Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 111

Fri, 24 Jun 2011

• 1. Re: Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Ehrlechkeit, not Frumkeit (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (Micha Berger)
• 4. Ehrlechkeit, not Frumkeit (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (Beth & David Cohen)
• 6. Re: Ehrlechkeit, not Frumkeit (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Ehrlechkeit, not Frumkeit (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. The Basics (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. ten things created erev shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Baruch Sheamar (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Baruch Sheamar (Micha Berger)
• 13. what you should wear for davening (Eli Turkel)
• 14. Re: what you should wear for davening (T6...@aol.com)
• 15. Re: What should you wear for davening? (Harry Maryles)

 
From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 

: I unequivocally  reject your premise that the word "frum" was  ever used 
as 
: a  derogatory term in the Litvishe Yehiva world...[--TK]

Do you have a  source for contradicting R' Wolbe and my grandma?

Tir'u  baTov!
-Micha





>>>>>>
 
 
Yes, my parents and my grandparents and everybody I ever knew before I  
started reading Avodah.  And even R' Wolbe (assuming he was quoted  correctly) 
was referring to something that had happened sociologically among  frum 
people, where their frumkeit stopped being genuine.  The same with the  quote 
allegedly attributed in these pages to RAK.  And I suspect  the same with your 
grandma.  The word "frum"  had to have a generally  understood meaning 
before people could come along and use it sarcastically and  say things like 
"Frum is der galach."  That ironic statement would have no  meaning at all if 
the word frum had not been generally understood to refer to  observant Jews.  
 

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




_____________________

 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/1e4fcd4e/attachment-0001.htm>

 
In a message dated 6/24/2011, llev...@stevens.edu writes:

WADR to  Rn Katz, what she wrote reflects the disconnect between Torah 
learning and  Torah living that Aharon Hersh Fried writes about in his  article 
at _http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%206%20Fried.pdf_ 
(http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%206%20Fried.pdf)    

For many,  being observant focuses on the mitzvos bein Adam  LeMakom and 
the mitzvos bein Adam L'chaveiro are often treated as being of  secondary 
importance or even ignored.  

 
>>>>>
 
 
I never said anything about frum = bein adam laMakom and ehrlach = bein  
adam lechaveiro.  I don't agree with that formulation at all.  
 
Frum is basically observant of ALL mitzvos.  I'm just defining the  normal, 
traditional use of the word.
 
Of course it is a fact that we ALL sin.  Any frum person might well be  
occasionally lax in BOTH the mitzvos that are BALM as well as BALC -- for  
example, many a frum person lets his mind wander while davening and doesn't  
daven every single tefilla with perfect kavana.  
 
And ehrlichkeit, too, can refer to both categories of mitzvos, though  
admittedly "honesty" will usually refer more to BALC.  OTOH, eidelkeit --  
refinement -- will usually refer more to BALM.   But categories tend  to blur and 
overlap.  (For example, if a person habitually  uses four-letter words when 
speaking, is that BALC or BALM?)
 
 

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




_____________________



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/f941fe52/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:46:20AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
:>: I unequivocally  reject your premise that the word "frum" was  ever used as 
:>: a  derogatory term in the Litvishe Yehiva world...[--TK]

:> Do you have a  source for contradicting R' Wolbe and my grandma?

: Yes, my parents and my grandparents and everybody I ever knew before I  
: started reading Avodah.

Except you come from Gerrer Chassidim, at least on the Bulman side.
I am less sure about the Freunds (I found your mother at
<http://www.geni.com/people/Shaindel-Bulman/6000000000213805014>)
but most Freunds are from Bohemia.

It's like Zev's data point; another non-Litvak telling me to ignore the
Litvaks I know. Sometimes we don't realize how provincial our knowledge
is, and we think that what is taken for granted in our neck of the woods
is "minhag Yisrael". (To reference another thread.)

:                          And even R' Wolbe (assuming he was quoted correctly) 
: was referring to something that had happened sociologically among frum 
: people, where their frumkeit stopped being genuine...

No need to assume, I included a link to the original
<http://www.aishdas.org/as/frumkeit.pdf>.

But no, he doesn't say anything about this being non-genuine frumkeit in
particular. He says:
    Bishviul hatzar hamovil el ha'emes ba'avodas Hashem
    yeish mikhshol sheshemo "frumkeit"
    (lemunach zeh ein tirgum Ivri holeim).

    "Frumqeit" hi dachaf tiv'i, instinctivi...

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

At 10:15 AM 6/24/2011, Beth & David Cohen wrote:

>"Translation:  An observant Jew should be honest -- should be ethical,
>should have integrity, should be principled -- and should /also/ be  refined
>in
>his dress, speech and manners.
>
>If he keeps Shabbos, keeps kosher, keeps the mitzvos -- he is frum.   It is
>not a /bad/ thing to be frum, it's just not enough for a fully-developed
>Torah Jew.
>
>
>--Toby Katz"
>
>I always thought that it is a mitzva to be ethical, honest and have
>integrity. "V'asita hatov v'hayashar" for starters. So how can it be that
>being honest and ethical is outside the definition of being "frum" if you
>define frum as "keeping the mitzvos"?

WADR to Rn Katz, what she wrote reflects the disconnect between Torah 
learning and Torah living that Aharon Hersh Fried writes about in 
his  article at http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%206%20Fried.pdf

For many,  being observant focuses on the mitzvos bein Adam LeMakom 
and the mitzvos bein Adam L'chaveiro are often treated as being of 
secondary importance or even ignored.

RASH points out the in the Luchos there are five mitzvos that are 
bein Adam LeMakom and five that are bein Adam L'chaveiro. He then 
says that both of the Luchos were the same size!  In other words, 
both types are or equal importance.  YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/ec02f9dd/attachment-0001.htm>

"I always  thought that it is a mitzva to be ethical, honest and have
integrity.  "V'asita hatov v'hayashar" for starters. So how can it be that
being honest  and ethical is outside the definition of being "frum" if you
define frum as  "keeping the mitzvos"?
David I. Cohen

>>>>EVERYONE sins, but if he keeps the basics he is frum.
Frum just means observant, Orthodox.  It is not a synonym for  righteous
and perfect in all taryag mitzvos, though it would be a wonderful  world if
it
were. I am just defining the word in its common, long-time  usage." (SNIP)

Toby Katz"

I am not sure what "observant. Orthodox." means.
I do think that no one uses either term to indicate that a person never
commits an aveira. The terms, however defined, speak of beliefs coupled with
how the person generally acts. They define what a person believes and how he
generally leads his life based on those beliefs.
To be more specific, I think what you are trying to get at with the concept
of "frum" (forgive me for putting words in your mouth) is that frum
represents a category of behavior that makes us and our lifestyle separate
from the world at large e.g. head coverings (men and women). talit,
tefillin, davening, shabbat, kashrut etc.etc.
I also think that that is the very reason that the term sometimes can have a
derogatory connotation. It leaves out much of halachic requirements. It
highlights the externally objective criteria, while not considering the just
as important subjective areas of halacha.
IOW, frum can be positively descriptive --- but we need to recognize that it
is only part of the story.

Shabbat shalom
David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/6b7611e8/attachment-0001.htm>

At 12:40 PM 6/24/2011, T6...@aol.com wrote:
>never said anything about frum = bein adam laMakom and ehrlach = 
>bein adam lechaveiro.  I don't agree with that formulation at all.

I never meant to imply this.  Ehrlich means someone who keeps all of 
the mitzvos in my mind.  Frum is someone who appears to be observant 
from externalities, IMO.

>
>Frum is basically observant of ALL mitzvos.  I'm just defining the 
>normal, traditional use of the word.
>
>Of course it is a fact that we ALL sin.  Any frum person might well 
>be occasionally lax in BOTH the mitzvos that are BALM as well as 
>BALC -- for example, many a frum person lets his mind wander while 
>davening and doesn't daven every single tefilla with perfect kavana.
>
>And ehrlichkeit, too, can refer to both categories of mitzvos, 
>though admittedly "honesty" will usually refer more to BALC.  OTOH, 
>eidelkeit -- refinement -- will usually refer more to BALM.   But 
>categories tend to blur and overlap.  (For example, if a person 
>habitually uses four-letter words when speaking, is that BALC or BALM?)
>

Then according to what you have written, what is the difference 
between someone who is frum and someone who is ehrlich? Are they the same?

I think that many people who saw the news report at 
http://tinyurl.com/6yfmc9x about the two fellows who are shown 
wearing yarmulkes who are accused of being involved in insurance 
fraud in their auto collision repair business are frum, but not 
ehrlich.   According to you, are they not to be labeled frum?

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/ef60cbd6/attachment-0001.htm>

According to me they are frum but not ehrlech.  
 

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





_____________________  

 
In a message dated 6/24/2011 1:16:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
llev...@stevens.edu writes:

I think  that many people who saw the news report at 
_http://tinyurl.com/6yfmc9x_ (http://tinyurl.com/6yfmc9x)  about
the two fellows who are  shown w
earing yarmulkes who are accused of being involved in insurance fraud  in 
their auto collision repair business are frum, but not ehrlich.    According to 
you, are they not to be labeled  frum?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/b84e9080/attachment-0001.htm>

In a message dated 6/24/2011 1:06:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
bdcohen...@gmail.com writes:

"I always  thought that it is a mitzva to be ethical, honest and  have
integrity.  "V'asita hatov v'hayashar" for starters. So how can  it be that
being honest  and ethical is outside the definition of  being "frum" if you
define frum as  "keeping the mitzvos"?
David I. Cohen

 
>>>>>
 
 
Here we go round the mulberry bush, so early in the morning.....
 
But I think I am beginning to see, dimly, what the problem is.  It is  an 
elementary confusion between "is" and "should be."
 
 You think that when I define "frum" as "observant" that I am giving  my 
own personal preference as to what the word /should/ mean, and that I am  
content for a frum person to keep Shabbos but be dishonest.  
 
Whereas in reality I am merely giving the dictionary definition of  what 
the word "frum" actually /is/ in common everyday usage, and I am  stating that 
it means Orthodox/observant.
 
How can an Orthodox person sometimes sin?  well duh, it just kind of  
happens....maybe you've heard of such cases.  Or maybe you live in an  idealized 
world in which every Orthodox Jew is a perfect tzaddik.
 
According to YOU, when a person sins, he is not Orthodox?  According  to 
/your/ definition, when you speak loshon hara, you are no longer Orthodox, no  
longer an observant Jew?
 
And if that /is/ how you understand it, do you have a different word that  
you prefer to use to distinguish between frum and non-frum Jews -- between  
observant and non-observant?  If you want to keep the word "frum" only for  
perfect tzaddikim who never sin, what terminology, if any, do you prefer to  
use in order to define distinctions between religious and secular  Jews?  
OR do you actually believe that any person who sins is at that  moment a 
secular Jew and can no longer claim to be religious?
 

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




_____________________  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/1b7c76f1/attachment-0001.htm>

In the thread "Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit", R"n Toby Katz wrote:

> EVERYONE sins, but if he keeps the basics he is frum.  
>
> Frum just means observant, Orthodox.  It is not a synonym for
> righteous and perfect in all taryag mitzvos, though it would be
> a wonderful world if it were. I am just defining the word in
> its common, long-time usage.

I have often mentioned that I dislike labels because of the wide variations
in how people use them. While this is true of "Modern Orthodox" and
"Charedi", I firmly agree with RTK that this is not the case with "frum".
Given that none of us is perfect, I agree with her observation that
*almost* everyone uses the word "frum" when referring to someone who
observes "the basics".

Furthermore, for several decades now, whenever anyone is asked to specify
what they mean by "the basics", I see the exact same three listed: Shabbos,
Kashrus, and Niddah. Was there ever a time when "the basics" was defined
differently?

For example, it is commonly accepted that 50 years ago, a married woman was
considered a fine upstanding religious Orthodox Jew even if she did not
cover her hair. Many genuinely Orthodox people simply did not consider it
to be a real prohibition, if they even knew of it at all.

I've wondered whether there was ever a time when Nidah or Kashrus was held
in that sort of ignorance. And conversely, was there ever a time when a
mitzvah was considered "the basics", even though it is one which we're not
so careful about today? For example, it has often been said that people
were much more careful about Erev Shabbos in the past, but even so, I don't
think it was among "the basics".

Perhaps shul attendance and membership would count? There seem to be many
people today who are careful about attending minyan, but they make no
attempt to be at one particular minyan consistently, and they make even
less of an attempt to be an official member of a shul. This was clearly not
the case when being put in cherem meant something.

What other mitzvos counted as "the basics" in prior generations? Anyone want to comment?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
2550% Penny Stock Gains?
Our last pick exploded 2550% - Join our newsletter for free picks!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e04adf56ce1837025st06vuc

<<> Pirkei Avot mentions 10 things that were created erev shabbat
> bein hashemashot.  All of them are miracles that don't fit in
> nature.  Short of a literal statement in Tanakh, I assume this
> means that everything else God does in the world is derekh
> ha-teva.>>

How about "pi ha-aton" which Rambam still does not take literally

-- 
Eli Turkel

<< Except that that is *exactly* how we got Baruch She'amar. ?I'm not
> sure how to respond to someone who openly says they don't believe that.
> See Taz OC 51:1 >>

The Kol Bo attributes Alenu to Yehoshua. Again that seems to be the
first reference to such a story which he brings as "I heard".
In fact it is clear that Alenu started on Rosh Hashana and was moved
to the every day davening only in the days of the achronim.
In fact malchiyot was composed by Rav and there is no indication that
he incorporated an earlier prayer from Yeshoshua.
Does not accepting somea  statement like this from a rishon now become
part of the 13 ikkarim?


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:16:34PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: In fact malchiyot was composed by Rav and there is no indication that
: he incorporated an earlier prayer from Yeshoshua.

The indication, for however strong it is, is the rashei teivos of the
first three words of the second paragraph. Al kein neqaveh - Akhan.
And so, Aleinu is attributed to the teshuvah period after Akhan's theft
from the spoils of Ai led to national tragedy.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

<<After I wrote that I remembered something else the Lamaze instructor/shiur
lady said:  she said if you were stuck and wanted to make a bracha and  you
were wearing something with no waist, like just a hospital gown or a
nightgown, you could hold your arm across your waist as a separation between
your upper and lower body.>>

Isn't that is was is done in the Mikvah?

BTW both CI and ROY pasken that a tight fitting robe is good enough.
ROY paskems that one can listen to a tape with divrei torah in a
shower as long as there is no toilet in the room


-- 
Eli Turkel

 
In a message dated 6/24/2011, elitur...@gmail.com writes:

you  could hold your arm across your waist as a separation between
your upper  and lower body.>> [--TK]

Isn't that is was is done in the  Mikvah?

 
>>>>>
 
Now that you mention it, yes, but not everyone does it that way.  Some  
people cover their upper body with their arms and hands.  Others cover  their 
chest area with one arm and cross their waist with the other. Some  Sefardiot 
make the bracha while dressed in a robe, before entering the mikva  pool.  
(I use the term "mikva pool" to distinguish it from the mikva  building, as 
the word "mikva" is colloquially used for both.)
 
--Toby Katz
================






_____________________ 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110624/b09e7307/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com> wrote:







In a message dated 6/23/2011, llev...@stevens.edu writes:
From http://tinyurl.com/6yyq2r2

The gemara (Shabbos 10) states that a person cannot daven without a gartel (belt).
I was learning recently in (I think) the Chayei Adam that it is a machloket
whether this is an actual requirement or not., but if you regularly daven
with a belt, then it is necessary.
Based on this, if you regularly wear underwear with an elastic, you would be unable to daven without underwear and without a belt.
----------------------------------------
?
I haven't really been following this thread so much and apolgize if this has been mentioned. 
?
The primary idea of a Gartel (belt) is to make a separation between the heart and the Erva. 
?
Back in the good old days when both men and women wore one?piece?robe like
outer garments there was no separation. So?a Gartel was required for
prayer. Today where the vast majority of men wear pants, the sepeartion is
alraedy there and there is no need for a Gartel at all. 
?
Chasidim still wear one because putting on a?Gartel shows that one is
preparing for prayer (which is IIRC is?also mentioned in the SA). Misnagdim
(mostly from Lita) just put on a jacket or hat or simply do any act at all
(e.g. buttoning or straightening a jacket) to show prerparation. The idea
being that one should not just rush into prayer but take a moment to show
that he knows before Whom he is standing and demonstrate proper respect and
awe.
?
The bottom line is that if you wear pants?there is absolutely no Halachic reason to put on a Gartel today other then to perpetuate the Minhag.
?
HM
?

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110624/a6d90c5a/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 111
***************************************

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..."