Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 382

Monday, February 21 2000

• Hat Cover
• Re: Besmirching Fruhm Sociopaths
• Re: Hat Cover
• Re: Rashi and Pshat, The SOY Sale-some observations
• Re: Midas haDin and Midas Ha Rarachamim
• Re: diyukim - Humor Alert
• Re: Learning from history and biography (was " Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmit...
• Re: Avodah V4 #353
• Rashi
• Fwd: Learning from history and biography (was " Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmi...
• history and halacha
• melodies
• (Fwd) Re: Learning from history and biography (was " Mabul and
• Re: Rashi and Pshat, The SOY Sale-some observations
• Re: Besmirching Fruhm Sociopaths
• Re: history and halacha
• The SE letters - Some Imprerssions

> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 07:57:23 +0200
> From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> Subject: Hat Cover

<<However, since then, I have still  not been able to find them here.
Does this hat cover really exist? If so, does anyone know where I can get
one? (Preferrably in Yerushalayim; if not, then elsewhere). TIA.>>

	It exists;  I have seen them in Flatbush,  so I presume they are
available either here or in Boro Park (for those who don't use the eiruv
<g>)  I don't know about Yerushalayim.

Gershon
PS They look ridiculous.

In a message dated 2/20/00 1:34:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

<< Quietly warning someone that they may want to find 
 a different Rebbe to tutor their son privately would (IMHO - I have no 
 smicha) definitely be mutar. In between, I would certainly be 
 hesitant to "go public" with that kind of information without 
 consulting a competent posek.  >>

Quiet warnings are irresponsible where a proven danger to the community 
exists. This is not the forum for me to discuss this, but I assure you that 
if a group of my friends had been willing to issue loud and clear calls for 
such a Rabbis censure, a great number of people would have avoided a good 
deal of pain and persecution.

Jordan Hirsch 

On 20 Feb 00, at 16:32, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> PS They look ridiculous.

Given that I would likely only have to use them in communities 
where no one knows me anyway, I really don't care :-) 

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

At the beginning of Parshas Vashaev , Rashbam points out that that he 
discussed the issue of Pshat with Rashi . Rashbam records that Rashi told him 
that if he were to redo his perush on Chumash, he would have adhered even 
more so to Pshat. This  intellectual honesty is well worth the striving for 
of all of our list members, regardless of where we stand on inyanei hashkafa. 
   Last Motzaei Shabbos, I went to the SOY sale with my younger daughter. The 
sale is a tremendous kiddush HaShem. The sheer volumes that have been sold 
each day speak to a thirst for Torah. The secret of the sale is that you will 
see bnei and bnos Torah as well as heterodox Jews ranging from Satmar, Mir , 
Lakewood, REITS, Stern and JYS in one room looking to purchase sifrei Kodesh. 
                          Zeliglaw@aol.com
                          Steven Brizel

The Rambam in several places stresses that the preferable way of Avodas 
HaShem is from Ahavah, as opposed to Yirah. In several teshuva drashos, RYBS 
connected Ahavah to rachamim and yirah to Din.Many of these are published in 
Al Hateshuva (edited by Pinchas Peli). 
   in Parshas Emor, there is a fascinating Ramban on the interplay between 
din and rachamim on Rosh haShana. It is well worth your perusal on this issue.
                                                             Zeliglaw@aol.com
                                                             Steven Brizel

On 20 Feb 00, at 23:26, D & E-H Bannett wrote:

> And on Thursday morning in shir shel yom how often do you hear umitzur devash, - 
> asbi'eka.  It should certainly be: umitzur, - devash asbi'eka. 
> But then, most nights you hear ohev 'amo, - Yisrael, the Jews like themselves,  
> instead of ohev, - 'amo Yisrael, God likes us. The Sefaradim are better off because 
> they say ohev et 'amo which makes a bit of a natural break.  And let's not forget those 
> who don't pronounce the hei which results, for those with strict Ashkenazi choilem, in 
> the interesting comment on HKB"H,  Oiy'ev 'amo Yisrael.

:-) When I was a growing up in Boston, much of the weekday 
minyan was often aveilim who came to shul for their eleven months 
of saying Kaddish and that was it. One year, there was a whole 
group of them that sat together at the back of the shul, and they 
got a tremendous kick out of Monday's shir shel yom. They would 
all say "hoo yenahgeinu al Moose." In fact, one of them would call 
out before we started shir shel yom, "we got the Moose today." 

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 20 Feb 00, at 15:47, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/20/00 2:41:48 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:
> 
> << What is the unique, crucial contribution of non-sanitized history/biography
>  that could possibly justify violating (or taking the risk of possibly
>  violating) the precepts of l'shon ha-ra?
>   >>
> 
> Truth.

Even if it's true, it can still be lashon hara. See Chafetz Chaim, Clal 
1 s'if 1.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In a message dated 2/10/00 1:54:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

David Finch wrote<< History belongs to  HaShem (literally!), not to the 
people, big or small, who create it. It's our  job to try to understand 
history as accurately as possible. The rules of  analysis contained in Talmud 
are essential to us in reaching that  understanding. We'll never really 
succeed completely, but we're obligated to 
try. Ignoring what actually did or did not happen can't be part of that 
obligation. >>

I believe it is Samson Raphael Hirsch who indicated that the pasuk "z'chor 
yemos olam, binu shnos dod vador" should be taken to mean: Recall history 
(and learn from it that) we must understand the changes (from the root 
shin-nun-hey, change) that occur from generation to generation.

Now in all of historical excurses judgements are made. The key to accuracy is 
to understand how to distinguish between similar and dissimilar situations 
and environments.

I notice consistently that when one, for instance, argues that 50 or 100 
years ago we didn't do things that way, all too often a reflex-like answer is 
shot back, without any forethought, "well then times were different" or, 
especially in matters in the realm of tznius, "well, then times were not as 
bad as today, therefore..."  Such statements do not take in to consideration 
that times do change, but not always for the worse.

Ignoring what was or what wasn't is a human function of perception. We want 
things to coincide with our image of what we believe reality is or ought to 
be. Unless, of course, we are prepared to be objective. That, in historical 
analysis, takes an immense amount of scholarship, ingenuity and integrity.

chaim wasserman 

> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:22:09 EST
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Rashi
> 
> In a message dated 2/20/00 1:16:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<<which are not strictly pshat.  Has anyone else noticed this?  Any
thoughts?
  
The L. Rebbe has many Sichos on this.>>

	I'm listening.........

Gershon

--part1_fb.26990c4.25e1db1a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

--part1_fb.26990c4.25e1db1a_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: DFinchPC@aol.com
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Full-name: DFinchPC
Message-ID: <bb.126a1c4.25e1daec@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:03:56 EST
Subject: Re: Learning from history and biography (was
	" Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmit...
To: sherer@actcom.co.il
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 44

In a message dated 2/20/00 4:48:03 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<<  << What is the unique, crucial contribution of non-sanitized 
history/biography
 >  that could possibly justify violating (or taking the risk of possibly
 >  violating) the precepts of l'shon ha-ra?
 >   >>
 > 
 > Truth.
 
 Even if it's true, it can still be lashon hara. See Chafetz Chaim, Clal 
 1 s'if 1.
  >>

Certainly. Lashon hara and emes are competing values. I can see the value of 
the Chafetz Chaim's teachings on lashon hara when it comes to day-to-day 
relationships within the community. I'm less comfortable applying them to the 
study of history, for which they were not, I think, originally intended.

David Finch

--part1_fb.26990c4.25e1db1a_boundary--

With due apologies to the learned Rabbis who have debated the question
of the propriety of publishing controversial material from or about
certain illustrious personalities; what is the inherent problem?  If the
material is published in a venue where it is not likely to produce
villification of that personality, then where is the character
defamation and what is the loshon ha'ra?  The Torah UMada Journal is
directed to an audience who would be sympathetic to the theme of the
letters of Rav Y.Y. Weinberg that it published, then how can such
publication be considered prohibited?  If the problem is the presumption
that the author did not wish such letters to become public, then there
should be some indication from the author that those correspondances are
to remain private.  It is clear that after the death of the author,
there is no longer a way of establishing which of his letters are not
publishable.  In the absence of any indication to the recipient of the
letters on their disposition, the recipient or his heirs should be at
liberty to use their judgement in making such correspondance public.
The historian who gains legitimate access to the letters of the
illustrious personality should also be able to publish those letters if
they serve a serious purpose and are not directed to an audience who
would only use those letters to villify the author.  The historian does
have to exercise careful judgement concerning  the details of the life
of the personality that may  legitimately be withheld from public
knowledge.  The views of that personality, however,  are normally not a
strictly private matter.  If the letters or speeches refer to other
personalities in a derogatory fashion, then a judgement must be made on
possibly censoring those names so as to insure that there is no
character defamation involved.  The key is the objectivity and serious
purpose of the intended publication, and the high ethical standard of
the writer/publisher.  The fact that some readers will leap to judgement
of the personality or the writer/publisher does not, by itself, make
such publication problematic.  Lashon ha'ra has to do, it seems to me,
with the intent of the author and his intended audience - not with a
minority who may be offended.

And what is the offence?  That a certain illustrious person is shown to
have, at least occasionally, harbored certain doubts about the eternal
truth of everything that the sages said; that he was critical of some of
unnamed Orthodox leaders for hypocracy or inattention to ethical
issues?  Or is it really, that they are offended that such doubts and
such critiques are exposed to the public?   In the latter case, in the
absence of names how is there loshon ha'ra?  In the former case, the
offence is clearly not one of loshon ha'ra, but of ideology.  But that
ideological difference is partly what distinguishes modern from
traditional Orthodox viewpoints.  Then let us discuss those differences
and not use such arguments as loshon ha'ra and cherem d'Rabbenu Gershom
as surrogates for the real issue.

Furthermore, why is there a storm raised about publishing Rav Weinbergs
critical views of unnamed Orthodox leaders when other illustrious
personalities have seen fit to be severly critical of named colleagues,
or of even more illustrious predecessors?  I will forego the more
obvious examples such as Rav Yaakov Emden's very dismal view of  Rav
Yonasan Eybeshitz or the frequent "compliments" paid to the Rambam's
halachot by Harav Avraham Ibn Daud.  A more telling example, however, is
the extensive attack on the validity of the Moreh Nevuchim and the
alleged disasterous consequences of that work of the Rambam by Rav
Shamshon b. Raphael Hirsch.  Here we have a case of a young Rav who did
not hesitate to roundly and passionately attack the perceived ideology
of one of the truly important figures in Jewish history,  in the 18th
"letter" of his "19 Letters of Ben Uziel".   Although the Chazon Ish was
against the inclusion of those pages in a Hebrew translation of the
book, it has been included in both the old and new English versions that
I have seen.  Will the opponents of the Torah UMada publication of Rav
Weinberg's letters, and even the biography of Rav Weinberg, also decry
the publication of Rav Hirsch's attacks on the Rambam?  If a distinction
is to be made, would it not be based on ideology rather than loshon
ha'ra?

In sum, I see no reason why a shomer mitzvot could not write an
objective biography of an illustrious chacham, provided that the author
maintained high scholarly and ethical standards, tailored his writing to
the intended audience, and had a serious purpose in his portrayal.
Obviously in writing for a youthful audience, a more positive and easily
assimilated point of view is in order.  In writing for an adult
audience, the full range of the subject's personality and views can be
expressed, and potential problems with loshon ha'ra can be avoided by
using good judgement.  Even with such care, the alleged ideology of the
author may be attacked by those who are really critical of the ideology
of the subject.  That is the price that often must be paid by those who
seem to promote minority points of view, or are seekers of the truth.

Yitzchok Zlochower

R' Mark Rayman asked <<< There are some melodies which cause the tzibbur
to violate halakha, like the amain in the yontef shmoneh esreh, the
melody causes people to answer an an amain chatufa (hamevarech es amo
yisrael ba SHA...OMEIN).  Can anyone think of any others?  Is there a
limud zchus? >>>

My pet peeve along these lines is the tune often used for "hamachazir
sh'chinaso l'tziyon", which ends on a high note, inducing everyone to
respond with "modim anachnu lach", and they omit the "amen" entirely. (If
you don't know what I'm talking about, just pay more attention tomorrow
morning, and you'll see what I mean.)

Almost every other bracha of the Shemoneh Esray ends on a low note,
prompting the "amen", but this one is different. If I have not explained
this well, perhaps someone more musically inclined that I can explain the
phenomenon that I'm describing.

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
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.

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il>
To:             	DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject:        	Re: Learning from history and biography (was	" Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmit...
Send reply to:  	sherer@actcom.co.il
Date sent:      	Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:07:37 +0200

On 20 Feb 00, at 19:03, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/20/00 4:48:03 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> 
> <<  << What is the unique, crucial contribution of non-sanitized 
> history/biography
>  >  that could possibly justify violating (or taking the risk of possibly
>  >  violating) the precepts of l'shon ha-ra?
>  >   >>
>  > 
>  > Truth.
>  
>  Even if it's true, it can still be lashon hara. See Chafetz Chaim, Clal 
>  1 s'if 1.
>   >>
> 
> Certainly. Lashon hara and emes are competing values. 

I think not being oiver on Lashon Hara wins unless there is a 
specific toeles (not just because it's true) in saying the emes. See 
Hilchos Rechilus Clal 1 S'if 8.

I can see the value of 
> the Chafetz Chaim's teachings on lashon hara when it comes to day-to-day 
> relationships within the community. I'm less comfortable applying them to the 
> study of history, for which they were not, I think, originally intended.

See Chafetz Chaim Hilchos Lashon Hara Clal 8 S'if 9.

-- Carl


------- End of forwarded message -------
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 20 Feb 00, at 17:29, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:

>    Last Motzaei Shabbos, I went to the SOY sale with my younger daughter. The 
> sale is a tremendous kiddush HaShem. The sheer volumes that have been sold 
> each day speak to a thirst for Torah. The secret of the sale is that you will 
> see bnei and bnos Torah as well as heterodox Jews ranging from Satmar, Mir , 
> Lakewood, REITS, Stern and JYS in one room looking to purchase sifrei Kodesh. 

The counterparts here are the Mosad HaRav Kook sale (which 
takes place from Isru Chag of Pesach to Rosh Chodesh Iyar) and 
Shavua HaSefer (which takes place a week or two after Shavuos). 
The former is limited to the sforim of that particular publisher 
(unbelievable prices by the way), while the latter takes place in 
multiple venues and includes non-Sifrei Kodesh.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 20 Feb 00, at 17:03, TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/20/00 1:34:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> 
> << Quietly warning someone that they may want to find 
>  a different Rebbe to tutor their son privately would (IMHO - I have no 
>  smicha) definitely be mutar. In between, I would certainly be 
>  hesitant to "go public" with that kind of information without 
>  consulting a competent posek.  >>
> 
> Quiet warnings are irresponsible where a proven danger to the community 
> exists. 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But I don't think that I can 
make the determination to "go public" without consulting a 
competent posek (and obviously one who is not a nogea ba'davar). 

This is not the forum for me to discuss this, but I assure you that 
> if a group of my friends had been willing to issue loud and clear calls for 
> such a Rabbis censure, a great number of people would have avoided a good 
> deal of pain and persecution.

Lo aleinu, I think we are all aware of such incidents in our 
communities and elsewhere....

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 20 Feb 00, at 23:33, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:

> With due apologies to the learned Rabbis who have debated the question
> of the propriety of publishing controversial material from or about
> certain illustrious personalities; what is the inherent problem?  If the
> material is published in a venue where it is not likely to produce
> villification of that personality, then where is the character
> defamation and what is the loshon ha'ra?  The Torah UMada Journal is
> directed to an audience who would be sympathetic to the theme of the
> letters of Rav Y.Y. Weinberg that it published, then how can such
> publication be considered prohibited?  

I think there's something to be said about a difference between 
saying "nura d'bei planya" to a group of people who will not think 
that is a gnus, and publishing something in a journal that, although 
ostensibly directed at a limited audience, is likely to be played up 
well beyond that intended audience. The Chafetz Chaim says in 
many places that a person's intentions and tone of voice can turn 
something that would not otherwise be lashon hara into something 
that is lashon hara. If the intention of the TuM journal in publishing 
those letters (and I will admit that I have not seen them except to 
the extent that they have been published on this list) had only been 
to say to its own ideological adherents, "see, the SE was 
sympathetic to our camp too. But don't use that as a club against 
the RW," I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. But 
putting it in a forum where there is a potential - even a likelihood - 
that they would gain further publicity may take us beyond the 
neutrality of "nura d'bei planya." 

Suppose I say, "Yankel is a wealthy guy, so you can go to his 
house anytime to ask for a donation." Obviously, if it was meant as 
"Yankel is such a tzadik he gives tzedaka to anyone who asks 
anytime," it may not be lashon hara, but if it is said to a group of 
schnorrers who will then hound Yankel when he leaves for shul in 
the morning and throughout the day, it may well be lashon hara. I 
agree with your implied analogy between the letters and "nura d'bei 
planya," I'm not sure I agree with you as to where it leads in this 
particular case.

If the problem is the presumption
> that the author did not wish such letters to become public, then there
> should be some indication from the author that those correspondances are
> to remain private.  

Do you write at the bottom of all your letters that you wish them to 
remain private? Don't you assume that when you write to one of the 
esteemed members of this forum privately, they will not turn around 
and share what you write with the entire list, even if you don't make 
such a notation? BE"H you should live and be well, but what would 
change about that in 120 years?

It is clear that after the death of the author,
> there is no longer a way of establishing which of his letters are not
> publishable.  In the absence of any indication to the recipient of the
> letters on their disposition, the recipient or his heirs should be at
> liberty to use their judgement in making such correspondance public.

I don't know enough about how the letters became public to speak 
to this point, but I think others on this list do. But what if the heirs 
were R"L reshaim who wanted to use their father's letters for their 
own purposes? Would you then still suggest that they have control 
over them? What halachic basis is there for a presumption that 
they can be made public in whatever forum the heirs choose?

  The views of that personality, however,  are normally not a
> strictly private matter.  

I know that I have written many things in anger that I wish in 
retrospect I had not written. I would not want those letters to find 
their way into the hands of people other than the original recipients. 
I suspect that others on this list feel the same way. Other than the 
fact that a gadol is less likely than someone like me to have written 
something in anger (and the fact that people will be more interested 
in what a gadol wrote than they will be in what I wrote), why should 
a gadol be different?

 The fact that some readers will leap to judgement
> of the personality or the writer/publisher does not, by itself, make
> such publication problematic.  Lashon ha'ra has to do, it seems to me,
> with the intent of the author and his intended audience - not with a
> minority who may be offended.

But isn't one of the keys of Hilchos Lashon Hara that you're not 
supposed to say something about Reuven that the listener would 
regard as a gnus about Reuven? And if there's a reasonable 
likelihood that what you are writing (and particularly when you are 
publishing something) will be read by someone who will regard it as 
a gnus, aren't you saying lashon hara about Reuven at least when 
it reaches the ears of that recipient? If you were talking to Reuven 
and Shimon and you wanted to tell Reuven about Berl's dedication 
to learning because you think it would help him to learn better, but 
Shimon would regard it as a gnus to Berl, wouldn't you make sure 
that Shimon wouldn't hear it before you told it to Reuven? Or would 
you send a letter to the email list that they both frequent knowing 
that both could read it there? Wouldn't that be telling lashon hara to 
Shimon about Berl even if it's something that Reuven wouldn't 
regard as a gnus?

> And what is the offence?  That a certain illustrious person is shown to
> have, at least occasionally, harbored certain doubts about the eternal
> truth of everything that the sages said; that he was critical of some of
> unnamed Orthodox leaders for hypocracy or inattention to ethical
> issues?  Or is it really, that they are offended that such doubts and
> such critiques are exposed to the public?   

I haven't read the letters, but from what I have gleaned from the 
criticisms posted to this list, I don't think the problem with the 
letters was just a question of sfaikos in emuna or criticism of fruhm 
leaders. I think it was as much a function of the addressee of the 
letters as anything else.

In the latter case, in the
> absence of names how is there loshon ha'ra?  In the former case, the
> offence is clearly not one of loshon ha'ra, but of ideology.  But that
> ideological difference is partly what distinguishes modern from
> traditional Orthodox viewpoints.  Then let us discuss those differences
> and not use such arguments as loshon ha'ra and cherem d'Rabbenu Gershom
> as surrogates for the real issue.

I don't think anyone - certainly on this list - has a problem with 
discussing ideologies. 

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

--- Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
wrote:
> With due apologies to the learned Rabbis who have
> debated the question
> of the propriety of publishing controversial
> material from or about
> certain illustrious personalities; what is the
> inherent problem?  If the
> material is published in a venue where it is not
> likely to produce
> villification of that personality, then where is the
> character
> defamation and what is the loshon ha'ra?  The Torah
> UMada Journal is
> directed to an audience who would be sympathetic to
> the theme of the
> letters of Rav Y.Y. Weinberg that it published, then
> how can such
> publication be considered prohibited?  If the
> problem is the presumption
> that the author did not wish such letters to become
> public, then there
> should be some indication from the author that those
> correspondances are
> to remain private. 


I've finally gotten the opportunity to read the TuM
journal article by Marc Shapiro that published the SE
letters in question and I'd like to express some of my
impressions.

First of all it should be stated that all of these
letters were written to a personal freind, Dr. Samuel
Atlas, who was a long time friend of the SE's dating
back to at least the early 1940's. Dr. Atlas was a
member of the Reform HUC faculty. Although personally
observant (I believe) he was, to the best of my
knowledge, a non person in the Orthodox world, and
obviously totally rejected because of his association
with the HUC. He was also, paradoxically, a major
Talmid Chacham which the SE held in such high regard
that he was gratified when his name (the SE's) was
attached to Hagaos he submitted to Dr. Atlas on a
sefer he (Atlas) published (I think it was on the
Rayvid). 

It is relatively clear to me that the SE letters were
a private correspondence between two great friends
that were never intended to see the light of day.  The
SE had a friend, whom he trusted, who was outside of
the establishment Torah community, whom he was able to
"pour out his heart" by communicating his innermost
private thoughts about issues and people of the day
without fear of retribution from peers.  I'm convinced
by the tone of those letters that in his wildest
dreams, he never thought those letters would be
published. In this he erred.

JTS, to their credit kept those letters private in
their archives but they believed that historical
research by reputable historians justified the release
of those letters. I believe this to be an error as
well.  It is one thing for a historiasn to read those
letters and then form a conclusion based on them and
it is quite another thing to publish, what had to be
understood as the most private of thoughts by the SE.

As to the content of those letters, who amongst Klal
Israel, (that has any kind of brain) hasn't had at
least one or more or even all the thoughts (or like
thoughts) that the SE had?  I include even the Right
Wing (RW).  I certainly have had thoughts like this
and have expressed them here on the list. I've had
private conversations with many thinking people who
clearly identify themselves as RW including many 
Roshei Kollel who've expressed some of the very
thoughts that were expressed by the SE in his letters
to Samuel Atlas.  It's not that I've heard one
individual express all of those opinions, but at one
time or another, I have heard from the RW just about
everything the SE was complaining about.

Are the contents of those letters Lashon Hara (LH)?  I
believe that LH applies only if the individual spoken
about was alive. But that doesn't make it OK to
publish those letters.  I believe it entails a certain
lack of respect and honor, and a great deal of
Chutzpah to publish words that would clearly not have
been the wish of their original writer, just because
they might justify a thought or two that someone else
may have had at one time or another. 

Dr. Shapiro says that he "knew" the mind of the Sridei
Eish.  Perhaps. But one cannot IMHO judge an
individual by his relationship with only one other
individual.  In his article Dr. Shapiro makes no
attempt to show any other facet of the SE except one.
If one were to only read these letters one would get
the impression that the SE was a bitter, lonely man
who was against the entire thrust of what the Orthodox
Jewish world was doing.  Not one positive thing can be
said about such an individual.  Everything the SE
wrote about was only negative. One can only conclude
that the SE was a negative person who went to his
grave a very sad man. We know nothing about his
relationships (or correspondences) with other people.
We know nothing of his Teshuvos (from these letters).
All we know is that he was a bitter man.  Is this the
picture Dr. Shapiro wants to paint?  Well, in his TuM
artricle, he succeeded. 

Perhaps his book is different.

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