Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 048

Tuesday, August 5 2003

• Fwd: Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• "El ishech teshukasech"
• Re: "El ishech teshukasech"
• TIDE cont'd
• Re: Avodah V11 #47
• spotted sheep
• TuM vs TIDE
• RE: TIDE cont'd
• Birthday Candles
• birthday candles
• Re: TIDE cont'd; TuM vs TIDE
• woman as temptress
• ['kabel brachamim...
• Re: ['kabel brachamim...
• destruction of the Temple
• RE: destruction of the Temple
• Re: destruction of the Temple-Kamtza
• Understanding Human Interaction
• Esav's wives
• TuM and TIDE

From: "Allen Baruch" <Abaruch@lifebridgehealth.org>

I sought clarification and (according to the Rav whose shiur I go to)
mekomot hamegulim depends on what the person would usually have uncovered
- so your hypothtical not-yet-frum person would not have to wash again -
it is ("only") the Chazon Ish who first "klers" if mokomot hamechusim
includes things that should be covered.

BTW, just to make sure we are on the same page - we are talking about netilas
 yadayim for bread?

Sender

>>> Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> 6/27/2003 1:42:24 AM >>>

Reb Sender Baruch wrote:
> IIRC, the nafka mina is that babies don't need to have arms/legs
> covered therefore those areas when not covered in practice will be
> mekomot hamegulim

So it is the din of covering that brings about the danger associated with
ingesting sweat? In that case, we should only consider the sweat of somebody
who covers up to be dangerous, not the sweat of somebody who doesn't follow
hilkhot tzniut strictly.

You'll forgive me for being sceptical.

BTW, is there any discussion in the posqim whether the dangerous nature of
sweat is corroborated by science, and whether the tumah status of hands that
touched depends on the dangerous nature of the sweat or that both are
coincidental?

Arie Folger
--
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law,
 as applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However,
 permission was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for
 the future generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he
 shall bring clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

In Bereshis 3:16, Hashem says to Chava, "El ishech teshukasech vehu
yimshol boch."

In Ber 4:7, Hashem says to Kayin, "Lapesach chatos rovetz, ve'elecha
teshukaso ve'atah timshol bo."

The second pasuk means something like: Sin--or the yetzer hara--is
constantly lying in wait for you; his desire is towards you--i.e.,
he wishes to seduce you into sinning--but you can overcome him, i.e.,
you can overcome the yetzer hara, you can rule over it and subdue it,
you can resist its blandishments.

Or, maybe, "atah timshol bo" means you can use your yetzer hara, you can
channel it into proper uses, such as peru u'revu or artistic or creative
accomplishment. But whatever, it seems clear that "atah timshol bo" means
you can avoid being seduced or taken in by the wiles of the yetzer hara.
You can resist it. And this seems to be addressed not to Kayin alone,
but to all mankind.

Now back to what Chava was told. If the similarity in language is
intentional--and surely it must be--then it seems to be saying that
Chava will want to seduce her husband, but he will resist her efforts
at seduction. This may be why Rashi defines her teshuka as a desire for
conjugal relations, and his "hu yimshol bach" as the husband's taking
(or failing to take) the initiative in that area.

So far so good. But the thing that worries me about these parallel
pesukim is the hint that the woman is a yetzer hara for the man, and
that it is good for a man to resist it/her. Obviously that IS true
if you're talking about a man and a woman in a forbidden relationship,
but here we are talking about a husband and a wife, the very unit about
which Hashem had previously said, "Lo tov heyos ha'adam levado...al
ken...vedavak be'ishto."

I am not bringing this up because I have an answer to this seeming
contradiction, but because I have an unanswered question, and wonder
if anyone has an answer for me. Why is the language so similar in the
case of Chava yearning for her husband's attention, and the case of the
yetzer hara "yearning" to trap Kayin/mankind? Is Chava a blessing or
a yetzer hara for Adam, or both, or a blessing before the chet and a
snare afterwards? Is a man *supposed* to resist his wife's efforts at
seduction (with, perhaps, an exception for the specific
purpose of reproduction)?

[Note: I am asking a question about the pshat, not about politics. And I
am trying to be serious, for a change. Not asking a trick question,
not making some hidden point.]

Toby Katz 

Toby Katz wrote:
> So far so good. But the thing that worries me about these parallel
> pesukim is the hint that the woman is a yetzer hara for the man, and
> that it is good for a man to resist it/her. Obviously that IS true if
> you're talking about a man and a woman in a forbidden relationship,
> but here we are talking about a husband and a wife, the very unit about
> which Hashem had previously said, "Lo tov heyos ha'adam levado...al
> ken...vedavak be'ishto."

The passuk is clearly referring to fixing things in the home.  A
woman's job is to ask the husband to fix things and, in that capacity,
she is the yetzer hara trying to get her husband to stop learning.
Just don't hold onto the railing and it won't fall down.  Cracks in
cement build character.  And you definitely don't need all the
lightbulbs in the room to work.

Gil Student

Once I have begun citing Mr. George D. Frankel's pamphlet, I cannot
forbear from citing what he writes on pp. 48-49. I cite without comment:

"For the German Jew, TIDE was more than a way of life. It was the
redemption of his character. Exposure to western culture broadened his
outlook. It made him tolerant and wise. The creative tension generated
by living simultaneously in two worlds gave rise to a sense of irony,
which was the hallmark of the singular German-Jewish Weltanschauung. This
was the secret behind Rav Hirsch's legendary humor and the sparkle that
was always present in Rav Breuer's eyes. But take away TIDE, and all
the pettiness in the German-Jewish soul emerges. That is why German Jews
without TIDE make such good fanatics. One finds them today in Lakewood
and Bnei Brak or at functions of Agudas Yisroel, grim and humorless men,
speaking together in hushed whispers like conspirators.

"But while the German Jew without TIDE is insufferable, the cultured
German Jew was a thing of beauty.

"For him, the highest aspirations of Judaism and western civilization
were not in conflict but in harmony. He saw in the Enlightenment the
realization of the Torah's ideals of justice and equality. He loved to
learn Torah - in a quiet, dignified fashion (often with Mozart playing
in the background) - but his education made him aware that Torah was not
the only source of wisdom and truth. His intellect spurred him to read
widely and impartially, and aroused in him an insatiable curiosity about
the world and its inhabitants. His soul was receptive to the finest art,
literature, theatre and music. (The liturgical melodies that Bnei Brak is
so eager to preserve grew out of the German Jew's love affair with western
music!). He loved nature and the outdoors (frische luft!), yet felt most
at home in the large cosmopolitan cities, from whose cultural resources
he drank deeply. Walking was a passion for him; he was always acutely
aware of the aesthetic quality of his surroundings. Ultimately, Judaism's
deepest appeal to him was aesthetic. To the Eastern European Jew's lament
of "Schwer zu sein a Yid," the German Jew responded, "Aber schoen zu sein
a Yid!" He attached great significance to Judaism's ceremonial objects
and took pains to acquire beautiful ones for himself and his family. He
valued precision, order, balance, courtesy, decorum. rigorously upright
in all his dealings with men, scrupulously pious in his dealings with
God, he cultivated a reserve that masked a real concern for his fellow
man. To those less fortunate, his reflex was organizational rather than
personal. He built hospitals, organized aid societies, arranged for free
loans. His outlook was humanistic, universalistic... [author's ellipses]
and highly ironical. He detested vulgarity and would rather do without
than be seen as grasping. Ostentation offended him, and he often lived
more modestly than his means allowed. He carried himself with great
dignity at all times and was moderate in all things. This was the TIDE
personality par excellence and he was a piece of work!

"This figure, the TIDE personality, more than anything else, constitutes
the only real legacy of the German Jew.

"The tragedy of our kehilla and yeshiva is not just that we no longer
produce such personalities but that we no longer want to!"

(From "Dan Shall Judge His People: 5 Essays on Torah im Derech Eretz and
the Breuer Community Today" by George D. Frankel, 2002, Aire Publishers
c/o Frankel, 50 Overlook Terrace Apt. 6D, NY NY 10033 - the author
notes that copies of the work may be obtained by contacting him at
that address.)

From: BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL
>Then I looked back at the simple pshat of "Vaytzeg et ha'maklot asher
>pitzel barhatim B'SHIKTOT HA'MAYIM". It's not that the sheep LOOKED at
>the sticks of "livneh lach, luz v'armon", it's that they DRANK the water
>with the peeled sticks inside. There thus must be a chemical compound
>[lignin ? polyphenol ?] in the types of wood chosen (poplar, almond,
>etc.). The white streaks that Yaakov Avinu made in the sticks were so
>that the chemical compound *in* the wood could leach out into the 
>water.

How would this explain the Gemora in Avoda Zara 24a that says they would
pass a cup of red dye before the cows when mating to produce the Parah
Aduma? I assumed this red dye, the sticks of Yaakov, and the idea of
seeing images of Tzadikim before (or during?) relations were all related.
I guess the Gemora of R' Yochanan standing outside the Mikva so the
women could see him is connected too. It really seems to be some sort
of visual stimulus.

Regards, 
Mordechai Dixler

Yehuda Feliks has an excellent article on the genetics of this, but I
don't remember where.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<<As I see it, Rabbi Lamm's model is inherently flawed because he took
what is essentially a Lithuanian/Misnagdic approach (viz., as we have
noted in the past, TuM is Torah-only-plus, i.e., incorporating TO values
in its approach to Madda) and based its philosophical underpinnings on
Chassidic thought.>>

Would you care to expand/expound?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> "This figure, the TIDE personality, more than anything else, constitutes
> the only real legacy of the German Jew.

This is the romanticized version -- what was the reality?

Akiva

From: T613K@aol.com, quoting from Rabbi Blumenkrantz,
<<The blowing out of candles is also not Jewish. A Jew should never blow
out a candle.>>

Rabbi Blumenkrantz is known as a rav and a posek. Perhaps, therefore,
someone could ask him for a halachic source for this. I have heard this
many times, and always considered it some kind of bubbe maiseh, akin to
"men tor nisht fiefen" for sheid-associated reasons.

Of course, the Mechaber having paskened that one may whistle on Shabbos relegates that one to the bubbe maiseh category, but can someone give the "not Jewish" practice of blowing out candles ("never"!) a leg up out of that category?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
> Rn TK:
>> Nevertheless, R' Blumenkrantz concludes that birthday cakes are muttar,
>> which is not surprising, since the custom of Jews eating cake certainly
>> predates the worship of Artemis. The Greeks probably got it from us.

>> To reiterate what I've said before, I agree with R' Blumenkrantz about
>> the cake and about the candles.

RJB:
> Well, if you're going to postulate (without evidence) that the goyim
> got cake-eating from us, maybe they also got candle-burning from us?

"Without evidence?" Jokes don't need footnotes, they need smiley faces.
Here's one you can use right now. :- ) As for the candle-burning, it
is likely that you are right, and they did get that from us. But we in
turn got from them 1. sticking candles in cakes 2. for birthdays and
3. blowing them out. I don't see a problem with having candlesticks on
the table at a party, even a birthday party.

[Eamil #2. -mo]

In a message dated 8/4/2003 2:54:21 PM EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> From: T613K@aol.com, quoting from Rabbi Blumenkrantz,
> <<The blowing out of candles is also not Jewish. A Jew should never
> blow out a candle.>>

> Rabbi Blumenkrantz is known as a rav and a posek.  Perhaps, therefore, 
> someone could ask him for a halachic source for this. 

I haven't asked him what his source is, but I know what mine is--a lovely
word I learned here on Avodah. Mimetics.

Toby Katz

At 09:39 PM 8/4/2003 +0300, you wrote:
>> "This figure, the TIDE personality, more than anything else, constitutes
>> the only real legacy of the German Jew.

>This is the romanticized version -- what was the reality?

Since I know family members whose lives are in sync with the romanticized 
version...

[Email #2. -mi]

At 06:57 PM 8/4/2003 +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> From: "R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu>
>> As I see it, Rabbi Lamm's model is inherently flawed because he took
>> what is essentially a Lithuanian/Misnagdic approach (viz., as we have
>> noted in the past, TuM is Torah-only-plus, i.e., incorporating TO values
>> in its approach to Madda) and based its philosophical underpinnings on
>> Chassidic thought

>Would you care to expand/expound?

TuM is not concerned with dveykus or ha'alos nitzotzos - primary
objectives in Chassidus. It is concerned with the quest for accomplishment
and enhanced intellect. It is the Misnagdic quest for shleymus -
expanded to encompass areas beyond Torah itself. It is, indeed, purely
intellectual, as it tends to denigrate Mussar - and Chassidus - as
superfluous to knowledge per se. Thus, Rabbi Lamm's contention that TuM
is Avodas Hashem b'gashmiyus, a la the employment of dancing, drinking and
herring in Chassidus is an imprecise approach to both TuM and Chassidus.

YGB 

R' Toby asked an excellent question concerning our understanding
of the role of women as depicted in the beginning of Bereishit,
(Areivim 11:302 - "El ishech teshukasech"). This thoughtful, serious,
and non-polemical exposition of 2 related verses belongs on Avodah. The
verses in Gen. 4:7 and 3:16 use strikingly similar language to describe
Kayin and his "chatat" (4:7) vs. Chava and her subordination to Adam
(3:16). The conventional peshat in 4:7 is that "chatat" (chatos, b'laz)
refers to sin which lies in wait, longingly, for Kayin and for mankind,
but can and must be mastered. When similar language is used to describe
Chava's fate to long for Adam who dominates her, R' Toby is impelled
to ask whether this indicates that the woman in marriage is seen as a
temptress who must be controlled? Is she really to be compared to the
yetzer ha'rah?

My answer is that the analogous language does not imply an equivalence
of Chava and the "chatat". Chava is the subject of 3:16 while Kayin is
the subject of 4:7. One is told that she will be subjugated while Kayin
is told to achieve mastery over the "other". The analogy could be
 drawn if Adam, rather than Chava, were told that his wife will long
for him, but that he should dominate her. Instead, Adam is told that
sustenance will now only come through his toil until the end of his
days on earth. This punishment for the sinning first couple is meant
as a lesson for them, it need not be an eternal condition of mankind.
Just as some of mankind has liberated itself from the need for hard labor
to win bread, so, too, has there been a liberation from the domination
of wives by their husbands. Such an unequal union runs counter to the
ideal situation which is depicted in 2:24.

Besides which, the verse (4:7) speaks of "chatat" (sin offering) rather
than "chet" (sin); it speaks of lying submissively or expectantly rather
waiting to pounce. Its message is ambiguous. It could be referring to
Hevel who is the unassuming, generous, and devoted younger brother.
It could be taken to reassure Kayin that he will remain the dominant
brother even if Hevel's more giving nature marks him for Divine approval.
Kayin seems to have interpreted the verse as an indication that Hevel
could serve as his own personal sacrafice to make amends for the meager
vegetarian offering that he had previously ventured. In any case, it
certainly does not suggest that Chava and womankind are necessary evils
who must be controlled.

Yitzchok Zlochower

From: "Newman,Saul Z" <>
> am i incorrect that it seems that the olam doesnt say the psukim that
> are included in kaddish shalem ['kabel brachamim...'] in both nusach
> ashk and nusach sfard [but not ari or edot hamizrach, i think]? why not?

AFAIK the Oberlender types Yidden did [and do?] say it - 
but not too many others.

I couldn't find a reference to it in any halcoho sforim.

The Munkatcher Rov z'l is quoted in Darkei Chaim Vesholom as not
recommending it - as it is not mentioned in the Rishonim or Kisvei Arizal.

Any further input would b appreciated.
[Do Yekkes say it?}

SBA

On 5 Aug 2003 at 17:42, SBA wrote:
> From: "Newman,Saul Z" <>
>> am i incorrect that it seems that the olam doesnt say the psukim
>> that are included in kaddish shalem ['kabel brachamim...'] in both
>> nusach ashk and nusach sfard [but not ari or edot hamizrach, i
>> think]? why not?

> AFAIK the Oberlender types Yidden did [and do?] say it - 
> but not too many others.
> I couldn't find a reference to it in any halcoho sforim.

MB 56:11 brings that the Arizal said not to say them and concludes 
that they should at least not be said where there is an independent 
issue of hefsek other than in the Kaddish itself (e.g. between 
Yishtabach and Yotzer or between Geula and Tefilla at Ma'ariv).

-- Carl

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 Eli Turkel's query (V11#46) for the historical background of
the Kamtza-BarKamtza story, a lot of interesting information is found
in the (Hebrew) monograph "Agadot Hachurban" by Anat Yisraeli-Taran
(Hakibutz Hameuchad Publishing House, 1997). The author analyzes the
differences between the different versions of many stories about the
churban, including those in Eicha Rabbati (known as the "Palestinian
version"), T.B. Gittin 55-57 and Avot D'rabbi Natan. For example, in the
version of the Kamtza-BarKamtza story found in Eicha Rabbati (IV,2), she
argues "the social background of the destruction is described here as a
chain of meaningless, unimportant internal squabbles, while the spiritual
leadership fails to fulfill its obligations: it refrains from intervening,
and is unable to prevent the unnecessary strife, hatred and injustice. In
this sense, the leadership fails (perjures?) its central role; it bears
the primary responsibility for the national calamity". (Yisraeli-Tiran
also provides an interesting comparison of the story in the Bavli of
cescape from Yerushalyim with Eicha Rabbati I,5 (and Kohellet Rabba
VII,11) and Avot D'rabbi Natan (version I, 4 and version II, 6). The
three stores differ markedly in their presentation of [a] R. Yohanan's
opposition to both the rebellion [b] R. Yohanan's opposition to the
rebels [c] whether or not R. Yohanan's re-evaluated his position based
on "realpolitik". In addition, there is a striking difference in what
R. Yohanan asked from Vepasian. Ayyen sham).

As far as the historical background is concerned, Yisraeli-Tiran cites
a number of theories. Some (Derenbourg, Maharal, Kroice, Sokoloff)
identify the name Kamtza as a symbol of either "miserliness", "strife" or
"grabbing" while others (Graetz, Jost) identify the names with Kampasus
son of Kampasus, described by Josephus in his autobiography (Life of
Joseph 9,33) as one of the leaders of the pro-Roman party in the city.
(Yisraeli-Tiran dismisses the latter theory as untenable). Zecharya b.
Avkulas has sometimes (Graetz, Hengel,Stern) been identified with
Zecharya b. Amphikalos, referred to by Josephus (Wars IV,4,a) as
a priest who was amoung the leadership of the zealots who stood with
Elazar b. Shimon. It has also been noted (Ginsburg, Baer) that the name
Avkulos is a Hebraization of the Greek word "eukolos" - a humble person,
which fits precisely the condemnation of him voiced by R. Yosi in the
epilogue of the story.

Saul Stokar

> Regarding Eli Turkel's query (V11#46) for the historical background of
> the Kamtza-BarKamtza story, a lot of
...
> As far as the historical background is concerned, Yisraeli-Tiran cites
> a number of theories. Some (Derenbourg, Maharal, Kroice, Sokoloff)
> identify the name Kamtza as a symbol of either "miserliness", "strife"
> or "grabbing" while others (Graetz, Jost) identify the names with
> Kampasus son of Kampasus, described by Josephus in his autobiography
> (Life of Joseph 9,33) as one of the leaders of the pro-Roman
> party in the city. (Yisraeli-Tiran dismisses the latter theory as
> untenable). Zecharya b. Avkulas has sometimes (Graetz, Hengel,Stern)
> been identified with Zecharya b. Amphikalos, referred to by Josephus
> (Wars IV,4,a) as a priest who was among the leadership of the zealots who
> stood with Elazar b. Shimon. It has also been noted (Ginsburg, Baer)
> that the name Avkulos is a Hebraization of the Greek word "eukolos" -
> a humble person, which fits precisely the condemnation of him voiced by
> R. Yosi in the epilogue of the story.

What I find very interesting in this current discussion is that while
there has been information and speculation on Kamtza and Bar Kamtza,
no one has mentioned one of the most important players in the story --
that is to say, "Hu Gavra" [the ba'al simcha], as the gemara calls him.

First of all, in the "world famous shmiras halashon kenes" held yearly
in Yerushalayim, Rav Brevda [who speaks so beautifully I could listen to
him for 3 days straight] brings out that this "hu gavra" was no great
shakes himself. He obviously was lacking emunas Hashem [just how DID
he think that his gabbai made such a grievous error?] and was obviously
not interested in asking a shaila as to what to do even though all the
sages of the time were right there at his party.

Apparently, according to Rav Brevda, the gemara doesn't feel that this
ba'al simcha merited having his name mentioned. However, I am curious
as to who he was. Why is he generally left out of the deeper analysis
when his actions and lack of good midot were in fact the catalyst for
the entire episode?

 ---Rena 

As I prepared for a T"B shiur, I too was struck by the differences in
the 3 sources. What is the frum and nonfrum take on why the stories
have some marked differences? Is it possible that we all look back and
interpret history according to the lessons we think important?

KT
Joel Rich

Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim:
>While RET is correct in theory I have great doubts that it is
>true in real life especially in EY. The problem is that too
>many yeshiva boys know nothing of the real world after
>many years in yeshiva. I have heard too many stories of
>even dayanim that have no clue what happens outside their
>court and bet medrash.

I recently read an essay by R' Avraham Grodzinsky that was published
in the Slabodka yeshiva's journal Knesses Yisrael in 1939 (I think
under the title "Limud Mussar ve-Chochmas ha-Muusar", it is reprinted
in the author's posthumously published Toras Avraham). He classifies
this attitude of not understanding people as a lack of a prerequisite
for yiras shamayim. He says that this is the basis of the pesul of
professional gamblers from being witnesses, that they are not involved
in yishuv ha-olam. This means that they do not understand how people
interact and deal with each other because they live in their own world
that has different rules than everyone else's world. He also ties this
in with being "me'uarv im ha-beriyos" that allows one to know when one
is allowed to lie.

The talmidei chachamim I know tend to have a keen sense for how people
interact and deal with each other. This is something I sorely lacked
when I came out of yeshiva but learned quickly in the business world.

Gil Student

That German documentary theory never seemed to me to hold much water.
The repetition of the creation of man, for example, is easy enough to
explain in context. But there IS one repetition in Sefer Bereshis for
which I have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation. (Admittedly,
I have not exactly investigated it exhaustively.)

Here it is:

Esav's wives, take 1:

Yehudis bas Be'eri HaChiti
Bosmas bas Eilon HaChiti (Ber. 26:34)
Mochlas bas Yishmael (Ber. 28:9)

Esav's wives, take 2:

Adah bas Eilon HaChiti
Ahalivamah bas Anah bas Tzivon HaChivi (Ber. 36:2)
Bosmas bas Yishmael (Ber. 36:3)

In both versions, there is a wife named Bosmas and a father-in-law named
Eilon HaChiti. Also in both versions, Yishmael is a father-in-law.
But the names of the wives seem to swap around. If you follow Rashi,
all these names are just versions of "Honey" "Dear" and "Snuggle-Bunny."
They are just what Esav CALLED his wives, not their real names. But why
does one of his fathers-in-law change names? And why is he a Chiti in
one place and a Chivi in another? Weren't those two different nations?

As for the reasons Esav changed his wives' names, Rashi says he did it to
make them look better in his parents' eyes. As if "Yehudis" were really
a nice Jewish girl. Bimchilas kvod Rashi, this is anachronistic and
far-fetched. Jews were not called Yehudim until the end of Bayis Rishon,
after the ten tribes were lost and most remaining Jews were from Yehuda.
When Esav got married, the original Yehuda wasn't even born yet.

Anybody have answers?  

BTW I have received no answers to my "el ishech teshukasech" query, yet.
I'm depending on you guys.

Toby Katz 

From: "Michael Frankel" <michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com>
> As an intellectual exercise -- I invite any avodite to ask his favorite
> charedi interlocutor (or himself if the shoe fits) to explain the
> supposed difference between TuM and TIDE

I don't know what the question is, the difference is obvious.  TuM is
what you swallow when you get heartburn from some of the posters on arvm,
and TIDE is what you use when you read something you just can't BELIEVE
and accidentally spill your coffee.

Remember that when you read the famous poem, "TuM and TIDE wait for
no man."

But the question did remind me of some recent backstage correspondence,
part of which I will here reproduce:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

R' Steve Brizell:
In a famous statement, The CS once opined "Chadash assur min HaTorah." The
Hirschian shita of Ostrit and the approach of the Moetzes to working with
non frum organizations of any kind and other issues such as Zionsim, the
Hoocaust and secular education largely are based on that statement of the
CI. In fact, one can argue that KAJ has largely abandoned the philosophy
of RSRH with respect to secular education and culture and exchanged it
for a RW model with some German minhagim thrown in for the sake of memory.


TK: My father did in fact consider the Breuer kehillah to have departed
from its roots, and it upset him.

RSB: Neither R Gelley nor R Schwalb ZTl could be considered Hirschians
in their approach. It is well known that R Schwal ZTL all but adopted
the RW approach after he learned with R Boruch Ber ZTL . R Gelley is
even more removed from the Hirschian philosophical derech. One could
argue that YU, with all of its problems, has supplanted KAJ as a source
for learning Torah and acquiring either Derech Eretz or Madda.

TK: YU is no substitute for the real thing. The truth is that no kehillah
really exemplifies TIDE anymore. Only yechidim here and there. OTOH
someof the essential components of TIDE have been adopted pretty much by
everyone, certainly in America, while they all pay lip service to "Torah
only." e.g., how many charedi-type high schools have no limudei chol?


Toby Katz

............................................................

[When I asked for permission to forward our offlist conversation, RSB
added this:]

You can forward it with the following caveat:
IIRC, RCS obliquely mentioned a comment from REEMS( R Shach, ZTL) that
American charedim were a level below their EY brethren, presumably because
of their willingness to attend college and go for professional purposes,
in the sense of earning a living as opposed to any philosophical/hashkafic
basis for doing so. One looks in vein for any hashkafic reason why Agudah
has so many professionally trained lawyers etc on its staff except for
a recognition that American Torah educated Jews need to know how and and
when to lobby for their own causes in th vernacular. IIRC, R Sherer ZTL
was once praised for "being able to know how to talk to the policemen."

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.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         ]