevance.
Obviouly a lot of work has  to be done to change RW
hearts and minds.
 
After reading the Yated Article my first impression
was, that except for the glaring ommision of women on
the program, it seemed to be almost a model of Achdus.
(which makes the ommision of women even more
glaring)The list of featured speakers included people
from HTC, Telshe, Philly, Bais Yaakov Jewish Parochial
School(RW) and Arie Crown Hebrew Dayschool (ACHDS),
and even YU and Lubavitch.  The fact that R. Svei is 
willing to be listed with a YU principal is pretty 
amazing considering that he believes the Rosh 
HaYeshiva and President of YU is a Sonei HaShem. (BTW
When R. Herschel Schechter was in Gush and was asked
by a Talmid about this incident R. Schechter said that
when he heard that R. Svei had said this about Dr.
Lamm he wanted to tera Kriah)  
I  also noticed some Ed.D's and Ph.D's on the program.

 
Whasup Widat?  
 
On the one hand we are hearing constantly about the 
trend away from secular studies in the RW Yeshivos 
especially in Israel but even in the US.  OTOH we see 
a TuM conference that includes experts with high
secular degrees. Obviously these people are valued as
experts. and they are involved with being Mechanech 
our children. Yet, they have been trained by secular 
universities and that is in the main where they get 
their expertise. How can this be? Either you think
secular studies is a waste of time and nobody goes to
college or you think it does have value.  Which is it?
  
 
C'mon... where is Daas Torah here? Can we eat our cake
and have it, too? 
 
Isn't a contradiction to say Bnei Torah shouldn't go 
to college and then at the same time value Ph.D's and
Ed.D's, by having them speak to us as experts? Isn't 
this a Tarti DisAsri? 
 
I would love to hear a RW explanation of this
phenomenon. I don't want to hear apologetics. If
someone says that they went to college Bidieved
because they couldn't make it in learning I'll
have a cow.
 
HM

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

> 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

Does this taboo apply in American charedi and/or MO
circles as well?

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

I went to the website, and this is the list of signatories:

Yosef Sholom Eliashiv
Moshe Yehoshua -- Admor of Vishnitz
A. Y. L. Steinman
Yisochor Dov -- Admor of Belz
M. S. Shapira
Shmuel Halevi Wosner
Yitzchok Eizek Rosenbaum -- Admor of Zutschka
Avrohom Yaakov Friedman -- Admor of Sadigor
Michel Yehuda Lefkowitz
Tzvi Elimelech
Chaim Pinchos Scheinberg
Yaakov Yissochor Ber -- Admor of Nadvorna
S. Y. Nissim Karelitz
Yisroel Mordechai Twerski -- Admor of Rachmastrivka
Avrohom Yaakov Zalesnik
Avrohom Menachem Danziger -- Admor of Alexander
Shmuel Auerbach
Shimon Nosson Nota Biderman -- Admor of Leluv
Boruch Rosenberg
Yisroel Don Taub -- Admor of Modzhitz
Gershon Edelstein
Avrohom Shlomo Biderman -- Admor of Leluv
Shimon Ba'adani
Efraim Fishel Rabinowitz
Shalom Cohen
Menachem Nochum -- Admor of Tchernoble
Moshe Zadka
Yehoshua Rokach -- Admor of Machnovka
Games and movies of computers and all related things are a great danger to
everyone and to children especially. It is worse to bring someone to sin
than to kill him -- Yochonon Sofer

I find it an interesting sociological tidbit that there are no signatories
representing the three major Lithuanian yeshivos: Chevron, Mir, Ponvitch
(although perhaps R' Steiman serves for that purpose).

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: The Internet issur


> 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
>

In a message dated 1/13/00 1:35:45 PM US Central Standard Time, 
kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:

<< 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.
  >>

Yet another excellent argument for separation of church and state, even in 
Israel -- especially in Israel. 

There's more than a little irony in the typical scenario: The Israeli RW 
religious elite fights to keep Western impurities out. Thus it bans or 
severely limits Internet, TV, newspapers, movies, modern music, sports, etc. 
Then, the same elite decides carry on their Knesset battles according to 
house rules. Thus it implicates itself (through its appointed 
representatives) in bribery, trickery, embezzlement, vote-buying, 
miscellaneous double-dealing and double-crossing, etc., just like any other 
bunch of politicians. 

I have a naive ten-year-old son. Last year, reading the New York Times and 
watching the news on TV (sorry!), he learned about Bibi Netanyahu's political 
"tactics" as well as Bibi's several marriages, fights with the household 
help, and peculiar ways of processing the truth. He asked me, "Why do the 
rabbis support such a man?" We all know why. Can anyone think of a solution 
to this problem that doesn't involve taking religion away from the state?

David Finch

In message , Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
>On 13 Jan 00, at 12:34, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>
>>  A YEAR IN JAIL FOR AGUNAH-HUSBANDS
>> The Knesset voted last night in favor of a preliminary reading of an
>> Agunah
>> (literally, a "chained woman") law.  The bill, proposed by Meretz MK Anat
>> Maor, states that a man who leaves his wife and refuses to grant her a
>> proper Jewish divorce - thus preventing her from re-marrying - will be
>> sentenced to a year in prison. 
>
>This strikes me as much ado about nothing. The Batei Din here 
>can and have already thrown men into jail for refusing to give their 
>wives gittin. And in many (maybe even most) cases it has not 
>helped. Certainly not a sentence as short as a year. That's not 
>going to move most vindictive husbands (and that's usually the real 
>issue IMHO) to give their wives a get. Not impressed.
>
>You want to talk about stopping them from having a bank account 
>or a credit card and from getting any kind of government benefits, 
>maybe we would have something a bit more serious to talk about.
>

I would guess (without having read it) that the law is aimed at is the
perceived (I don't know how true it is, but certainly there are rumours
to this effect) lack of willingness of the Rabbanut to utilise the power
they have to inflict these penalties except in the most egregarious (and
long lasting) of cases.  I would therefore expect that either the law
attempts to force the hand of the Rabbanut, or, alternatively, gives the
secular courts also the right to impose such a penalty (so if a woman is
not getting any results from the Beis Din, she could theoretically apply
to the secular courts to inforce the law).

Anybody have any information on whether my guesses are correct?

>- -- Carl

Regards

Chana
>
>
>Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
>Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
>Telephone 972-2-625-7751
>Fax 972-2-625-0461
>mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
>mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
>
>Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
>Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
>Thank you very much.
>

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

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


[ 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         ]