Volume 55 Number 81
Produced: Mon Sep 24 5:14:37 EDT 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chassidim (was Umman)
[Yisrael Medad]
come-and-hear.com
[Art Werschulz]
Complaints about the First Amendment?
[Bernard Raab]
Da'as Torah
[Bernard Raab]
Dying on One's Birthday
[<chips@...>]
Heter Mechira
[Risa Tzohar]
SA Beis Yoseph
[Eli Turkel]
Shemitta
[Eli Turkel]
Whether to support Zionism
[Abie Zayit]
Zionism
[Joseph Kaplan]
"Zionists"
[Shmuel Himelstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:17:40 +0200
Subject: Chassidim (was Umman)
A. Goldberg writes of the Ottawa College of Jewish Studies writes of the
opposition of the Gra to Chassidut that:
> it was feared that Rebbee-veneration could evolve into messianism (as
> indeed it has in certain parts of the Habbad community).
I suggest that this statement be reviewed carefully as it might be
anachronistic.
The first cherem declared against the Chassidim was in Vilna in 1772
(and was sent actually to Brody where in its Kloiz the 10 scholars there
were permitted to daven Nusach Ari - see below). The concept of the
Tzaddik, if I am not mistaken, was not yet that developed in the sense
that we now know, being developed by Elimelech of Lizansk after the
death of the Maggid of Mezeritch. Assaf, Vilansky and Dubnow, while
quoting the texts of the Mitnagdim which note the alterations in prayer
texts (Nusach Ari basically), shechita with extra sharpened blades,
frivous wasting of time in partying (and drinking and not being with
family enough), doing flip-flops while davening (Avraham of Kalisk's
specialty), still return to the basic problem that the Chassidim posed:
undermining the authority of the Rabbinic and Rabbinic-connected lay
leadership (what was known in Vilna as the "rozanim") and the supposed
dereliction of commitment to Torah study as was practiced in the
Yeshivot then. One must remember that European Jewry did not support a
Yeshiva system like we know it today; it being an exclusivist and
elitist institution.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:49:47 -0400
Subject: come-and-hear.com
Hi. <meirman@...> (Meir) wrote:
> Right now, one group is trying to decide whether to use an online
> version of the Soncino Talmud that is, it seems, an accurate copy but on
> a somewhat anti-semitic website, <http://www.come-and-hear.com>.
I don't recall whether this has been discussed on mail-jewish. However,
we did discuss the come-and-hear website on the
soc.culture.jewish.moderated newsgroup. You can read the discussion at
<http://tinyurl.com/3b7mns>.
Perush Rashi (as R' R' Dr Josh Backon would say): This site should be
avoided like the plague. The proverbial ten-foot pole isn't long
enough. If any of you know folks who are using this website, please
warn them away from same.
G'mar hatimah tovah.
Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l++ u+ P++ e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t+ r-
Internet: agw STRUDEL cs.columbia.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:45:04 -0400
Subject: RE: Complaints about the First Amendment?
>From: <meirman@...> (Meir)
>Does anyone know of any USA Jews, especially Orthodox, who object to the
>two freedom of religion clauses in the First Amendment, in the Bill of
>Rights? Does anyone know of any USA Jews who criticize Jefferson for
>his part in writing them. What are their reasons? Every Jew I've ever
>read or talked to has thought they were good things.
>
>Now I'm in a discussion with two Noahides who think they are bad because
>in a country with religious freedom, the law allows people to do things
>that they shouldn't. Yeah, but if there were going to be less religious
>freedom, it would be Christians imposing their religious values on Jews
>and Noahides. Like when I grew up. They may have legalized blasphemy
>and in most states adultery, but despite that sort of thing, all in all,
>isn't the First Amendment a good thing for Jews and Noahides?
The First Amendment is a good thing for religions of all sorts. Most of
the other democratic states of the world have a state religion or a
state-preferred religion, including Israel of course. But
wonder-of-wonders, the US is the most religious, as measured by church
attendance, and surveys of professed faith.
G'mar chatima tova--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:45:04 -0400
Subject: RE: Da'as Torah
>From: Akiva Miller:
>Dr. Ben Katz wrote:
> > The problem for those who believe in "daas Torah" is that those very
> > rabbis were by and large, wrong about the 2 momentous decisions facing
> > 20th century Jewry:
> > 1. whether to stay in Europe
> > 2. Whether to support Zionism
>
>That is your opinion. But it is not a provable fact.
>
>I'll admit that the way things turned out, it does APPEAR that those
>rabbis were wrong. But Who knows how things would have turned out if
>more people had actually listened to those rabbis and followed them?
In fact most Jews did listen to the Rabbis and stayed put, and
regretably, we do know the result: the destruction of European Jewry. The
sole exception was the Mir Yeshiva, which fled Lithuania en masse and
survived the war in Shanghai.
>From: Perets Mett :
>History has shown that Zionism is a tool to dissociate Jews from
>Judaism, and the rabonim have sadly been proved correct.
Exactly what history is that? I believe it is indisputable that there
are more Jews studying Torah today IN ISRAEL (the "Zionist entity" , as
the Arabs love to call it) than ever before in (real) history. And this
both inspires and enables even more Jews to study Torah outside the
borders of the Zionist entity. Now this is my opinion, obviously, but
without the existence of the State of Israel, Judaism would be a
terminal enterprise wherever it might still be found in the world.
G'mar chatima tova--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <chips@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:24:14 -0700
Subject: Dying on One's Birthday
There are commentaries who mention that Moshe's dying on Adar 7, which
was anniversary of the day he was born, was a special `segulah` .
Something I've read and hear many times when getting close to Simchas
Torah. I was at a Shabos lunch table recently when this came up and a
teenager asked is it really so unusual - after all it seems it would
only be less than 1-in-400 chance of occuring. Is the statistical chance
different from that? Is there more to the concept of same die/birth date?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Risa Tzohar <risa.tzohar@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:45:55 +0200
Subject: Heter Mechira
Shmuel Himelstein wrote:
>Richard Fiedler states that "In many respects Zionism is dead or dying
>as can be evidenced by what one might have thought as a zionistic
>institution the Grus Center, an Israeli division of Yeshiva University,
>in Jerusalem rejecting the heter mechira and supporting the Arab cause
>by purchasing its produce this year from them."
>To me, this comment lacks a degree of logic. It implies that a
>"zionistic instititution" must support the Heter Mechira, and if it does
>not it is not Zionistic. And here I thought all this time that the
>question of whether or not to use Heter Mechira was a purely Halachic
>issue, and was surely not to be construed as a political act either
>way. And find me one reputable Posek who will issue a Psak based on
>whether one is or is not "supporting the arab cause."
I believe someone already pointed out Rav Aviner's support of the heter
mechira. Many other zionist rabbis also support this policy. An
excellent case is made by Rav Moshe Zuriel at Arutz 7 at
http://www.inn.co.il/Articles/Article.aspx/6950 (only in Hebrew, sorry)
showing, among other things how blatantly political the outright blanket
rejection of heter mechira really is.
I would add that if anyone really took shmita seriously it wouldn't be
an issue which comes up at best around Purim time in the sixth year and
more often during Elul just before the shmita. They could spend the six
years in between the shmitot working on a plan that would compensate
farmers for the seventh year so as to encourage them to observe the
smita in Eretz Yisrael. It's very easy to do a mitzvah at someone else's
expense.
As for the ironic term I've heard 'shmita l'humra' as meaning using
imported and Arab grown vegetables I have this to say: I believe a true
shmita l'humra would be for these people to buy a field in the sixth
year and let it lie fallow during shmita. That is observing shmita.
And while I'm at it, a word about Yeshiva University: It is very
disappointing to hear this news if only because Rabbi Issac Elchanan
Spector (who RIETS is named for) was one of the first supporters of the
heter mechira.
Chag sameach to all,
Risa Tzohar
Rehovot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:45:06 +0200
Subject: SA Beis Yoseph
> Anyone know if there's a small-ish edition of the shulchan aruch beis
> yosef? small enough to fit in a book bag; i have in mind 8.5 x 11.
What is shulchan Arukh Beis Yosef?
The original SA was fairly small and was written to be constantly reread
over a short time. The additions of Ramah and later commentaries make it
much larger. Does anyone know if the original SA (with Ramah) is printed
without all the commentaries is available. BYW beis yosef is a
commentary on the Tur (and author of SA)
Eli Turkel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:39:00 +0200
Subject: Shemitta
> To me, this comment lacks a degree of logic. It implies that a
> "zionistic instititution" must support the Heter Mechira, and if it
> does not it is not Zionistic. And here I thought all this time that
> the question of whether or not to use Heter Mechira was a purely
> Halachic issue, and was surely not to be construed as a political act
> either way. And find me one reputable Posek who will issue a Psak
> based on whether one is or is not "supporting the arab cause."
Actually many rabbis have said that suuporting the arab cause violates
"lo chechonem". I don't know at all what the Gruss Institute said but
many zionist rabbis are supporting the organization "otzar ha-aretz"
which offers many options besides heter mechira and does not buy any PA
vegetables. BTW we speak about arab produce and I would greatly
distinguis between Israeli Arab and Hamas produce.
As an aside I find that it is the charedim who have made heter mechira
into a political act rather than a halachic discussion. The basis of
heter mechira is many of the gedolim in Europe in the late 1800 hundreds
with R. Kook entering into the discussion many years later. Once Chazon
Ish opposed it became a matter of politics rather than halakhah if one
used the heter mechira
Eli Turkel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Abie Zayit <shemenzayit@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:47:16 +0200
Subject: Whether to support Zionism
>> History has shown that Zionism is a tool to dissociate Jews from
>> Judaism, and the rabonim have sadly been proved correct.
>Yes -- in reference to secular-political Zionism. And sadly, not even
>that variety is still around anymore -- its all "post-Zionism" -- which
>is a statement about the staying power of anything that's not based on a
>foundation of emet.
Now just imagine how different things would have been had the Rabbonim
played a central role in the development of the Zionist idea - following
the lead of Rav Shmuel Mohiliver, for example - instead of rejecting it.
Abie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:17:10 -0400
Subject: Zionism
> Perets Mett writes: "Zionists have never hidden their intention to
> establish a secular state, devoid of religious Judaism, and to do
> everything possible to implement it by 're-educating' religious Jews,
> especially children separated from their parents."
That seems to be somewhat of an overstatement. Certainly it's not true
for Religious Zionists, and I doubt it's true for all secular Zionists
as well, Many of whom, although not wanting a state run under Jewish
law, want Israel to be a Jewish state with aspects of religious Judaism.
Joseph Kaplan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:52:22 +0200
Subject: "Zionists"
Perets Mett writes that
> Zionists have never hidden their intention to establish a secular
> state, devoid of religious Judaism, and to do everything possible to
> implement it by "re-educating" religious Jews, especially children
> separated from their parents. This happened repeatedly: in the Cyprus
> camps, with the Yaldei Tehran and with Yemenite Jewry.
I would like to know what Perets means by "Zionists". All Zionists? Some
Zionists? Mizrachi Zionists? Etzel Zionists led by Menachem Begin? Rav
Meir Bar-Ilan Zionists? Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik Zionists?
By the same token, I could say that "Charedim" have gone to Teheran to
participate in anti-Holocaust conferences and have physically beaten up
Religious Zionists. Maybe generalizations are not so good after all,
Perets?
As to the "beating up," my late father-in-law, Rabbi Zevi Tabory, was
beaten up by some "Charedi" thugs in the 1950s when he came out of the
Israeli embassy in New York. This was at the height of the "Sherut
Leumi" fight in Israel. His "crime" was that he was a "Zionist" who was
in charge of the Torah Culture Department of the Jewish Agency for
Israel.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 55 Issue 81
