Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 314

Sunday, January 23 2000

• Mechitzos at Weddings
• Re: On the importance of shoveling snow off your sidewalk
• Re: On the importance of shoveling snow off your sidewalk
• Subj: Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Rabenu Tam/wurst
• Histaklus BaNashim
• MO following Mendelssohn?
• Re:Histaklus ba'anashim
• Rabenu Tam/Wurst
• Re: Avodah V4 #307
• Re: On the importance of shoveling snow off your sidewalk
• Re: On the importance of shoveling snow off your sidewalk
• Re: On the importance of shoveling snow off your sidewalk
• RE: Histakluth-3 additional comments
• MO vs RW
• immigrants, was: Avodah v4#311
• RE: MO vs RW
• Re: MO vs RW
• Re: MO vs RW
• Re: Histaklus

----- Original Message -----
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: Histaklus BaNashim


> What I am trying to understand is why those who hold that the reason to
> have separate seating or no possibility of viewing women dancing is a
> fence lest one might come to histaklus do not appear to hold that a
> similar fence needs to be made regarding seeing her finger or her face.
> And yet the actions of this particular olam appears to be in favour of
> just such a distinction.
>
> Carl Sherer in suggesting that the difference is between a nuisance and
> an attractive nuisance would seem to be implying that a man never finds
> a woman attractive (or distracting) when speaking to her (eg at a shop
> counter, in the street, at work, as part of one's function as a Rabbi),
> but that same man finds her incredibly attractive when either seated
> near him at a wedding, or when dancing.
>
> But I am finding this difficult to credit.  Maybe I am just clueless,
> being female, but from what Carl is saying, there is something intrinsic
> about weddings that does something to a man who is otherwise under
> control (not dancing, because if it was just dancing, then mixed seating
> would be fine, it would just be the dancing that would be the problem).
> And not only that, his statement would seem to contradict the gemorra,
> the Rambam, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch and everybody else who makes it
> clear that a man *can* (not necessarily *will* but *can*) have hirhurim
> when he sees a woman's little finger.
>

First of all, yes, there is a definite distinction between seeing women stam
and seeing women dance.

Secondly, more importantly, it seems to me that everyone here is missing an
important point. The mechitza is not so necessary for the men who will not
watch. They will not watch. Personally, the presence of a mechitza is not
essential for me as I will not go to watch the women dance. But, many women
are loathe to dance when there is no mechitza because the fact is that there
are men who will wander over to watch the women dance. Perhaps their
thoughts are entirely pure, but who knows? A mechitza creates a private
space that men are far less likely to invade to watch the dances. (Not
always - I have seen at weddings, for example, at the Palmer House here in
Chicago, where there is a balcony in the main ballroom, men avoiding the
restrictions of the mechitza by going to the balcony in order to watch the
women dance.) Many women are sensitive to being a michshol in this respect
(remember the Gemara in Ta'anis about, I believe, R' Yosi d'min Yukras).
There are women who have asked me whether they may dance at weddings where
there is no mechitza for this reason. Ashreihen! B'zechus nashim tzidkani'os
nig'alu! But why prevent them from dancing if all it takes is a mechitza?

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

I am told that the law in Chicago is that if you do not shovel your walk you
are exempt from liability, but if you do, you are liable. (Most people,
however, shovel anyway.) Besides DDMD, there may actually be some halachic
sense in that ordinance.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: aviva fee <aviva613@hotmail.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 10:47 PM
Subject: On the importance of shoveling snow off your sidewalk


> For those of us in the northeast, we have gotten the first snowfall of the
> season this past week.
>
> What I noticed with this snowfall, and with those of the past, is that
many
> people who are otherwise very fastidious with mitzvahs, neglect the need
to
> shovel snow off their sidewalk.
>
> For those that do not shovel the snow off their sidewalk, they put the
> public in danger.
>
> Given that, why are so many people inactive when it comes to the
obligation
> of this bor be'rishus ha'rabim?
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>

In a message dated 1/23/00 5:46:07 AM US Central Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< I am told that the law in Chicago is that if you do not shovel your walk 
you
 are exempt from liability, but if you do, you are liable. (Most people,
 however, shovel anyway.) Besides DDMD, there may actually be some halachic
 sense in that ordinance. >>

In Chicago, if you don't shovel your sidewalk, other people will steal the 
folding chairs you put out on the street to get dibbies on your parking 
space. Also, the letter carrier will misdeliver anything he thinks you really 
want, like a check. Neighbors with dogs will walk them to your lawn for 
colorful lawn artwork. And visitors, figuring they're going to have to 
stumble through mounds of icy snow to get to your door in the first place, 
will take direct paths and put their footprints all over your front lawn, 
thus ruining the lovely seasonal tableau outside your front window.

This makes halachic sense?

David Finch

In a message dated 1/23/00 12:17:16 AM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< So in this world we have to be sexual beings, but we are also 
 instructed to control our taavos. >>

Exactly. 

David Finch

> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:05:49 EST
> From: DFinchPC@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Rabenu Tam/wurst

<<Maybe. But have you ever *tried* baloney? Slice it thin, and fry it up
with 
some eggs. Serve with toast and coffee.>>

	Baloney is baloney no matter how you slice it.  The information I have
comes from discussions with people who were there,  and (much as it pains
me to admit it <g>) fits well with what R' Harry wrote.  The KSA played
no role per anything I've heard or read.  As I wrote originally,  it was
easier to blame Judaism for their abandonment of it,  than to blame
themselves.


Gershon
PS I like my coffee with milk,  which precludes the baloney

> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:28:43 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re: Histaklus BaNashim 

<<And therefore Yibum is still a lechatchilo over Chalitzo?>>

	Lost you here.  Please elaborate.

Gershon
PS Still waiting for info @ R' Weinberg

 From: Tobrr111@aol.com
> R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:
 
> << Look at the opposition to Mendelsohnn during his time, but eventually MO 
>  followed his shitos..  But he was seen (with soem justification) as poreiz 
> geder IN HIS TIME>>

> Is this true? Is MO really following Mendelsohnn? This is the first time I 
> ever heard such a statement. And I know many MO who would be very insulted by 
> it. The MO I know see themselves as following traditional gedolei yisrael 
> such as RYBS, R. Hirsch, R. Kook, R. Hildisheimer and the RAMBAM.  

IMHO, yes, MO follows Mendelssohn as a model, at least as regards
attitudes towards secular studies.  And Mendelssohn followed Rambam
as a model, consiously.  His first book was a commentary on Rambam's
first book, the Terms of Logic.  It is widely regarded as the best
commentary on that book (I'll take R' Kafih's word on this), and
like the work on which it comments, it is totally secular.  He wrote
about Jewish philosophy in German, in his Jerusalem, as did the Rambam
in the Guide, in Arabic.  He left a body of work in Torah, in exegesis,
although not in halacha.  This last may be the reason for his lack of
recognition today, except as the one whom Reform adopted as their
inspiration (not justifiably, IMHO).

RYBS followed almost the same model, except that he was also a genius
in Gemara and halacha.  Some have noted that the Rambam is known today
for his Torah, while his philosophy (undeservedly) and medical writings
(deservedly) lie neglected.  The Rav's Torah is accepted even in the RW
world, as some have observed, while his philosophy and weltanschauung
are glossed over.

So yes, Mendelssohn is a model for MO.  He was just ahead of his time.
The Jews of Muslim Egypt could accept a Rambam.  The Jews of Christian
Western Europe were not ready to accept a Mendelssohn, but they were
ready, by 1930, to accept RYBS, a (greater) man in the same mold.

Yes, Mendelssohn was poretz geder in his time.  He followed a mold
which made no sense to the Jews of Christian Europe.  Mendelssohn's
integration of TIDE, as it were, was not absorbed by the Jews at
the time, who only saw the secularism, and adopted it, even his own
children.  RYBS' integration of TIDE did not lead to a mass movement 
of assimilation, but rather turned an already assimilating American
Orthodoxy around, made it more self-conscious and self-consistent.

    Jonathan Baker      |  Mabye Shevat should be a month of Sundays, i.e.  
    jjbaker@panix.com   |  rest. As in, uvayom hashvi'i Shevat vayinafash.      
   New web page, featuring Rambam Resources: <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> 

Although Avodah isn't the forum for debating the fine points of
pornography, I must dispute David Finch's remarks {"The non-existence of
pornography directed at women? You have indeed obtained 
modesty, Baruch HaShem. It's out there, truckloads of it, and plenty of 
entrepreneurs have made plenty of money off of it.") on two grounds:

(a) Halevai I should have attained modesty.

(b) At one time, I found myself fairly regularly on 42nd Street in New
York, where store after store featured pornography.  I don't recall even
once seeing a woman leaving such a store.  Further, I have occasionally
read a newspaper which carries ads for X-rated movies (see (a), above). 
As far as I can tell, virtually all the pornography advertised was aimed
at men.  Even the ones featuring males seemed aimed at male homosexuals,
not women.  

In any event, I didn't say "non-existence", but "*almost*  total
non-existence."  Undoubtedly, some exists, but its relative rarity
explains why Chazal were concerned with male exposure to stimuli, and not
female exposure.

Sadya N. Targum


________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

n a message dated 1/23/00 7:31:31 AM US Central Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<<  Baloney is baloney no matter how you slice it.  The information I have
 comes from discussions with people who were there,  and (much as it pains
 me to admit it <g>) fits well with what R' Harry wrote.  The KSA played
 no role per anything I've heard or read.  As I wrote originally,  it was
 easier to blame Judaism for their abandonment of it,  than to blame
 themselves.
 
 
 Gershon
 PS I like my coffee with milk,  which precludes the baloney
  >>

Like my understanding of history, I like my coffee straight-up and bitter, if 
that's how its brewed -- no cream to make it seem softer, no sugar to make it 
seem sweeter.

David Finch

Akiva wrote concerning a change in a psak given by Shmirat Shabbat 
keHilchatah that 
<< He changed his mind because several major poskim (who had given him
 haskamas) objected to his ruling (and threatened to withdraw their
 haskamas. ) >>

Any documentation that anyone has on this?

chaim wasserman

In a message dated 1/23/00 6:46:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< I am told that the law in Chicago is that if you do not shovel your walk 
you
 are exempt from liability, but if you do, you are liable. (Most people,
 however, shovel anyway.) Besides DDMD, there may actually be some halachic
 sense in that ordinance.
  >>

Um, I don't get it.

Jordan

On 23 Jan 00, at 14:10, TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/23/00 6:46:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> 
> << I am told that the law in Chicago is that if you do not shovel your walk 
> you
>  are exempt from liability, but if you do, you are liable. (Most people,
>  however, shovel anyway.) Besides DDMD, there may actually be some halachic
>  sense in that ordinance.
>   >>
> 
> Um, I don't get it.

If you shovel and you leave an ice patch and someone falls on it, 
you're liable. If you left the walk alone and did not shovel it, the 
snow is an Act of G-d for which you are not liable. 

I know someone who successfully sued a store owner in Boston 
because she fell on an ice patch caused by a poor shovelling job 
and broke her hip. 

Make more sense now?

-- Carl


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.

You only are liable for a bor b'reshus ha'rabbim if you are the one who digs
it, not if it was placed there by the hand of Heaven. The snow is not yours.
If, however, you shovel it, you become responsible for it.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <TROMBAEDU@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: On the importance of shoveling snow off your sidewalk


> In a message dated 1/23/00 6:46:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
>
> << I am told that the law in Chicago is that if you do not shovel your
walk
> you
>  are exempt from liability, but if you do, you are liable. (Most people,
>  however, shovel anyway.) Besides DDMD, there may actually be some
halachic
>  sense in that ordinance.
>   >>
>
> Um, I don't get it.
>
> Jordan
>

I would like to argue that
1) There are precedents for personal experimentation if something
causes Hirhur

2) HIRHUR is a technical term associated with (possibly droplets)
of seminal emission

3) SEEING a woman is defined by the rambam as analytical/scrutinizing
not as just seeing
 
Here are some details

1) There is a well known Gmarrah that one tanna said that
Rachav the prostitute was so beautiful that anyone mentioning
her name twice immediately had a seminal emission. To this statement
another tanna replied "But I just said RACHAV RACHAV and nothing
happened to me. The first tanna responded "I meant that only to
people who knew her"

I infer from this Gmarrah that the 2nd tanna had the right to
"Test" whether this particular stimulus evoked emission. I interpret
this to mean that since things that result in (droplets) of seminal
emission
is drabbanan he need not be concerned to test it.

It would follow that if a) watching people dancing b) having long face
to face conversations with women or anything else does not lead to
emissions
there would be NOTHING wrong with it. All statements to the contrary in
acharonim I would interpret as advise on things that probably do lead
to emissions.

2) With regard to David Finch's claim that women do have Hirhuray
Avayrah..
my understanding is that 
	>HIRHUR means by definition anything which leads to (a droplet)
	>of seminal emission
That is, HIRHUR is a technical term with a measurable outcome. It does
not refer to interest or being turned on. The reason women are not 
considered to have hirhur is because they do not have seminal emissions
(I am sure that even David Finch's neurological friends would admit that)

3) The Rambam explicitly cites a verse in Job
	>how should I look at a virgin
But the word look is
	>HITBONAYN 
which of course does not mean to SEE but to ANALYZE/SCRUTINIZE etc

I believe this would remove some (not all) of the confusion on this
topic

Finally for a reason why chazal were against Hirhur I refer you to
my infamous posting on the subject (aug 1998)

Russell Hendel; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 19:10:39 -0600
> From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" 
> <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Re: MO vs RW

<<I think what you say here is an old, and, inaccurate canard. I know 
> of plenty of sources in Right Wing tracts - such as the Michtav
Me'Eliyahu,
> Pachad Yitzchok and others,>>

	Pachad Yitzchok a right wing tract?

	Be that as it may,  may I suggest in this context the letter which
RYGB's post prompted me to reread:  letter 94 in Igros Uksavim,  which
gives a beautiful perspective on Torah/Parnassah.  I would be glad to fax
it to anyone who does not have access to it.

Gershon

> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:21:44 -0500
> From: "S Klagsbrun" <S.Klagsbrun@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #311
> 
> In a message dated 1/21/00 9:16:01 AM US Central Standard Time,
> gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< US coastal waters. However, I would hesitate to use the term
"overwhelming". In order to use this term, one must ignore the countless
individuals who cried the first time they worked on shabbos>>

	I retract the "overwhelming".    Yes, absolutely,  there were many who
cried when they worked the first Shabbos and probably every subsequent
one 

(the origin of the hashkama minyan,  BTW is to allow for davening before
work;   many walked to work and were back  **in time for Mincha** ;  I
just this morning heard of a tshuva asking if those who work on Shabbos
needed to put on Tefilin since they didn't have the "os" of Shabbos)

	My information, however, is that they were a minority.  You need to
include in the "cheshbon" not only those who came for parnasa and found
that they needed to work,  against their will.   You need to include also
the thousands who were influenced by the haskala and couldn't wait to get
to the "free country" to act out what they believed (or didn't believe).

	I won't venture a guess as to the proportions in each group;  doubtless
it depends on the community they came from,  and the years they came.  
 
<<assuming you too are of a generation raised in post - depression
America>>

	I think that applies to all of us <g>.  But,  correct,  my grandparents
A"H came in the 19-teens.

<<Do we want to sit in judgement on that dor, or lump those who failed
these nisyonos into the same group as those who equated and escape from
Europe with an escape from the yolk of Torah?>>

	I don't want to judge either.  We don't know and cannot appreciate not
only the pressures of parnasa in an unsympathetic depression America, 
but also the pressures the Haskala brought to bear. But can we agree that
the KSA was not the proximate cause?

Gershon

> plenty of sources in Right Wing tracts - such as the Michtav 
> Me'Eliyahu,

Don't you think calling Michtav M'Eliyahu a "tract" is a bit dismissive? 

And a "Right Wing Tract" at that?

A tract is a pamphlet -- Michtav M'Eliyahu is several volumes.

Akiva


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

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

I am promoting the MME's perspective!

I was being a little sarcastic.

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: MO vs RW


> > plenty of sources in Right Wing tracts - such as the Michtav 
> > Me'Eliyahu,
> 
> Don't you think calling Michtav M'Eliyahu a "tract" is a bit dismissive? 
> 
> And a "Right Wing Tract" at that?
> 
> A tract is a pamphlet -- Michtav M'Eliyahu is several volumes.
> 
> Akiva
> 
> 
> A reality check a day keeps 
> the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)
> 
> ===========================
> Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
> Jerusalem, Israel 91274  
> 
> 

I do not think the average individual associated with the MO viewpoint would
take the PY as one of their ideologues.

I am glad to have been the catalyst for you to re-read the letter to which I
referred.

BTW, this perspective, it seems, is irreconcilable with the Lithuanian
perspective that the Nefesh HaChaim promotes in 1:8.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 2:16 PM
Subject: MO vs RW


> > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 19:10:39 -0600
> > From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
> > <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> > Subject: Re: MO vs RW
>
> <<I think what you say here is an old, and, inaccurate canard. I know
> > of plenty of sources in Right Wing tracts - such as the Michtav
> Me'Eliyahu,
> > Pachad Yitzchok and others,>>
>
> Pachad Yitzchok a right wing tract?
>

>Just to bring a proof from goyish society, which if anything is far
>more "open" than fruhm society, all the controversies in sports
>reporting are over women reporters being admitted to men's locker
>rooms, where the men are running around unclothed. No one even
>suggests that male reporters should be admitted to women's locker
>rooms. To me, at least, that makes it apparent that the chashash
>is only of men looking at women and not vice versa.

I think there's a couple of other reasonable explanations you have to 
eliminate first:

1. The controversy (actually only over a couple of reporters, I think) is 
recent and coincides with the appearance of women sports reporters over the 
last couple of decades.

2. A lot fewer reporters cover women's sports than men's sports, and more of 
those that report on the former are women. So you're less likely to hear 
about any parallel incidents on the distaff side of the court.

3. Why couldn't the controversy be due to a khshash of "histaklus beanoshim" 
by the women reporters?

My two peruta.

Sholem Berger

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

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


[ 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         ]