Volume 16 Number 27
Produced: Tue Nov 1 23:40:18 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
In defense of my alleged naivete?
[Mandy G. Book]
Modern Orthodox
[Alan Mizrahi]
Modern Orthodoxy
[Jay Bailey]
Pork will become kosher?
[Akiva Miller]
Public Funding of Symbols
[Steve Wildstrom]
Spousal Abuse
[Mark Press]
Talmudic Induction
[Sam Juni]
What Saved The Jews or the Harreidim
[Esther R Posen]
Women/Tefillin
[Zvi Weiss]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <mbook@...> (Mandy G. Book)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 14:23:07 -0600 (CST)
Subject: In defense of my alleged naivete?
It appears I have been slightly misunderstood with reference to my recent
post on social dynamics in the workplace (either that, or I somehow
failed to convey the point I had hoped to make). Allow me to make one
more try . . .
I certainly do understand that the workplace provides many opportunities
for social bonds within the professional context. And of course,
friendships form when people spend large amounts of time together, as do
animosities, for that matter. And to respond to Esther's point, I do not
mean to say that temptation does not exist.
What I *do* mean is that perhaps a proper "fence" would be to view the
workplace as just what I suggested, a place in which to accomplish some
professional goals and earn a paycheck, as opposed to a place to meet new
friends, find a lunch partner, etc. Yes, friendly lunches, card games,
even happy hours will occur, maybe even frequently. But so long as they
are viewed in the proper context (for instance, for the purpose
of fostering a better work atmosphere, not "getting to know one another
better"????), the temptations should be sufficiently controlled.
I still feel that one who knows why he/she is at work (i.e. to earn a
living, to cure the sick, etc...) and tries to keep
that in mind at all times will probably not have too much of a problem
ignoring temptations along the way. Perhaps I am naive after all, but I
continue to believe men and women are capable of accomplishing things
together on a platonic basis!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- Mandy Book
<mbook@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Mizrahi <amizrahi@...>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 19:30:47 EST
Subject: Modern Orthodox
Aliza Berger in mj 16.24 discusses the difference between mordern and centrist
Orthodox. As I recall, when I first heard these terms used, they were used to
mean the same thing. I really don't know what either of them are supposed to
mean, as there probably is not a fixed definition. I think the same thing
applies to the word Conservative. It doesn't really mean anything because
there is such a wide range of practice that is labeled "Conservative."
-Alan Mizrahi
<amizrahi@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jay Bailey <jbailey@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 20:36:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Modern Orthodoxy
When I served as the editor of the Commentator at Y.U. a couple years
ago, I spent what probably amounted to hundreds of hours discussing and
arguing about Modern, Centrist, etc.
And after all that, I came to one conclusion: It was a waste of
time. The terms Centrist and Modern (whether or not they are
interchangeable) have been used and abused by so many people in so many
contexts, that trying to clarify them is an excercise in futility.
Each Orthodox Jew manifests his or her Orthodoxy with particular
emphasis, approach and inellectual investigation. To try to group large
numbers of people is foolhardy. Sure, there may be what people consider
to be ideal hashkafik attitudes and corresponding actions, but they can
be infinitely classified and broken down: women's lib Orthodoxy, College
education Orthodoxy, 3-times-a-day-to-shul Orthodoxy, and combinations
of any number of others.
I hope my point it clear...I've spent many years mulling over this, and
its the first time I've actually complied it. My father, who runs a
Modern Orthodox school in LA has opinions on this - Dad - what do you
think?
Jay Bailey
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Keeves@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 09:15:31 -0500
Subject: Pork will become kosher?
In mailjewish 16:19, Harry Weiss (<harry.weiss@...>) wrote:
>Aryeh Blaut asked about the relationship between Chazar - return and
>Chazir - Pig. I heard something on a Lubavitch Email listing saying
>that this was foretelling that when the Moshiach comes Pig will return
>to be Kosher. That concept surprised me since I never heard it from any
>other source.
A recent book entitled "When Moshiach Comes", published by Targum Press,
written by Yehuda Chayoun, and translated from the recent Hebrew work "Otzros
Acharis Hayamim", says the following on page 96:
"Ritva, Rabbeinu Bechaya, the Chasam Sofer, Radbaz, and the Gra Pilagi
(citing Rambam) all quote a midrash stating that pig is called a "chazir" in
Hebrew because Hashem is destined "lehachaziro", to return it to the Jewish
people. (21) However, I have found no such midrash or Rambam. (22)"
His footnote #21 says: "See Ritva on Kiddushin 49b; Rabbeinu Bechaya, *Toras
Moshe* (the Chasam Sofer), and Avraham Anochi (Gra Pilagi) on "Shemini"; and
Radvaz, vol 2, ch 828." His footnote #22 says: "See Ohr Hachaim, 'Shmini'".
My best wishes and good luck to anyone who wants to follow up on this.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Wildstrom <swild@...>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 94 09:43:52 EST
Subject: Public Funding of Symbols
In MJ 16.22, Jonathan Katz
<frisch1@...> writes:
> The courts have ruled differently in different cases, but they have often
>been willing to allow the govt to support a religious event as long as any
>other religious event is equally aupported. For instance, if a town wants to
>spend money to put up
>a Christmas tree, they must also put up a menora.
I believe this misstates the law. The courts have generally barred the
expenditure of public funds to further any religious observance.
Christmas trees have generally been held not to be "religious" and
therefore may be publicly funded, but clearly religious items like
nativity scenes are prohibited. I don't think any of us want to argue
that a Chanukia is not a religious symbol so that its erection would
qualify for public funds. Courts have allowed setting up menorahs in
public placed, provided that they are privately funded (in most cases,
by Chabad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Press <PRESS@...>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 14:30:03 EST
Subject: Re: Spousal Abuse
In the recent discussion of spouse abuse there has been comment about
the questionable relevance of citing Halachic sources in an attempt to
understand the roots of the problem rather than doing something about
the problem itself. A few comments:
1. The original citation of the sources was done by those attempting
to provide a proof that the weight of Halachic opinion leads to spousal
abuse. Other comments were only in response to these.
2. The notion that a problem can be solved without understanding its
roots or the forces that maintain it is surprising. While we often
do ameliorate conditions without understanding their causes, it is
hard to imagine that our chances of dealing with a social problem are
not improved by understanding etiology. If Mrs. Haut or Ms. Graetz
were right, then of course we should try to address the causes that
they have pointed to.
3. It is crucial to note that regardless of the position of Halachic
Judaism on the status of women, which gender is primary in the scheme
of creation (if any), etc. there is considerable evidence that such
themes are essentially irrelevant to spousal abuse. There is a
scientific literature on spousal abuse and it substantially shows
that the factors referred to by the Hauts, Marc Shapiro and others
make little or no contribution to understanding either the frequency
or the intensity of spousal abuse. In fact, the factors which are
related to such abuse are generally less common on the whole in our
communities. THIS IS NOT TO SUGGEST THAT WE ARE FREE OF THIS EVIL OR
THAT EVEN A SINGLE INCIDENT IS TO BE TOLERATED! (Sorry for the
caps;I want to make clear that I'm not advocating abuse). It is only
to note that rational analysis is to be preferred to political
haranguing. MJ is not the place to go at length into the scientific
literature but if anyone is interested in references write to me
directly.
M. Press, Ph.D. 718-270-2409
Dept. Of Psychiatry, SUNY Health Science Center At Brooklyn
450 Clarkson Avenue, Box 32 Brooklyn, NY 11203
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 94 00:12:57 EST
Subject: Talmudic Induction
In a very recent post, Sharon Hollander inquires re the prevalence of
inductive proofs in the Talmud and wonders if there is a classificatory
systems of Talmudic argumentation.
Regarding the latter, there was a bright academic at the latest AOJS
convention last summer who presented a computerized classification of
all arguments in Talmud. I do not remember her name, but I'm sure the
AOJS folks have the info.
Regarding induction, I'm not sure the following fits the tab, but here they
come anyway.
a. A woman whose husbands died several times is considered a killer.
b. An ox who gores three times "graduates" to higher payment ratios.
c. A person who turns deaf is tested for sanity by a presentation of three
true/false question which, if passed by head motions, constitute proof
of sanity.
If these do not fir the tab, it would be interesting to hear from Sharon a
hypothetical inductive argument which would be relevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <eposen@...> (Esther R Posen)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 13:27:04 -0500
Subject: What Saved The Jews or the Harreidim
Assertions like "exemptions for yeshiva students from the army saved the
harreidi world" or "the establishment of the Jewish State saved the
Jewish world" really make me laugh. They remind me of a story my
husband tells of a young American Rabbi who was giving a speech and
explaining why the Holocaust happened. An older European fellow got up
and yelled at him "you were eating ice cream in the Torah Vodaath
Yeshiva when the Holocaust happened - what do you know?" My husband
tells the story much better than I can write it but hopefully the point
comes across. Noone knows what saved the harredim or the jews; noone
even knows why the situtation (the Holocaust) occurred that required all
this saving of jews. At least preface statements like this with "it is
my opinion that".
ESTHER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 14:20:14 -0400
Subject: Women/Tefillin
1. There are specific requirements (for men obligated in Tefilla) to wear
Tefillin during Sh'ma (to avoid "false Eodut") and other parts of Tefilla.
The fact that Lubavitch want people to have the fulfillment of "putting
on Tefillin" is irrelevant to this point. It is the Shulchan Aruch that
rules at what point Tefilin are to be removed during Tefilla. From this,
it appears to me that there is some sort of specific "minimum" associated
with Tefillin and Tefilla.
2. I do not see why the "clean body" arguement "lost its force" as
Aleeza Berger states. On the contrary, it is the "Clean Body"
arguement which mandates that men NOT wear Tefillin the entire day --
something that it is clear from the gemara that they were supposed to
do. (The Gemara -- Yerushalmi], I think -- that actually gets into a
discussion of the b'racha made upon removing Tefillin at the end of
the day (something thatis no longer of practical consequence to us as
we do not keep our tefillin on all day) clearly indicating what the
norm for Tefillin was SUPPOSED to be.) To assert that "Guf Naki" is
some sort of "new issue" is ignoring the historical halacha. While
the Arukh Hashulchan may have been the "first" to mention this matter
in regard to women wearing Tefillin, the concept is well-grounded
before his time.
3. I would be VERY VERY hesitant to compare a case of eating a certain
food -- where the reason is given as being a concern with Chametz and
which we can explicitly address -- with our case here -- wehre the
Rama does NOT provide us a clear basis for knowing when to "reverse"
the ruling. In general, Poskim are very reluctant to differ with the
Rama unless the matter is truly an "open-and-shut" case. If Aleeza
Berger will provide me with a posek of the calibre of: Rav Moshe
Feinstein ZT"L, Rav Soloveitchik ZT"L, or Yibadlu L'Chaim Tovim
Va'aruchim -- Rav Yisroel Belsky SHLITA, Rav Hersehl Schachter
SHLITA, Rav S. Z. Auerbach SHLITA, Rav Eliashiv SHLITA, the
Novominsker Rebbe SHLITA, The Dbreciner Rebbe Shlita, or Rav Shimon
Schwab SHLITA ---- in that case, I will be willing to accept that the
Rama's decision can be "set aside". (I would urge Jonathan Baker to
review with a LOR of the calibre of one of the Poskim mentioned above
what the spectrum of Assur / mutar really means.)
4. If Rabbi Berman was clearly stating a p'sak and Aleeza Berger
considers him a reliable posek, then by all means she is free to
follow his p'sak. R. Moshe ZT"L made this point very strongly (when
discussing Etrogim and Shvi'it) that one is entitled to follow a
*legit.* p'sak even when it differs from the p'sak that other people
have received. However, I still stand by my earlier assertion that
Rabbi Berman is not in the same category of the Poskim mentioned
above -- his scholarship notwithstanding.
--Zvi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 16 Issue 27
