Volume 42 Number 14
Produced: Mon Feb 16 5:52:56 US/Eastern 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Article in Jewish Observer
[S. Wise]
Halleluya vs Halleluka
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Ignorance
[<aliw@...>]
Jewish Observer article, Disney, et al
[R E Sternglantz]
Kosher Ice Cream
[<rubin20@...>]
Maaseh Avot Siman Le-Vanim
[Yehonatan Chipman]
Meaning of Tefila (2)
[Ben Katz, Avi Feldblum]
Nature of Hebrew Language
[Steven White]
Nesher HaGadol
[Gil Student]
Shiur from Rav Shlomo Riskin
[Bernard Raab]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Smwise3@...> (S. Wise)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:36:54 EST
Subject: Re: Article in Jewish Observer
In a message dated 2/11/4, David I. Cohen writes:
>I remember hearing a shiur from Rav Shlomo Riskin, certainly not an
>Agudah inherent, where he chastised his audience for becoming Jews that
>he called "reverse Marranos", i.e. having the outward trappings of
>religious observance but in reality holding dear the pleasures of
>secular culture. As an example, the sine qua non of a Jewish community
>is the existence of a kosher pizza store (or Chinese restaurant) rather
>than how many shiurim take place. Or another, what exotic locale we can
>find to vacation in on Pesach, while tangentially thinking about the
>quality of the seder (and Yom Tov) experience.
I wish I understood why some rabbis pick such battles. Do they expect
to change them by skewing the reality. Is it really "holding dear the
pleasures of secular culture," or is it looking for some variety in
their lives? Owning expensive summer homes in the Catskills or going to
bungalows for 8 weeks are not the trappings of the goyim--why are they
OK?
Let's face it, people create the exotic locations for Pesach--not
because people are desperate to find these places--and open pizza stores
--not because the frum community is clamoring for more pizza--but simply
to make a living. It turns out they have the customers, and if the
criticism is aimed at anyone it should be those who created these
options. But I don't blame anyone for using ingenuity to make parnasa.
If everyone stopped going to these Pesach getaways and pizza shops,
they'll find something else that will inspire criticism.
Bottom line, people are looking for variety in their lives. Some people
find it difficult to be frum, and if this makes it easier for them, I
would not criticize it. There was a time not too long ago when people
would go to exotic locations without a minyan, and shlepping all their
food. The fact that you can have minyanim and shiurim in these places,
as I've said, demonstrates the glory of Hashem.
S. Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:47:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Halleluya vs Halleluka
> From: <MPoppers@...> (Michael Poppers)
> (Tangential note: in writing a transliteration of or another language's
> name for a Divine name, elision of letters or a dash replacing a letter
> is not necessary. Whether you write YAH or God, you're not writing a
> Divine name about which erasure is a concern.)
The point meant by those of us who use the dash is not a claim that the
word itself is a "Divine Name" but that we are emphasizing that there
needs to be an area of explicit respect when referring to G-d (or God).
It is a matter of showing that we *meant* the respect that would be
reuired had we written the actual name.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<sabbahem@...>, Sabba.Hillel@verizon.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <aliw@...>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:43:16 +0200
Subject: Re: Ignorance
Tzvi Stein in 42/10 says:
>There are plenty of examples of Israeli families not knowing that there
>is such a melacha on Shabbos called "carrying". Supposedly this is
>explained by the plethora of eruvin there. I wonder if people would
>also accept that someone did not know there was such a thing as kashrus
>because of the plethora of kosher food.
There are indeed Israelis who do not understand the concept of not
pushing a baby carriage to shul, as I'm sure there are American Jews in
large cities who aren't aware of all the issurim of carrying on Shabbat,
because they've always had an eiruv. When I came on Aliyah in 1971, on
one of the first Shabbatot that I spent in Beer Sheva, it was announced
in shul on Friday night that the eiruv was down. I found myself
explaining to people who didn't have a clue (!) how they could manage
and what they could and could not do. And as to not knowing about
Kashrut because everything is kosher, I have to tell you that there were
literally dozens of times that I found myself cautioning frum American
tourists, that no, they could not freely buy anything they saw on the
shelf at the Supersol on Agron on the assumption that it must be kosher.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R E Sternglantz <resternglantz@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:25:44 -0500
Subject: RE: Jewish Observer article, Disney, et al
I just had the opportunity to read, in its entirety, the Observer
article that is being discussed. While the quotations (regarding
Disney, and "imitation non-kosher" foods, inter alia) were accurate, I
think that out of context the true point of the article was greatly
distorted.
Mostly, and mainly, the article was a lament on how we have lost the
separation of kodesh -- that which is essentially holy -- and chol --
that which has not been sanctified. The point was not that chol must be
(or even should be) completely discarded. The point was that rather
than making chol kodesh, we have been progressively diluting our
experience of kodesh. The Disneyland point was NOT specifically that
Disney was (generally) an inappropriate designation. The point was that
somehow, Chol HaMoed has become *about* Disneyland. The point about the
imitation non-kosher food was very, very specifically focused as well:
it was about a sense of urgency and excitement about getting kosher
certification for a product touted as "tasting exactly like pork." It
was about the Jew wanting the "exactly like pork" experience more than
anything else.
The starting point for the lament was that the Mashgiach saw a very
little girl with a balloon in her hair. He asked her why she had a
balloon in her hair. She replied that she'd just learned "Bais" in
school, and that "bais is for balloon." There's nothing wrong with a
little girl with a balloon in her hair. The objection wasn't to
balloons. He just felt that something has been lost when *that's* the
association the teacher is teaching with aleph-bais.
People can agree or disagree about the specific examples chosen to
illustrate the point. But to represent this article as a specific
attack on going to Disneyland or the expansion of kosher supervision is
inaccurate. And the chief point -- that maybe it's sad, maybe we've
experienced a loss, if our excitement about Chol HaMoed is a function of
Disneyland -- seems very strong indeed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rubin20@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:13:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Kosher Ice Cream
The fact that the Haagen Dazs family were fine philanthropic people has
nothing at all to do with what that Rabbi said. He was not criticizing
the Haagen Dazs producers but bemoaning the fact that there is kosher ice
cream. I am not necessary subscribing to his view, just pointing out that
this tribute to the Haagen Dazs family is a complete non sequitur.
[Just as a note, I would have to say that a very significant number of
responses are actually non sequiters. I would be open to the arguement
that this was less of a non sequitur than many, since it brought up a
possibly not intentioned consequence of not having kosher ice
cream. Thus the relevance, even though at a tangent to the main issue
the Rabbi had. So flows the ways of mail-jewish. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehonatan Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:34:23 +0200
Subject: Re: Maaseh Avot Siman Le-Vanim
In 42n08, Freda B Birnbaum asked:
<<Does anyone know the source of "maaseh avot siman le-vanim"?>>
The idea appears in Ramban al ha-Torah on Sefer Bereshit, but I don't
know offhand precisely where, nor whether he uses that exact wording or
expresses the idea slightly differently.
Yehonatan Chipman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:14:45 -0600
Subject: Re: Meaning of Tefila
>From: Michael Kahn <mi_kahn@...>
>Baruch Hashem, understanding tfila is not a wedge issue that divides
>strains of Orthodoxy.
I hate to say it, but the last line of this post may not be
true. When the Rav, ZT"L, was ill there was a movement in Boston to
make kavanat hatefillah an optional rather than a required course in
Maimonides. The reason seemed to be that if one understands what they
are saying, he or she may question it, but if one doesn't know ...
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
Ph. 773-880-4187, Fax 773-880-8226
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:31:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Meaning of Tefila
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, ben katz wrote:
> I hate to say it, but the last line of this post may not be true.
> When the Rav, ZT"L, was ill there was a movement in Boston to make kavanat
> hatefillah an optional rather than a required course in Maimonides.
Even if true, I am not sure what the relevence may be. Where do you see
kavanat hatefillah as being a wedge issue that is dividing between
segments of Orthodoxy based on the above?
Avi Feldblum
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steven White)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:25:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Nature of Hebrew Language
In MJ 42:11, Stan Tenen <meru1@...> writes:
> This is very significant. Most modern languages, including English and
> modern Hebrew, are noun-based in that the roots are usually taken to be
> "things". But this is not the case with Torah Hebrew roots. Our roots
> are verb-based -- which is why Torah Hebrew is described technically as
> a rheomode language. Each word of ours is rooted in an action.
This helps me understand a peculiarity I have seen in myself: I can't
learn languages by learning vocabulary first, and then grammar. I
(personally) must learn grammar/verbs/conjugation first, and only then
do I feel as if I have enough grounding in the language to start trying
to learn vocabulary words and to use them. This has been true for me
not only in Hebrew, but also in French as well, in which I am fluent.
Brief ma'aseh: My mother (who should live and be well) speaks fluent
Yiddish, learned at her grandmother's elbow. She has never much
understood my becoming frum, but she thought she could participate a
little by encouraging me to learn Yiddish. So she bought me a tape.
But the tape only repeated vocabulary words, and covered no language
structure as well. I found it frustrating, as if it were just gossamer,
and eventually stopped. Yet, as I just recall typing this out, I
remember looking through a copy of "Der Yiddishe Lererer" as a child and
(at least for a while) making some sense from that. And that covered
grammar.
Since so many of our yeshivot are so poor at actually teaching Ivrit, or
Ivrit b'Ivrit, or even Ivris, I wonder if we shouldn't really try to be
more verb-based about it.
Steven White
Highland Park, NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gil Student <gil_student@...>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:51:57 -0500
Subject: Nesher HaGadol
Abie Zayit wrote:
>can anyone tell me why the Rambam is called the "Nesher HaGadol"?
I don't know, but I saw that the Beis Yosef refers to Abarbanel with
the same title in Yoreh Deah 168.
Gil Student
<gil_student@...>
www.aishdas.org/student
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:27:03 -0500
Subject: Shiur from Rav Shlomo Riskin
>From: <bdcohen@...> (David I. Cohen)
>I remember hearing a shiur from Rav Shlomo Riskin, certainly not an
>Agudah inherent, where he chastised his audience for becoming Jews that
>he called "reverse Marranos", i.e. having the outward trappings of
>religious observance but in reality holding dear the pleasures of
>secular culture. As an example, the sine qua non of a Jewish community
>is the existence of a kosher pizza store (or Chinese restaurant) rather
>than how many shiurim take place. Or another, what exotic locale we can
>find to vacation in on Pesach, while tangetially thinking about the
>quality of the seder (and Yom Tov) experience.
>Are we a community of "reverse Marranos'?
Of course we expect our Rabbis to preach for greater torah observance
and more Jewish learning. But where in Judaism is the requirement to
forego all earthly pleasures and become a nation of ascetics? Would it
be wrong for a Rabbi to extol the pleasures of fine dining, say, or of
classical "secular" music, for example. Or more significantly, would it
be wrong for a Rabbi to recognize the value of studying science, or
philosophy, or world history "lishma", rather than as a compromise for
"parnasa"? By accepting, or seeming to accept, the unidimensional
definition of Jewish values promulgated by the "yeshiva" or Agudah
world, we must ipso facto come out in second place. I reject the
designation of "reverse Marrano". It is an insult! Does my attendance at
an opera or a concert, or a scientific conference, mean that I am
seeking to hide my Jewishness? This is nothing but self-destructive
nonsense. And if I choose to spend Pesach in an exotic locale, I thank
the Rebono-Shel-Olam that I live in an age and have the means to make it
possible!
b'shalom--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 42 Issue 14
