Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 234

Tue, 01 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: TIDE and Austritt (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Halachic Texts: More Background (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Re: Halachic Texts: More Background (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: R' Samson Raphael Hirsch and the Imrei Emes (Gerrer Rebbe) (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: TIDE and Austritt (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Love of the Imahos [was: Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution!] (T613K@aol.com)

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 2:34 PM, <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 01:39:57AM +1000, SBA wrote:
> : Does anyone deny that RSRH and SIL had strong kanoi and anti-zionist :
> hashkafas? Or is that one part of the TIDE world that we want to forget :
> about?
>
> R' Micha, in reaction, asked:
> A question for Avodah -- were Austritt and TiDE inextractably linked as
> one overall hashkafah? Or can one agree with RSRH on TiDE but relegate
> Austritt to a time when R was in rapid growth and a challenge to O?
>
> My answer:
> To me it is clear, after reading R' Elias ;) and Collected Writings, that
> they are inextricably linked. It is a clear outgrowth of the need for the
> Torah to reign supreme in all areas, including communal as well.
>
> However, the question of his reaction to Israel is more complicated, and I
> won't venture a guess as to where he would of ended up. Someplace on the
> spectrum from Brisk (total Austritt) to Agudah (ideological Austritt but
> pragamatic cooperation), where exactly I don't know.
>
> KT,
> MSS
>
>
I have not read  Rav Elias. It seesm to bme very obvious.
Yet Austritt was inextricably linked to TIDE in Germany
As far as I am concerned, in the USA and in the Post-holocaust world there
is not a shred of evidence that it is necesary or even desirable for TIDE to
work.

The USA is not a centralized society as was Germany under th Kaiser. I won't
go into all of this but it is obvious that communities wer acreatuers of teh
Government and indepndence was paramaount

This was never true of the USA.

The basic assumption of Austritters of both TIDE and  other RWO  communities
is really based upon a flawed premise.

Illustration. If I am a military chaplain in the US aremd forces I recognize
chaplains of other demonations as legitimate pastors, too. That in NO WAY
means I recognize their underlying religion or faith as a "valid
"altenrative".

R. Dr. Norman Lamm was raked over in the Jewish Observer on this one decades
ago. But it was a fasle straw man. Working with leaderrs of non-Halchic
ongregations in NO WAY confers upo0n them any kind of  religous validity, it
is only the defacto recogntion of communal leadership. As Lamm retorted "yes
like Jewish Boy Scout Troops"
or something simliar.

I grew up in W. Hartford, CT. All kinds of clergy got together for all kinds
of reasons. I never ONCE thgouth [even when a young kid!] that any Modern
Ortho YU type rabbi  felt that  they recognized C or R rabbis as legitmate
because they discussed some common  communal need.  This is IMHO a canard
based upon "guilt by association"

Believe me, the rabbi where/when I grew up was pretty close to the left of
MO, but he at least once stated publicly that R rabbis gave him less of a
hassle than C rabbis. There was NO QUESTION that  even w/o Austritt,  no
theological recognition was forthcoming.

In the bio of Rabi Breuer, it mentions that at the death of Rabbi Nobel's
[rav of Gemeinder O rtho's in Frankfort] passing was ignored by the Austritt
Breuers. Nevertheless, it is R. Nobel's original landesgebet that is
included in the Roedelheim Siddur following WWI.

I also need not regale y'a;; that certain G'dolim  [{e.g. R. D. Lifschutz
ZTL] was both Agudist and YU-Mizrachi at the same time.  And RYBS shared the
Dais with R. A . Kotler at Hinuch Atmzai dinners etc. Or that R. Shraga
Feivel Mendelowitz hand-picked Dr. Joe Kamenetsky as his successor etc.  So
certain elements of Austritt have been ignroed in the Greater Agudist Ortho
Community at large.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080630/315c1774/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> R' Prof Ta-Shma notes that someone reading a seifer can usually have a
> "feel" for whether it's a rishon or an acharon. He attributes this
> difference in feel to three qualities:
>


Several quick points:
The "top guns" at ner Israel when Iwas there could I d the author or a
Severa w/o seeing it first.
Anyone reading TEshuvos can esily see the difference between Rishonim and
Acharonim in that genre




> 1- They dealt not only with single sugyos, but with tying them together
> across shas and across time.
>
> 3- Rishonim didn't need to seperate the genres of pesaq lehalakhah
> ulemaaseh from peirush.
>
> 4- Attention to girsaos.
>
> No acharon consistently pulls off all three. Of course, one needs to
> take it on faith that Rashi does #1, but that's a different story. I
> presume RPTS's full argument is more convincing.
>
> R' Elyakim Krumbein, in his KMTT shiur on the Gra, notes that these
> three features are also found in the Vilna Gaon's writings. He ties
> things together horizontally to an extreme - eg his ability to relate
> every halachic claim in the Zohar to one in shas. And through time --
> that's the core of the biur on SA. The Gra also shows how every pesaq
> in the gemara is derived from an understanding of the mishnah. And of
> course, his lack of separation between pragmatics and peirush lead him
> to numerous distinct pesaqim.
>
> One might be able to argue that the Gra was treated like a throwback
> to the rishonim because experimentally, he proved himself capable of
> rishon-style work.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --


OK let's say the GRA IS a throwback.  But things change.

Example it is one thing for the Rif to say:
You can overidee me by going back to Shas
And fro someone TODAY to do the same thing.
Why? there is about 1,00 years of more literautre and precedent in between.

Illustration: Rambam says t'eh bidvar Msihna includes Mishna, Gmara etc.
RY Karao adds one word "posqim"  Be'er agolah cites Rambam as his sources
but -
What changed?

Answer:  about 350 years of posqim!  In the Rambam's time few were
publsihed.

So if the Rambam goes back to the Gmara it is different than if WE do it no
matter HOW MUCH oa throwback it is.

IT is like Rabbi Eliezer at tanur achinai. once a decision has been rendered
you cannot even invoke a Bas Kol

Beis Yosef himself uses nimnu b'gamru to reject the Rif in YD 101. He says
simlar in other places ,too.  You simply cannot ignore this.

Bach shows that from Rav Ashi, cooking fowl with milk is ASSUR allbeit
miderabbanan. But Rambam and about a dozen other posqim rule otherwise!
The Be'er Hagolah even uses the Bertinoro as suport for this psaq although
it is clear that he quotes Ra Ashi the same way the Bach does.  The Bach is
clearly the simple read of the Talmud.  how do I know?  Even Reb Artscroll
says so [Hullin 104 ] in both English and Heb. Editions.  Now become a
throwback and ignroe the pos


t
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080701/573474a4/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Yaacov Shulman:
"But where is the context of darkei shalom, which is to say, as I am
seeing it, the humanistic context: that 12-1/2 year old girls should not
be married, and in particular not to adults?"

You're making this assessment based on the society you live in. If you
were living in an era where the average lifespan was 35, would you still
feel this way?


KT,
MYG


===================================================
True, but doesn't this get to an issue of the Torah was given for all
times and all places?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

R' Yaacov Shulman wrote:
> And it would seem that every generation needs wider and new
> applications of darkei noam as we become sensitized to
> matters that weren't of import in previous generations.

R' Zev Sero challenged:
> Why?  If it didn't bother the previous generations, shouldn't
> that at least create a strong presumption that it shouldn't
> bother us either?

I agree with RYS that these applications should change according to the
current and local sensitivities. Here's a more practical example of where
sensitivites have changed:

"Do not defecate in anyone's presence, even a non-Jew. But urinating is
mutar, even in the daytime in public, if necessary, because it is dangerous
to restrain oneself. Even so, he should turn aside." (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
5:2)

Would RZS say that since public urination didn't bother the previous
generations, there's at least a strong presumption that it shouldn't bother
us either? If a man needs to urinate, and he is in a city where he cannot
find a public restroom, it should be sufficient to turn to a wall on a
sidestreet, rather than risk the danger of holding himself? (My
understanding of our society's sensitivity is that when driving on a
superhighway, for example, it is not sufficient to pull to the side of the
road, and urinate on any nearby tree; rather, one goes far into the trees
so that he can hardly be seen from the road at all.)

R' Moshe Gluck commented:
> You're making this assessment based on the society you live
> in. If you were living in an era where the average lifespan
> was 35, would you still feel this way?

I thought it was abundantly clear that RYS was speaking specifically about
a kohen gadol in *our* society, and that in another society different rules
would hold.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Sweepstakes!!! 
Enter for your chance to WIN a summer spa getaway!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/JKFkuJi7VF6FzbcgnzGMINE2NCiqpz1Wg5LDKDLEsEanrDpmm8wWXg/

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Illustration: Rambam says t'eh bidvar Msihna includes Mishna, Gmara etc.
> RY Karao adds one word "posqim"  Be'er agolah cites Rambam as his 
> sources but -
> What changed?
>
> Answer:  about 350 years of posqim!  In the Rambam's time few were 
> publsihed.
>
> So if the Rambam goes back to the Gmara it is different than if WE do 
> it no matter HOW MUCH oa throwback it is.
This is just not true.  The Rambam is rejecting the Geonim and the Rif 
and his students (e.g. the Ri MiGash) as necessary precedents.  At least 
in the east (e.g. Bavel) that was a scandalous opinion.

David Riceman

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:15:21PM +0300, Yaacov Shulman wrote:
: I have adapted as a working principle the idea that "darkei noam"--"ways of
: pleasantness"--constitutes an essential dynamic in Torah...

But what does it mean? Obviously not that it's okay to avoid hurting
grandma's feelings if she asks you to drive over on Shabbos.

Derakheha darkhei no'am is descriptive, not prescriptive. Perhaps if a
poseiq could argue either way, pick the no'am one. (E.g. a poseiq who
isn't sure about a business handshake between a man and a woman may
decide that if her hand is out already, better I take it than offend
here.) But there is no mandate to change pesaq over it.

: And it would seem that every generation needs wider and new applications of
: darkei noam as we become sensitized to matters that weren't of import in
: previous generations.

It also would make a difference as to whether or not we ought to be
sensitive to the matter. I don't think the Torah wants us to coddle
ourselves into a bunch of hypersensitive people who have to walk on
eggshells when around each other.

: As I look at it, this halachah follows its interior logic to the ultimate
: degree....

As it should.

...
: As far as I see, practically speaking there is a way of avoiding this. If a
: cohen gadol is widowed, he can simply resign and allow another cohen who is
: already married to take his place.  But that seems very unwieldy and not the
: intent of the halachah.  Why is this halachah there in the first place?

As noted, in most of human history, getting married at 12-1/2 was
normal. Are we more right or more wrong? You can't use your instinctive
answer, because it's that very instinct that we're assessing.

But in any case, "darkei shalom" doesn't trump clearcut chiyuvim. It's a
deOraisa. If you can't agree with its internal logic, declare it a choq
and submit.

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 08:43:49AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: True, but doesn't this get to an issue of the Torah was given for all
: times and all places?

Well, not the laws of a kohein gadol. Perhaps our late emotional maturity
is part of why we don't have one yet. Or perhaps kohanim gedolim in
bayis shelishi will all be men who are already married.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
micha@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:47:18AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: What is interesting is that Yekkes by and large learn little mussar at all.
: They just practice a very polite and proper way of life.  I wonder if 1,000
: mussar books are worth a few ounces of actual practice ingrained into a
: community.

In Madreigas haAdam (first essay), the Alter of Novhardok explains the
need for mussar by starting with Avraham avinu and breaking down history
into eras. In the era he calls the era of the yeshiva, from chazal until
the haskalah, there was a symbiotic relationship between yeshiva and
ir. They shared one culture and one outlook.

With the haskalah a rift opened. The street went out of sync with the
yeshiva. What was until then transmitted culturally was no longer being
passed down.

RYS had to come up with a formal methodology for teaching that which
until then people were learning by osmosis. That methodolgy to create
the person our environment should have made us is Mussar.

I think therefore the Alter of Novhardok would answer RRW with a
resounding "definitely". But cultures dissolve, and then all you're left
with is books and techniques to try to mold who you are.

: After leaving a very pollite/coureeous society in West Hartford to go to
: various Yeshivos, the first [and one of the only] community that gave me the
: feel of  "home" was  the Washington Heights community in  which  people
: naturally had a sense of etiquette.

Not that I'm ch"v accusing Breuer's of having one but not the other, but
in principle "etiquette" and ehrlachkeit are different things. E.g. the
Victorian British were renown for their abilities at politely stabbing
each other in the back.

*Yaft* E-lokim leyefes. It's an aesthetic of interpersonal relations, not
a substance. It's not for nothing that "polite" comes from the past
participal of the Latin meaning "to polish". Surface.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 08:43:49AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: True, but doesn't this get to an issue of the Torah was given for all
: times and all places?

Well, not the laws of a kohein gadol.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 02:34:15PM -0400, ssvarc@yeshivanet.com wrote:
: R' Micha ... asked:
: A question for Avodah -- were Austritt and TiDE inextractably linked as
: one overall hashkafah? Or can one agree with RSRH on TiDE but relegate
: Austritt to a time when R was in rapid growth and a challenge to O?
...
: To me it is clear, after reading R' Elias ;) and Collected Writings, that
: they are inextricably linked. It is a clear outgrowth of the need for the
: Torah to reign supreme in all areas, including communal as well.

: However, the question of his reaction to Israel is more complicated, and I
: won't venture a guess as to where he would of ended up. Someplace on the
: spectrum from Brisk (total Austritt) to Agudah (ideological Austritt but
: pragamatic cooperation), where exactly I don't know.

It seems to me that while in your first paragraph you say that it's
clear that TiDE implies Austritt, regardless of which community it is
you're walking away from, in your second paragraph you open the door to
the possibility of cooperation on non-Torah matters.

RYBS's midpoint answer also insists on a society in which Torah reigns
supreme. However, it does so without cutting themselves off from the
non-observant world in matters in which that allegiance isn't threatened.

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:05:54AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: If you are asking whether austritt was a hora'as sha'ah -- no, I really
: don't think so.

Not really. I'm asking whether Austritt means a rejection of a particular
kind of anti-O community, one that does not describe today's pathetic
legacy of that community.

My model isn't one of hora'as sha'ah, it's of uqimta.

German R had the votes. They therefore controlled the resources. They
were hostile and had a triumphalist air. Cooperation on matters of
survival wasn't really an option.

So how do you know RSRH woudn't have made a kelapei fenim / kelapei
chutz or similar distinction?  And in fact, you (like RMYG above) seem
to open the door to some less absolutist possibility when you write:

: I also believe that he would have seen the events of the 20th century in E'Y 
: as a mixture of ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya, not purely the work 
: of the Satan -- that he would have seen the many positive developments as a 
: bracha from Hashem and a sign of His continuing love of His people, "metzitz 
: min hacharakim."

: I admit that that whole last paragraph has no source other than my gut 
: feeling, based on the emanations of penumbras from the corpus of
: Hirsch's writings.

WADR, though, you already "admitted" a few weeks backthat your view
of TiDE is based on the assumption that your father (note to newbies:
RNBulman) "channeled" RSRH. OTOH, I can not picture someone of your
gather's stature adopting someone else's hashkafah wholesale, with no
personalization.

Therefore, without a source in RSRH, I'm compelled to assume you're
really describing RNB's TiDE, not RSRH's.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
micha@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

 
 
From: Yitzhak Grossman _celejar@gmail.com_ (mailto:celejar@gmail.com) 

>>But note  that none of the Imahos are described as loving their  husbands.<<

>>>>>
Hello?   Leah?!


 
The poignancy of that whole situation has often struck me.  Leah and  Rochel 
each had what the other most desperately longed for.  And both were  left with 
thwarted longings that were never quite fulfilled.  
 
All her life Leah longed for her husband's love -- every one of her sons  was 
named with reference to this longing!  And when Rochel died -- Yakov  /still/ 
didn't make Leah's tent his primary abode, but instead put his bed in  
Bilhah's tent.  Leah's pain over this situation must have been  palpable -- it 
induced her son Reuven to interfere on his mother's behalf  and try to get his 
father, finally, to make Leah his primary wife -- but  Reuven's plans backfired.
 
(I have a theory as to why Yakov moved in with Bilhah -- Bilhah  was Rochel's 
shifcha so she must have been the one who was raising Rochel's  orphaned 
children.  Those children, the last living link to the  beloved Rochel, must have 
been living in Bilhah's tent.  My  guess.)
 
As for Rochel, she longed for children but did not live to raise  them.  She 
never even had a chance to hold Binyamin, and probably never  even saw him.  
 
When you think about the whole "dudaim" story it's all there -- the whole  
heartbreak, the pain on both sides.  
 
Rochel:  "Your little boy brought you flowers?  Please, I have  no little 
boy, could I please just have those flowers?"
 
Leah:  "What do I care about the flowers?  My husband doesn't  love me, he 
loves you, but please, could I just have this one night with  him?"
 
Yes, I know that Yakov did love Leah too, but relatively, she felt  unloved.  
Rochel was always his true zivug and his true wife, which he  mentioned even 
on his deathbed, so many years after Rochel's death.





--Toby Katz
=============

President Reagan talked with the Soviets while pushing ahead  with the 
deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. He spoke softly ?  after 
getting himself a bigger stick.  --Mark Steyn




**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080701/541fc03f/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 234
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."