Volume 45 Number 41
                    Produced: Fri Oct 29  5:31:21 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

clop for "U'lchaparat Pasha" (2)
         [<chips@...>, Nathan Lamm]
Hillel Houses
         [Carl Singer]
Modern Orthodoxy---Does the term have meaning/reference?
         [Russell Jay Hendel]
music and Fuchs Mizrachi School
         [Rabbi Shmuel Jablon]
Who is modern Orthodox? (3)
         [Joel Rich, David Maslow, Shoshana Ziskind]
Who is "Modern Orthodox"
         [Carl Singer]


From: <chips@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:09:40 -0700
Subject: Re: clop for "U'lchaparat Pasha"

> When I hear banging it throws me totally "out of kavana" and there's
> less of a chance I'd remember anything. 

	That is basically the point of the banging, to help ensure that
people do indeed break out of their routine. If you can't figure that
there is something to keep in mind when you hear the "bang" then I would
suggest looking at the place where they put up signs about such things
when you hear it.

From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: clop for "U'lchaparat Pasha"

The alternative to clopping offered by Batya Medad- one or two people
saying it out loud- can also get out of hand. I often have my kavana
disturbed when numerous people take it upon themselves to do so, or when
it continues for (literally) months, or when someone insists on saying
"Ata Chonantanu" every single week.


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:32:39 -0400
Subject: Hillel Houses

I must admit that it's been 40 years since I first stepped into a Hillel
House.  I can think of many positive things Hillel accomplished:

It served as a meeting place for Jewish boys and girls to meet each
other -- increasing the odds (especially among the non-observant) that
they'd be dating other Jews.  Certainly this has halachic problems when
"Rachel Cohen" is "Rachel O'Reilly Cohen" (Father Jewish, Mother not) --
but Hillel wasn't meant to solve all of the world's problems.
Nonetheless, there are plenty of Jewish couples who met a Hillel Houses,
NCSY, B'nai Brith BBYO - AZA, and lots of other venues that "frummies"
would deride.

Hillel provided kosher food for those who needed it.

Hillel provided a minyan, also.

One of my sons started a learning chevrusah program (hosted by Hillel)
at his school.

Hillel provided a Jewish presence on campus for those who need it for
whatever purposes: A voice to combat anti-semitism and also source for
bland articles in the campus newspaper about Succos, or Chanuakah or

I am in no way affiliated with Hillel so I cannot speak on their behalf
-- the above forty year old observations to me indicate that the glass
is much more than half full.  Detractors can jump in and show it half
empty if they so choose.

Carl Singer


From: <chips@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:09:40 -0700
Subject: Re: Honey

>  sold honey. I asked the LOR for a hechsher, and he said that honey
> does not need one, but he gave me a hechsher for the non knowing
> mahmirim.

	Which brings to my mind the fascinating question of: Why is
honey kosher at all?  [and if you are going to site Tosfos, make sure
that the Tosfos is factually correct first.]

I actually do not believe that honey would be considered kosher if it
was "discovered" after the time of the Neviim. I do not doubt that it is
indeed kosher, as Yehonoson ate it , and from the comb itself no less.



From: Russell Jay Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:00:25 GMT
Subject: RE: Modern Orthodoxy---Does the term have meaning/reference?

Having read several of the postings I have to ask some serious questions.

First: It would appear very dangerous to identify modern orthodoxy with
observance---ALL orthodoxys must advocate observance....one could argue
that modern orthodoxy differs from non-modern orthodoxy in certain
observances (like tolerating mechizahs....but I hardly think this a
definition of a movement).

I am also wary of defining modern orthodoxy by the embracement of
secular values. For example is a person modern orthodox because they
learned computer languages and practice programming? How is that
different than the Tanaiim and Emoraiim (Talmudic scholars) who were
woodcutters and shoemakers. My point is that in every generation there
will non-teaching jobs and these jobs will be secular. How then can we
define a modern orthodoxy movement based on its secular jobs when every
generation has them.  Indeed the patriarch Jacob defined Zevulun as a
sea-merchant--does that make Zevulun modern-orthodoxy.

We might try and define modern orthodoxy by entertainment....modern
orthodox people enjoy secular movies, theater, music etc But anyone
involved in the secular world because of their job must be exposed to
one extent or another to these things. If a person practices juggling or
jogging in his spare time should they be classified as modern-orthodox?

Finally we have the favorite definition---by modesty laws. While there
are certainly groups whose women have long skirts and whom avoid secular
entertainment with exposure to immodest scenes...but does this justify
defining a movement? For example: Suppose a man has been rejected badly
and decides to abstain from movies for a while---is that man all of a
sudden non-modern orthodox. Suppose a non-orthodox couple goes for
therapy and expose themselves (privately) to immodest scenes to improve
their marriage...have they temporarily left the fold? My point here is
that abstention from immodest scenes is not an attributeof a movement
but something many people do at one point or another in their life.  The
Biblical Nazirite is suppose to have gone on "his religious trip"
because he saw an adulteress and therefore decided to abstain from
wine....this is a psychological experience not a "movement".

There is an underlying theme in the above....it would be more productive
in terms of discussion if we regarded various attributes as responses to
real-world situations vs. classifying them as movements. The 4 items I
have reviewed above: a) Observance of Jewish law b) secular jobs c)
Secular entertainment d) avoidance of immodesty---these items are things
we all do independent of where we belong. It would therefore be more
productive to discuss those circumstances when eg. over or under
involvment in secular entertainment is good or bad.

My position here is not simply advocating unity....but rather more
fundamentally as perceiving and ACKNOWLEDGING the multiplicity of forces
under which we have all lived in all times.

I hope the above changes the direction of this thread and elicits
responses on psychological situations.

Russell Jay Hendel; <RJHendel@...>; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/


From: Rabbi Shmuel Jablon <rabbij@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:44:56 -0400
Subject: music and Fuchs Mizrachi School

Shalom to all!

Our music teacher has left....and I am hoping, starting the next school
year, to have a very different type of program.  Basically, I am looking
for music coordinator--a star...someone who gets the students EXTREMELY
excited by music, and by Jewish music.  I am looking for someone who is
a good and caring teacher of children, who can motivate children to want
to perform music, who can improve musical skills, and help those who are
particularly gifted in this area to nourish these gifts.  This is
someone should be part of the "neshama" of the school...so I am looking
for someone Observant, who can daven, sing and play an instrument, who
can be the most popular and beloved member of the faculty for all of the
right reasons...

 ...and who is willing to move to Cleveland (which is a fantastic
community)and build a program and thus help build out school even
further.  Our Blue Ribbon School has big dreams of a larger campus, with
music rooms and a professional auditorium.  And we are already a place
of excellence that other schools look to for leadership.  So now I want
to do what I can tohelp our school be a leader in Jewish music.

I thought someone on the list might know that special someone, who could
be such that "star" who would be ready to make the jump to this kind of
music educational leadership.

I would be open to any ideas.


Rabbi Shmuel Jablon
Head of Lower School
Fuchs Mizrachi School


From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:59:26 EDT
Subject: Re: Who is modern Orthodox?

      I did not know that there is a haredi model of secular education.
      Haredim generally do not believe in the value of a secular
      education at all.

The writer was probably referring to those who "unfortunately" have to
work for a living and thus need some knowledge for their parnassa.

Joel Rich(not Richard Joel or Joel Roth, just a pashuta yid trying to live
tora umada rather than defining it:-)

From: David Maslow <maslowd@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:23:17 -0400
Subject: Who is modern Orthodox?

Mordechai Horowitz, in his attack on YU, sites Richard Joel's prior
position at Hillel as a sign of his lack of commitment to Halacha.
Hillel, to my knowledge, has been supportive of Orthodox students on
campuses while encouraging any affiliation or association with a Jewish
community. Since many others have addressed the particulars, and
Mr. Joel needs no defense from me as a person, an Orthodox Jew, or a
communal leader, I would like to raise a general question.

Is it permissible within the confines of Halacha to work, professionally
or as a volunteer, for a communal organization that has goals that
extend beyond the Orthodox community, provided they are not totally
antagonistic to Halacha?  Communal Federations that provide much support
to Orthodox day schools also support non-Orthodox schools, teachers at
community schools, which exist in many smaller US cities, can have great
impact on their students, and I could go on.

The issue, IMHO, is whether we should be concerned only about a strong
Orthodox community with little else or a strong and growing Orthodox
community amidst a viable albeit non-observant Jewish community-I opt
for the latter.

David E. Maslow, Ph.D.
Chief, Resources and Training Review Branch
National Cancer Institute

From: Shoshana Ziskind <shosh@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:14:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Who is modern Orthodox?

On Oct 26, 2004, at 6:09 AM, <bdcohen@...> (David I. Cohen) 

> Hillel is not a religious organization -- its mandate is to develop a
> connection with Jewish college students and Judaism, in some
> fashion. His idea was to get them to "do Jewish" in some fashion.  You
> may not agree that such an organization should exist ( and that we can
> just write off the thousands of Jewish age college students who have
> little or no connection to their being Jewish) but I cannot see how
> that in any way conflicts with the Rav's strictures on denominational
> dialogue and cooperation.

The problem with Hillel is that its supposed to be for all Jews.  It
tends to be good about being for reform or conservative or renewal or
non affiliated but it often ends up breaking down when it comes to Jews
who are frum especially in schools with a very tiny frum population
going (I'm not talking about Brooklyn College for example).  Hillel may
not be a religious organization officially but they have events which
are religious in nature, at least at the hillel I went to (UC-Santa
Cruz).  We always had a Shabbos program for instance.  I don't think
they ever, while I was there, had even one shabbos program which would
have worked for orthodox Jews.  The truth is that there were very few
frum Jews going there (I wasn't frum myself at the time, although i was
somewhat in process) but still the frum Jews who were there at the time
should have been able to use Hillel as a resource and they weren't able
to.  Frum students now have Chabad at least but at the time there wasn't
a chabad house in the town.  (Now they have one of the town and one for
the uni. so I suspect things have changed)

Shoshana Ziskind

From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:19:46 -0400
Subject: Who is "Modern Orthodox"

As long as ANY GROUP allows others to define it -- or as long a
definitions of a group come from those who are outside we have seenus

This bit of wisdom derived from "Debate 101" applies equally to recent
postings re: "Modern Orthodox", "Lubavitch", "Chassidim", "Yeshivish" or
"them Jews!"  -- actually Debate 101 taught that he (she) who defines
the terms wins the debate.

Even when the "definer" is from within the group we have issues as
groups are not monolithic, it is unclear who (if anyone) can speak
authoritatively for them and, alas, the so-called "leadership" may well
not be representative of laity.

As an example, my wife and I dined recently in Teaneck, NJ.  A family
walked in and sat at a nearby table.  The men were wearing yarmulkes,
women wearing pants -- what "got to me" was that although they ate
sandwiches, none got up to wash.  Does this mean that "modern orthodox"
don't wash (or make a brucha) -- of course not -- it means that this
family (whatever their "label") didn't.  But one could see how an
outside observer could write a derogatory article using this as an

Carl Singer


End of Volume 45 Issue 41