Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 406

Thursday, March 2 2000

• secular studies and mechanchim
• Principles For Sale - Contact Shas
• Re: Study of History
• Just saw this on MJ
• Re: Chinuch along multiple tracks
• Re: TIDE v. TuM - I Think I Got it
• Re: Principles For Sale - Contact Shas
• Re: Principles For Sale - Contact Shas
• Re: Tephillah laMelech
• still more on diyyukim
• Study of History
• Re: Avodah V4 #399
• Re: Study of History
• Attitudes toward Taamei haMitzvos
• Re: Tephillah laMelech
• Haredi Bashing
• Re: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• TuM and TIDE: Definitions
• Re: Tephillah laMelech
• Re: Principles For Sale - Contact Shas

> 
> Moreover, just to make sure we really could not figure him out, 
> RYBS totally broke the mold by going to university and then 
> returning to the Beis Medrash as a talmid chacham and 
> mechanech. How many people do that today, and do both at a 
> level anywhere approaching the level at which RYBS did it? R. 
> Aaron Lichtenstein comes to mind - but not too many others. And 
> what they did (and in RAL's case is doing) cannot easily be defined 
> as either TIDE or TuM, because it is neither and yet it is both. For 
> typically, in both TIDE and TuM, once you leave the Beis Medrash, 
> you don't come back on a full time basis until you join a retirement 
> Kollel.
> 

I think basically all the roshei yeshiva at YU (including Rav Aharon
Soloveitchik and Rav Schacter) have an extensive secular background and
several have PhDs. In terms of level that merely means that RYBS was
above others in terms of intellect.

On the other hand in Israel it was quite rare for a rosh yeshiva in
a hesder yeshiva to have a university degree (of course excluding the
Americans and British that moved to Israel).

As I previously wrote I feel that a science background is more than
just knowledge that one can ask an expert. It is an appreciation of a
different approach.

Eli Turkel

From today's Chicago Tribune: (In an article
discussing Shas's defection from Barak's coalition on
the matter of returning the Golan) 

"It may be possible for him (Barak) to lure Shas back
into the fold by promising more financial help for
it's ailing Orthodox school system."

Whether this is the case or not, why is it that a
strongly identifiable orthodox group, headed by a
Gadol of the stature of R. Ovadia Yosef,  can be so
easily percieved as willing to sell out it's values
for money?  Of course, we all know about the desperate
need for money to run Chinuch inststutions. But does
selling out ones values qualify as legitmate
fundraising?  Should Mosdos accept drug money?  Or a
Mafia donation?  If the Golan is for sale then why not
Bayit VeGan?  After all what is more important, a
silly little neighborhood or the survival of Shas's
school system?  

Maybe R. Yosf feels that Israel retaining the Golan
has absolutely no halachic significance.  Maybe he
feels that it has no strategic signifcance.  I don't
know.  But why should a recognizable group be
percieved by the entire civilized world as a sell-out
for money?

Isn't that a chilul HaShem?

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

On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 07:55:17AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
:         Rashi there brings a Medrash that b'schar that Miriam 
: waited for Moshe by the Yeor, Hashem made all of Bnei Yisrael 
: wait for Miriam. IMHO that only works if Bnei Yisrael knew why 
: they were waiting, as Miriam knew why she was waiting by the 
: Yeor.

And I was explaining the Rashi lehefech! The kavod for Miriam is that they
/didn't/ know why they were waiting. Hashem thereby saved her embarassment,
because, as I wrote last time, they would have noticed (first time they
wanted something to wash down that mun) if they moved on without her.
Hashem hid her tzara'as from the kahal by making them wait -- and that
kindness was the kavod He showed her.

-mi

Might be of interest to some here :-). (I continue to hold out for a free
copy :-) ).

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


From: Marc Shapiro <shapirom2@UofS.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:52:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: New book on Rabbi Weinberg

In response to all who have contacted me about purchasing copies of my
book, Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy. I have just learnt
that it is being sold by elgrande.com for 43% off list price -- this is
even cheaper than the YU seforim sale, at which over 80 were sold. So
anyone who is interested please order on-line.

                 Marc Shapiro

On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 07:55:17AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: I agree with you. Perhaps it should have said "multiple tracks" 
: instead of "two tracks."

My point was merely that if you have one "track" per kid, you don't really
have tracks. You're not going to found a mosad for each "track". Which is
what I thought you were talking about WRT Maaravah.

AIUI, what RSRH was talking about was having a flexible school, not multiple
rigid ones.

-mi

----- Original Message -----

> 2. In a TIDE school, students are taught limudei chol but are
> encouraged to try careers in Torah (chinuch or learning full time)
> upon graduation before exploring other areas of employment. In a
> TuM school, graduates are taught to move to other areas of
> employment more quickly, with any post-graduation pre-career
> learning being done mainly to give a stronger basis for functioning
> as a baalebus. By comparison, in a Torah only school, students
> are encouraged to continue learning full time until (and unless) that
> becomes absolutely impossible.
>

I think aderaba.

In a true TIDE school, the future of a professional is viewed as equally
laudable as one of a mechanech, or a scholar.

In a true TuM school, one could eqaully become a Jewsih or secular scholar,
but a professional would be looked down upon.

In a true Torah Only school, one should preferably become a Kli Kodesh, but
b'di'eved one might enter a trade or a non-academic oriented profession.

Another difference between TIDE & TuM: In a true TIDE school, secular
studies will be taught by a Yerei Shomayim even if he is not the best
scholar available, the curriculum will be tailored in a similar fashion; in
a true TuM school, secular studies will be taught by the most outstanding
scholar available, even if he is an Apikores, and the curriculum will follow
a similar path.

Of course "true" or "ideal" models of these schools exist only in the
rarefied stratosphere of Avodah discussions, not in the grim "real" world
beyond our virtuous [intentional] reality.

Harry Maryles wrote:


> "It may be possible for him (Barak) to lure Shas back
> into the fold by promising more financial help for
> it's ailing Orthodox school system."
> 
> Whether this is the case or not, why is it that a
> strongly identifiable orthodox group, headed by a
> Gadol of the stature of R. Ovadia Yosef,  can be so
> easily percieved as willing to sell out it's values
> for money? 


Because media branding works. The article tells you it may be so, and
the reader is then open to the possibility.



> [D]oes selling out ones values qualify as legitmate
> fundraising? 


Of course not. 



> Should Mosdos accept drug money?  Or a
> Mafia donation? 


I guess that depends how open the drug dealers are about the source of
their donations, and what, if anything, they expect in return. Though in
general I'd say no.



> If the Golan is for sale then why not
> Bayit VeGan?  After all what is more important, a
> silly little neighborhood or the survival of Shas's
> school system?


Seems to me you're not only open to the idea of Shas selling out, but
have accepted it as a fait accompli. I think that's a mistake. At least
I hope it is. Or it will seriously affect how I vote next time.



> know.  But why should a recognizable group be
> percieved by the entire civilized world as a sell-out
> for money?


I didn't see Shas create that perception. Not this time around anyway.
The party has held out in the past over what were percieved to be minor
issues compared to the schools, but I like to think it's for real when
it counts. Anyway, those issues may have helped to create the
atmosphere, but the idea was put in your head by the press, not by a
Shas spokesman. 




> 
> Isn't that a chilul HaShem?



Yes. But not, in my opinion, on the part of the party. By the press, and
by whichever gov't spokesman who gave them the idea.




---sam

On 2 Mar 00, at 6:23, Harry Maryles wrote:

> >From today's Chicago Tribune: (In an article
> discussing Shas's defection from Barak's coalition on
> the matter of returning the Golan) 
> 
> "It may be possible for him (Barak) to lure Shas back
> into the fold by promising more financial help for
> it's ailing Orthodox school system."

This is - to say the least - a gross oversimplification. Even with 
respect to Shas' educational system, the money has become a 
secondary issue. What seems to be (justifiably) more important to 
them is that Yossi Sarid, Minister of Education, is determined to 
exercise the same control over the Charedi school system as over 
every other school system in the country. If you had seen another 
headline in today's Post, you would realize where that could lead. 
The person who is supposed to be in charge of Charedi education 
in the ministry is a sgan sar from Shas. He has NO duties and NO 
responsibilities because Sarid will not give him any.

> Whether this is the case or not, why is it that a
> strongly identifiable orthodox group, headed by a
> Gadol of the stature of R. Ovadia Yosef,  can be so
> easily percieved as willing to sell out it's values
> for money?  Of course, we all know about the desperate
> need for money to run Chinuch inststutions. But does
> selling out ones values qualify as legitmate
> fundraising?  

I have a sense that you think that their educational system is trying 
to get more money than what they would otherwise deserve. This is 
not the case. In this instance, the Minister of Education has been 
holding up Shas' funding for months in order to force them to 
comply with the policies of other schools that receive public 
funding. One of the major points in those policies is to have a 
maximum class size of 40. The Shas schools have a maximum 
class size, IIRC, of 25. Where would you rather send your children 
to school? And that's exactly the point (and where the politics 
come into it). Shas is increasing its political clout and making kids 
fruhm by attracting parents who would rather have a smaller class 
size (and hot lunches). And THAT'S what irks Yossi Sarid.

Should Mosdos accept drug money?  Or a
> Mafia donation?  

No and no. Although someone on another list essentially argued 
"why not" a couple of months ago in response to a post of mine. 
Say what you will about the Israeli government what it hands out is 
neither drug nor mob money.

If the Golan is for sale then why not
> Bayit VeGan?  After all what is more important, a
> silly little neighborhood or the survival of Shas's
> school system?  

There was a whole analysis about Shas in the morning papers 
here. The conclusion was that although R. Ovadia himself 
genuinely believes in "territorial compromise," Shas' electorate is 
overwhelmingly right wing, and all the money in the world will not 
convince them to alienate that electorate. Translation - Shas does 
not appear to be for sale on this one, and even if the Golan treaty 
passes the Knesset (doubtful in light of yesterday's vote), it is 
unlikely that it would pass a referendum, particularly if the Shalom 
proposal goes through (I didn't realize until I read the morning paper 
that if Shalom's proposal goes through 65% of the actual voters 
would have to vote in favor of a treaty - with all the talk of Barak's 
"rout" last year, HE didn't get that high a percentage of the vote).

> Maybe R. Yosf feels that Israel retaining the Golan
> has absolutely no halachic significance.  Maybe he
> feels that it has no strategic signifcance.  I don't
> know.  But why should a recognizable group be
> percieved by the entire civilized world as a sell-out
> for money?
> 
> Isn't that a chilul HaShem?

Yes, it is. But I think it's all lashon hara by the newspapers, at 
least in this case. Don't make it worse by being mekabel it.

-- 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.

RM Berger wrote:

>>There is a pretty clear chiyuv, from Chazal through the 19th century, to
daven for the wellfare of the country you live in.  So, on what grounds do so 
many of us skip it?>>

The Magen Avraham in hilchos birkas hamazon says that it is assur to daven for 
the welfare of a nochri [I know, I can bring plenty of mekoros against him].  
The Seder Ya'akov (on maseches Avodah zarah) suggests that the mekoros about 
being mispalel for the malchus is a HEITER and not a chiyuv.

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:09:21 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re: still more on diyyukim 

<<The Roedelheim and Koren have Rivavos {1st veis with a chataf patach}
and other 
chumashim have riv'vos {the 1st veis with a sheva na}.  There is afaik a 
machlokes on double consonants, and that some make what would be the
first shevo
into a chataf, 

Does anyhone out there know the original baalei plugta?  And if the shevo
na is 
indeed in error, who then is the first to point this out?>>

	The Minchas Shai's shita,  as I believe I posted recently,  is that such
combinations have a sheva only.  There are exceptions,  such as rivavos
alfei Yisrael,  uzahav ha'aretz hahi,  etc.

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:51:47 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Study of History

<<Hashem punished her openly? How? He made a point of not moving the amud
ha'anan / ha'eish while Miriam has tzora'as. As the intervals over which
it moved was pretty random, no one is going to wonder about it. OTOH, had
HKBH made the camp move during that week, and the Be'eir Miriam would
have
stayed behind with her -- THAT would have been befarhesia.

Who other than her brothers knew?>>

	I never looked at it that way.  Then I considered WHY I hadn't and
realized that there are millions of people through the doros who were
'told' about the incident!

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

RJ  Zuckerman wrote:

>>would it ever be possible, and if so under what circumstances, for a gadol to 
cease being a gadol, and thus lose his entitlement to whatever presumptions are 
accorded a gadol?<<

RD Riceman wrote:

>>What about Yochanan Cohen Gadol?>>


Don't forget R. Elishah ben Avuyah.

In a message dated 3/2/00 10:47:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

>   I never looked at it that way.  Then I considered WHY I hadn't and
>  realized that there are millions of people through the doros who were
>  'told' about the incident!
>  

And it is one of the 6 Zchiros, as I pointed out RAshi in begining of Shlach 
says that it was known.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I was writing on scj about the role of the "spirit of the law" in O, in
distinction to the role given by liberal Jews. In short, Hashem wrote the
letter of the law, so we assume that the letter accurately reflects the
spirit. OTOH, we can't know the mind of G-d. Therefore our notion of what
the spirit is shifts as we see how the law ends up dealing with different
situations.

Detour that I didn't make on scj:
In truth aggadita has some causative relationship with halachah, at least
that when all else is equal, and either p'sak is equally valid, we tend to
follow the one that fits out hashkafah. Also, there are chumros that are
aggadically caused that can become minhag Yisrael. 

Anyway, here's what I wrote. Please feel free to correct me, so that I can
correct any misimpressions I may have created.

                 ...   Brisk thought (the thought promulgated by the Rabbis
Soloveitchik from the city of Brisk in Lithuania) does not believe the spirit
of the law is at all knowable, and therefore trying to understand it is not
a worthwhile pursuit.

R' JB Soloveitchik, despite his heritage, took a less extreme position: that
the motivation of the law is unknowable, however we are still obligated to
perform what he calls "halachic hermeneutics", learning what lessons we can
from the law ex post facto.

Chassidus and Mussar are based on the idea that while the motivation of the
law in its entirety is a mystery, some approximation (at the 35,000 ft level,
to quote one of my boss's favorite cliches) is understandable. Chassidus and
Mussar then go one step further and recommend following other practices that
further that spirit in addition to halachah.

I therefore am interested in seeing M--'s, our resident chassid's, take on
the question.

Hirschian neo-O is based on the idea that the motivation behind every halachah
is understandable because they all teach lessons (be they ideas, attitudes or
personality traits). At least, this is a necessary component to each and
every detail of the law. Hirsch is silent as to the existence of other levels
of interpretation.

Personally, I waver between R' JB Soloveitchik's and Hirsch's views.

...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Feb-00: Shelishi, Vayakhel
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 2a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On 2 Mar 00, at 10:31, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:

> The Magen Avraham in hilchos birkas hamazon says that it is assur to daven for 
> the welfare of a nochri [I know, I can bring plenty of mekoros against him].  
> The Seder Ya'akov (on maseches Avodah zarah) suggests that the mekoros about 
> being mispalel for the malchus is a HEITER and not a chiyuv.

So then how do you teitch the Mishne in Avos ("hevei mispallel 
b'shloma shel malchus").

-- 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.

>Regarding R. Harry Maryles' post on Avodah last night and
>that of his anonymous correspondent:
>
> 1. We vehemently protest the disrespectful, pejorative
>references to Gedolei Yisrael.
>
> 2. We will not be baited into participating in a contentious and 
>ultimately unproductive thread which has no place in Avoda.
>However, sh'sika lav k'hodaa damya.
>
>- -- Carl Sherer
>- -- Shlomo Godick
>- -- Danny Schoemann
>- -- Akiva Atwood

      Chanoch Davidman

RMB was kind enough to explain to me off list his question, the sumation 
folowes:

>  5- So, my question was: Why doesn't the Rambam consider a god that has a
>  tzurah, but where one part of the tzurah is in charge to be a form of 
> shutfus?

1) according to the Rambam Shituf is Avoda Zara, so Lmai Nafka Mina.

2) the Rambam's main argument against a Guf, is that he would be limited.

3) see the Pirush on Yesodei HaTorah 1:7.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I've always thought the differences between TuM and
TIDE were rather clear.

Even though both embrace secular studies, both do it
in different ways. TIDE,(besides being a fine laundery
detergent) believes philosophically that Torah is
primary and secular studies secondary.  But it is an
important secondary in that:

a) you need it for parnasah and that

b)it helps one to live in and understand one's
environment and better deal with the exterior values
and foriegn (to Torah) philosophies of the day, like
Haskalah. 

I believe that TIDE also grants intrinsic value to
secular studies but only in an instrumentalist way. 
Thus, if it improves one's material condition so that
he can be a better Oveid HaShem then secular studies
is a plus.  If it helps you to understand Torah
better, it is a plus. Etc.

I believe that RSRH felt that the onslaught of
Haskalah was creating inroads into Jewish Homes and
the attractiveness of rationalism and enlightenment,
together with the betterment of social conditions for
Am Israel, was too great to be ignored and he
therefore developed a Torah philosophy that was
attractive to the very same people that were being
pulled away.  That is not to say that it was only a
stopgap measure designed to undermine the pull of
Haskalah. But, I do believe this is the Genesis of
RSRH's thinking.  But his development of TIDE is a
philosophical, stand alone philosophy which I beleive
reflects the essence of his Hashkafa.  He believed
that this is a l"Chatchila way of being an Oveid
Hashem.

TuM (beside being a great little pill for absorbing
stomach acid) sees secular studies as more
"L'Chatchila". Torah UMaddah believes that there is
intrinsic Torah value in all that secular culture has
to offer, whether it is in the Arts or the Sciences.
Eventhough, TuM also believes that Torah Learning is
primary but is much more embracing of secular studies
as an end in itself. Mada is not to be studied just
for Parnasah.  It is to be studied for it's intirnsic
value. Benifits which may accrue vis-a-vis Parnassah
althogh valuable, are not the point of Mada. Science
is the study of G-d's universe which he wants us to
study and appreciate.  Literature is the study of
human expression which helps us understand G-d's
creations better. Behavioral studies help us
understand the human condition better and help us Bein
Adam L'Chavero better.  Etc.

If you speak to a TIDEnik with a PhD you will see that
he feels justified that he went to college etc
L'Chtchila but he will somewhat de-emphasize that
fact. It has positve value but the value goes just so
far. If you speak to a TuMnik with a PhD you will see
a much more positive Torah attitude about the value of
his/her degree.

I really believe that these philosophical differences
is what defines them.

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

RC Sherer wrote:

>>So then how do you teitch the Mishne in Avos ("hevei mispallel b'shloma shel 
malchus").>>

You may (i.e. it is muttar) to pray for the peace of the government.

I'm not endorsing it.  I'm just saying what someone suggested to be meyashev a 
widespread minhag.

--- "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> wrote:
 
> > Maybe R. Yosf feels that Israel retaining the
> Golan
> > has absolutely no halachic significance.  Maybe he
> > feels that it has no strategic signifcance.  I
> don't
> > know.  But why should a recognizable group be
> > percieved by the entire civilized world as a
> sell-out
> > for money?
> > 
> > Isn't that a chilul HaShem?
> 
> Yes, it is. But I think it's all lashon hara by the
> newspapers, at 
> least in this case. Don't make it worse by being
> mekabel it.

It may be Lashon Hara.  And I don't necesarily accept
it as true.  My problem is that true, or not it has
become sort of a  "joke" that Shas will sell out to
the highest bidder whether it is on a particular vote,
or on whether it will join the ruling coalition.  I'm
not debating the fact that Israel is unfair in it's
distribution of funds to education.  This is a
grievous problem. 

It is the Perception by the Secular Media (eg the
Tribune) that an Orthodox group, one which represents
the Torah, will sell out at all... for money, whatever
it's intentions. This perception needs to be changed
and Shas needs to do something about it. Kavod HaTorah
is at stake.

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         ]