Talk:Brisk tradition and Soloveitchik dynasty

Condensing bios

Considering Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik and Chaim Soloveitchik now have pages, how about condensing their biographies here and creating new pages for the Beis ha-Levi and Reb Moshe Soloveitchik? JFW | T@lk 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC) ok, i'll work on it one day.

Examples of Lomdus

At the end of the article there are two examples of Brisker lomdus. They are unsourced, and unless someone adds the source we have a WP:CITE problem. JFW | T@lk 13:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

ok done!--Rachack 22:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What about any of the next generation? Shouldn't there be at least links to the American or Israeli pages? micha 20:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but things fan out and get quite confusing at some point.

Here's an idea: maybe make a list of all yeshivas around today that claim to be Brisk-related (or off-Brisk), explaining the connection? Everything from YU to R' Tzvi Kaplan, e.g. "YU: had lecturers R' Moshe Soloveitchik, then later R' Joseph Dov and finally R' Aharon (all zt'l)." "Or HaChaim in Kew Gardens Hills: Roshei Yeshiva are R' Daniel Lander, a Talmid of R' Joseph Dov, and R' Yehuda Kraus, a Talmid of R' Berel."

You're taka right. Maybe you should take it upon yourself to put that together. I don't have the resources/knowledge to do it. --Rachack 03:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Rav Chaim Volozhiner

Somebody added R' Chaim Volozhiner; could they please explain his connection to the Soloveitchiks? Right now it looks very much out of place.

there are descendants of rav chaim volozhiner --Rachack 19:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Nu ... good ... Firstly, the article should explain how the Bais HaLevi was related to R' Chaim Volozhiner. But more importantly, this article is supposed to be about BRISK, Briskers, the Brisk mehalech, etc.. While I've heard talmidim of R' Yoshe Ber talk about "Moshe kibel torah misinai umesara lihoshua ... to the Vilna Gaon, to R' Chaim Volozhiner, to the Briskers, to R' Yoshe Ber"; I think we could all safely agree that R' Chaim Volozhiner was not associated with the town of Brisk, was not named "Soloveitchik", and is generally not directly linked to the Brisker mehalech. So perhaps in discussing Solovetichik yichus, you could mention the R' Chaim Volozhiner connection in passing; but I don't think he belongs in our chronological list of "Briskers."

It took me a few days to build up the guts to do it, but I've gone ahead and done the modification. If you really don't like it, go ahead and change it back, I won't put up a fight.

--Rachack 03:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)גם זו לטובא

Clean-up tag

Unless somebody justifies why this article has a clean-up tag attached to it, I will soon remove the tag because I don't see any problems with the article. --רח"ק | Talk 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is messy in everything from arbitrary content emphasis (e.g. this should be an article on either the yeshivas or the dynasty - not both) to the title name (Brisk (Yeshiva) or Brisk (Dynasty) would be more appropriate) to unconventional naming (e.g. "Rabbi Joseph Dov (HaLevi) Soloveitchik (the first) (1820-1892) who is known by his pen name for his work the Beis HaLevi"; "the 'GRYZ' "; and so forth). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style for more information. Also, using transliterating "ת" as "s" doesn't conform to Wikipedia's standard transliteration conventions for Hebrew (regardless of how Briskers themselves pronounce the letter). HKT^Talk 22:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

HKT: The article states how names are used by those who use those names which is not against any Wikipedia rules. The rabbis of Brisk are an integral part of their yeshivas whicvh are run very informally without the usual trappings of conventional yeshivas. Obviously you are not aware of the Brisk system that they do not even have formal "yeshivas" and "institutions" in any formal sense since everything is "informal" and revolves around the rabbis themselves and their shiurim. You are being too harsh. The article is trying to convey the "flavor" of things and with time will be improved. IZAK 07:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

People don't normally refer to the Beis HaLevi as "Rabbi Joseph Dov (HaLevi) Soloveitchik (the first)". I added the tag to increase the likelihood of the article being improved. And "obviously," you would be surprised at how familiar I am with Brisk. Nevertheless, if you want to remove the tag, I don't care enough to contest it. HKT^Talk 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

HKT: It would be great if you could contribute your own knowledge, and editing skills, in improving such an important article that you admit you know so much about! After all, who do you expect will come along and "improve" the article?, only someone who has a real education about the facts involved. Best wishes, IZAK 09:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Content-wise it doesn't need many additions, and many editors could improve the article as needed. The tag would invite them to do so. Unfortunately, I don't currently have the time for this. HKT^Talk 17:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RYBS

This bio is about Brisk Yeshivas. RIETS is not a Brisk Yeshiva. His name should not be included for this reason. 66.93.254.200 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

B'mechilas kevodo, this user (see his page) has consistently violated NPOV and vandalized other pages; erasing R' Yoshe Ber here is a blatant case of this -- I have restored the Rov's reference on this page. Your point is valid, if this article is about Yeshivas that identify themselves as "Brisk" per se. (Even then, we could think in terms of yeshivas with heavy Brisk influences, and if you'd include R' Tzvi Kaplan in that list, you'd have no choice but to include RIETS as well.) HOWEVER, I think the point of this article is a bit broader. It was initially written (by me) to describe the Brisk dynasty and Brisk approach; the renaming to "Brisk yeshiva" was done later by someone else. You will see throughout this article that we describe not only the yeshivas, but also the approach and dynasty. Say what you want about RIETS, but everything we know today about the Brisker mehalech, hashkafah, and yichus would be sorely lacking if we erased R' Yoshe Ber, and therefore everything he said or did, due to our political beliefs. I hope I'm not speaking too strongly here, and I welcome others' opinions on the matter. But I think most Wikipedians on this page would agree that it was only right to leave in R' Yoshe Ber. TLMD13 09:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

You are mistakenly branding me for the mistakes of one out of literally many hundreds of other people who use a computer with this IP address. I respect your decision to write about Brisker teachers--a category in which RYBS arguably falls into. But because the title of the article is about Brisker Yeshivas, RIETS cannot be included. Even RYBS's Torah is different from the others mentioned in this article. The latest sefer of RYBS actually shows how RYBS was a baal michadesh, something everyone from Rav Berel and on no longer do out of deference to R' Velvel. The point is, RYBS had a different focus. You are free to change the title so that you can revert my changes or write another article on the subject of disseminators of Brisker Torah. At that rate, you may have to include Roshei Yeshiva like Rav Binyomin Paler (a talmid muvhak of the Brisker Rav and termed by R' Ahron as the amkon hador) and many others, who I would be more than glad to offer you information about, as well. Though I learned in Brisk, I do not have anything against anyone who went RIETS merely because they went to RYBS's yeshiva. Furthermore, though I am in a very small minority, I took the time to learn some of RYBS's Torah. This is not about kannous. Its about factual accuracy. And I think it would not be entirely accurate to brand him either as a Brisker in the pure sense of the word (not merely in the hashkafic sense) or his Yeshiva as a Brisker Yeshiva.

B'micholas kevodo, I think you are the kannoi here. So long as the article is entitled Brisk Yeshiva, RIETS cannot be included. It is factually inaccurate. While no one can help being awe inspired by someone of RYBS's genius, this a matter of metzius. I went through the chiddushin written over in RYBS's name on Sukka. I write it this way because it was CLEARLY not in the style of Brisk (I am not just writing about the way it was written here), and I am sure RYBS was a LOt more clear (as he was legendary for that), thorough and thought out. Nevertheless, it is as Brisk, as, say, R' Yitzchok Sorotzkin's Torah, at the least. I would also be glad to help. But if we are to be cool headed and no kaanoish, we would NOT include RYBS and RMS in this article. DavidCharlesII 14:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your comment on my talk page, but I want to reiterate the point here that if the article is to be changed, the discussion must come first. --Eliyak T·C 15:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If the topic would be Brisk Influences in Yeshivas, or something like that, you would be ONE THOUSAND PERCENT CORRECT. However, the article is about Brisk Yeshivas. RIETS is not a Brisk Yeshiva. It never was. Its maggidei shiurim today CERTAINLY DO NOT GIVE Brisk style shiurim. Anyone who went to Brisk or learned a sefer from the Roshei Yeshiva of Brisk Yeshivas would acknowledge that.

As an aside, and this is important, I want to add that Brisk does not mean debth. On the contrary, its not as deep. Rav Shechter's shiurim--though I cannot state this with authority becuase I never heard one--can be deeper. The point is, his shiur is just not a Brisker shiur. I hope you understand that this issue is NOT meant to malign RIETS--not as an insitution or its students--it is merely to maintain a distinction that is too often blurred by well meaning people who have never really had the Brisk experience as it is in Eretz Yisroel. 66.93.254.200 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Morai V'Rabosai, let me fill in some information here, please. I was the original author of this article just over two years ago, and the article was simply titled "Brisk." It began because the article on RYBS talked about his connection to the Brisk dynasty/mehalech/etc., and that user had created a link to Brisk, but no article existed there, so I began one. That article was about the dynasty and hashkafah/mehalech, from the Beis HaLevi to R' Chaim and then tracing R' Moshe/RYBS and R'Velvel. Fine and good. It makes plenty of sense to have discussion before modifying, but the modification here was the REMOVAL of RYBS (and now R' Moshe too, I see), who had been on this page for more than two years. I felt it was only right to restore this. Notice even now that their bios were removed, they're still in the family tree, and a great deal of comments on hashkofo and the like still quote RYBS (particularly in regards to how to view R' Chaim Brisker.)

What happened since the original article is that someone retitled this article "Brisk Yeshiva", opened with a quote about Brisk kollel, etc. -- several Wikipedians attempted to request a cleanup of this page, as it's become a very messy cholent (my original article, while incomplete, was at least homogeneous), but that wasn't too popular. Nu. If this page is entirely about "Brisk yeshivas", then what is the Beis HaLevi doing here? Did he have a Brisk yeshiva? (While the Brisker derech played a role at various points in Volozhin's history, I don't think any of us would call Volozhin a Brisk yeshiva!) Earlier in the discussion, you'll see what we'd considered was a listing of Brisk offshoots and yeshivas with heavy Brisk affiliations or influences (similar to the way that Merkaz HaRav Kook considers itself a descendant of Volozhin). But for the time being, we'll have to accept that this article is a cholent of Brisker derech, Brisker dynasty, and Brisker yeshivas. And somewhere in all of that, it's only right to include RYBS and R' Moshe (good heavens! R' Yoshe Ber I understand, but why did we have to take out R' Moshe?). If someone would like to split the articles into Brisk dynasty vs. Brisk yeshiva and do further reorganization, ma tov uma naim. But in the meantime, with the article ba'asher hoo sham, I most seriously hope that we'll come to the conclusion that RYBS and R' Moshe should be reinstated here. TLMD13 21:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

Very well. Just to further the case here: if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Soloveitchik, you'll see that the phrase "Soloveitchik rabbinic dynasty" links to this page. So like it or not, for now this page is not strictly about Brisk yeshivas, it's about Briskers. I have attempted to accomodate MPOV by adding in the explanation, "while RIETS is not a Brisk yeshiva, it was home to R' Moshe, R' Yoshe Ber, and R' Aharon, who most scholars would say are Briskers." If you'd like to add in "but some say they aren't", fine by me. I've checked with several editors here -- you have repeatedly (both under the anonymous IP and DavidCharles) removed R' Moshe and RYBS after several different editors have restored them. If you persist, you will be in violation of Wiki policy. TLMD13 08:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

Unfortunately, you are in violation of Wikipedia's policy. With the name of the article being Brisk Yeshiva, you must remove RYBS as it is factually incorrect. If you have so much difficulty with maintaining neutrality, I strongly suggest you change the name. Anonomous and I are different people, and I strongly resent your suggestion that I am a liar. Please follow my recomendation, or RYBS and R' Moshe will have to be removed as they were not involved in Yeshivas Brisk. DavidCharlesII 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, a page on "Brisk yeshivas" is certainly justified in having a section about the "Soloveitchik dynasty" – the entire Soloveitchik dynasty. But see my comment below. --Eliyak T·C 19:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Seforim details

Not very pressing (and not related to the above discussion), but could someone with access to the various Seforim mentioned (GraCh Al HaRambam vs. GraCh al HaShas 'stencil', etc.) clarify the following please? Most Briskers published very little themselves; most was done by students in their name. (E.g. Igros HaGrid and Harrei Kedem both certainly contain RYBS' Torah, but both were collected and published by others.) Now it's fine to include both, but we should indicate the distinction. If I'm not mistaken (though I am away from my usual Seforim library), for example, R' Moshe did himself publish the Imrei Moshe, but not the Chidushei HaGram VehaGrid. Does this make sense? TLMD13 14:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

This is pretty ignorant. The Imrei Moshe was written by Rabbi Moshe Sokolovsky, the Rosh Yeshiva of Brisk and talmid of R' Chaim. It was not written by R' Moshe Soleveitchik. Perhaps you mean Chiddushei HaGram Halavi.

Woops! I am so embarrassed ... (in Grover voice) ... thanks for pointing that out! But I think the point remains, we may want to draw the distinction between actually published by Rabbi ABC and put together by his talmidim bishmo, posthumously. Regardless, oops and thanks! TLMD13 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

Spelling

I've seen discussion elsewhere about R' Ahron spelling his surname without the 't'; does anyone have a source for R' Moshe or R' Shmuel? I'm not challenging this, just curious. And should we explain the difference in spelling, or just assume readers will either not notice, or understand that there were different spellings? TLMD13 14:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

Propose move

I propose to move this page to Brisk (movement). How's everyone feel about that? --Eliyak T·C 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean renaming this page, I assume? (Sorry, new with the Wiki terminology here.) Better than "yeshiva" for sure ... again, what happened here is that the original page was about Brisker derech and dynasty (to fill in the link from the RYBS's page), then someone came along and slapped on the "yeshiva" title. I'm not complaining in the least if you change it to "movement", but Idunno, that title is still missing a certain ring ... wish I had something better. Words like "derech" or "yichus" just don't translate properly -- "Brisk path? Brisk lineage"? No matter what we do here, the problem is that we're trying to impose a 21st century structure on something very amorphous. Nu, should be the worst of our problems. Hatzlacha Rabbah! TLMD13 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

I would agree to anything that would make the inclusion of RYBS more factually accurate. 71.250.194.153 20:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm moving it. --Eliyak T·C 17:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues here (tzvey dinim in Brisk-speak):

1. Now that we have hived off "Brisker derech" into a separate article, there is no need for "methods" in the title of this one;
2. There is actually very little in this article on the subject of yeshivas. Can you list them? How much difference is there between the dedicated "Brisk" yeshivas and the historic "Litvishe" ones like Ponevezh? Is one type significantly more prestigious than the other? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maaseh with R' Velvel, Dina D'alma, etc.

Thought it was a good demonstration of the point, and hopefully understandable to a novice. (R' Rakefet used this one soon after introducing Brisk lomdus.) Let me know if you think it's really out of place. TLMD13 10:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

R' Chaim Brisker & college

I wrote that "the views of R' Chaim and the Bais HaLevi on ...education" are topics of current debate. Since then, I found out that R' Chaim told one talmid he could take a job on Shabbos to get out of Nazi-controlled territory, as it was pikuach nefesh; but he told a different talmid he could not take a scholarship at YU to get out of Europe, because the minus/apikorsus is yehareg v'al ya'avor. From other stories I've heard, it sounds like R' Chaim's only concern was minus/apikorsus. (Which I assume would refer potentially to classics, literature e.g. New Testament, some forms of philosophy, and Bible criticism and the like; college then, including YU, is not college now, including YU.) Just as I wrote, R' Chaim Brisker had been anti-JNF, but that was pre Holocaust and 48, so who knows ... you could make the case, R' Chaim would have nothing against, say, a Touro or something where all they teach is computer programming, I don't know. The question I'm putting out here, regardless, is l'shem emes, should I (or someone else) include something about R' Chaim being anti-college? TLMD13 10:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

Look at the Birkas Shmuel at the end of Kiddushin on the issue of college. He quotes R' Chaim's views on the subject.

Thanks, will try and get to that soon b'n. Not "this table has dinei cow", but get down and milk it! Thank you. TLMD13 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

Hebrew transliterations: Ashkenozis or Sefardit?

I think this topic has come up before a bit, but let's face it here. While academic Judaics (e.g. "Tradition") generally favors a sephardic-like pronunciation, clearly R' Yosef Dov of Brisk called his Sefer "Beis HaLevi", not "Beit HaLevi." Furthermore, my guess right now would be that 90% of the disciples of the "Israeli" Briskers, and probably about 60% of disciples of "American" Briskers (R' Ahron & R' Yoshe Ber) use havora ashkenazis. So I quoted R' Chaim Brisker's vort on Panim Chadashos; certainly R' Chaim would say Chadoshos, not Chadashot -- what should we use here? Thought it should go up for discussion before allowing an anon user to change it. TLMD13 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

Deleted extra "synthesis" sentence on R' Yoshe Ber

The anon IP editor copied in a sentence about R' Yoshe Ber's synthesis with modern knowledge (or something to that effect). That sentence came from Rabbi Soloveitchik's own page, and I wouldn't argue about its content. Just felt that it didn't flow well with this article here (and gave too much information when we already have a page about him); the controversy over this is referenced towards the bottom of this page, anyhow. But if you really think it belongs, nu, let's talk about it here. TLMD13 18:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

Brisk yeshivas

The expression 'Brisk yeshivas' in the article is more or less meaningless. Brisk has no yeshivas in the conventionally understood sense. (Thus acceptance criteria are also not very meaningful.) Members of the Soloveichik family run a beis medrash program to whose members they give a shiur. Admission to the shiur is at the personal discretion of the rosh yeshiva giving the shiur. Each Brisker 'yeshiva' learns in an assigned beis medrash (they don't have their own buildings). The section needs tidying up. --Redaktor 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

R' Chaim and anti-Zionism

The article says: R' Yoshe Ber and R' Ahron were more supportive of the State of Israel; most Israeli Briskers aren't. Yes, there are some quotes from R' Chaim about Zionism and the JNF and the like, however, in fairness to everyone involved, I think it's only honest to mention that many opinions did shift after the Holocaust and the founding of the Medinah. I'm therefore adding a comment back in, but with toned-down language. Redaktor and others, if you'd like to discuss this, I'm happy to do so, but please, please, at a time of mourning for those shelo nahagu kavod zeh b'zeh, please I beg you, let's have discussions before deletions here. TLMD13 19:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)TLMD13

I am happy to discuss if you wish. I merely deleted a speculative sentence unsupported by any source, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I express no view on the matter, but I think it is best if the article sticks to facts. In that vein, please either delete the sentence 'They would argue that …' or quote a WP:RS that they have actually said this.--Redaktor 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm... how best to state things? Can we all agree that many more Haredim were anti-Zionist pre-Holocaust and Medina than post-Holocaust and Medina? That's all stated on the anti-Zionism page. So I think it is fair to include this historical context when quoting R' Chaim; do you disagree on WHETHER this context should be stated, or HOW it should be phrased? If the former, well I guess we're both entitled to our opinions, I'd like to see if any other editors here have a say on the matter; if the latter, can we work on a wording that satisfies everyone? Perhaps:

"Turning to their ancestors, Rabbi Chaim Brisker, who lived in a time when most Haredim were anti-Zionist, made some strong comments against Zionism"

I guess the question is how to get it from its current state, arguably a MPOV, to something more acceptable as an NPOV? I suppose? TLMD13 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)TLMD13

Our opinions do not come into it. The first thing to do is to find a source for any of these statements. Without a source it is not up to us to speculate what other people may or or may not have thought.--Redaktor 22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded it, how does that look to you? The source for Haredi anti-Zionism being less prevalent today is the anti-Zionism page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TLMD13 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

A definite improvement. Can anyone find sources?--Redaktor 22:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources that Haredi anti-Zionism is less prevalent today than it was in the late 1800s? Again, the anti-Zionism page mentions it. Clearly Agudath Israel (begrudgingly perhaps) will deal with the State now, something to which it was opposed pre-WWII. I can quote Rabbi Herschel Welcher (head of the Vaad of Queens, New York) who said that "rov minyan and rov binyan" of gedolei yisroel agreed post-Holocaust that the world was too dangerous a place to not have a Jewish state -- I'm not trying to argue that any viewpoint on the Medina is right or wrong (believe me, I don't want to pick that fight!), or that current trends are good or bad -- just quoting sources that among the overall Haredi community, anti-Zionism has become less popular. If you want a stronger source, I'm pretty sure I saw an article in Tradition (journal of the Rabbinical Council of America) about this a few years back, but that (hasn't been pdf'd yet) will take some digging. TLMD13 13:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)TLMD13

Perhaps I need to make myself clearer. There is a specific statement in this article "Rabbi Chaim is quoted … ". This statement should identify its source. (Actually the whole article is deficient in sources.) You don't have to convince me! But the article needs to conform to WP style and policy.--Redaktor 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. The R' Chaim quotes -- they had been on the R' Chaim wikipedia page for quite a while; looks like someone has since deleted it from there. That was my source; I haven't looked for other sources beyond that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaim_Soloveitchik&oldid=30320346)

If you want to say "delete any mention of of R' Chaim's views on Zionism until we get better sources", that's fine with me.

Yes, the article is messy, but there's so much here that is inherently messy, as the yeshivos aren't official institutions, there aren't good paper trails or biographies -- goodness, most Briskers barely even published anything themselves! But we can certainly try cleaning things up. Good luck! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TLMD13 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

R' Velvel's anti-Zionism

I had written that R' Velvel opposed a secular Zionist state; anon. IP said no, he opposed ANY Zionist state. I believe that depends how we define "Zionist": can we agree that R' Velvel said shmoneh esrei and therefore believed in some sort of eventual Jewish self-rule? So we can leave it as "opposed a secular Zionist state", or switch it to "opposed a Zionist state prior to Moshiach coming" or the like ... any other suggestions? I'm open to ideas (please, discuss first!) on this, but for starters, I'm reverting to the original "opposed a secular Zionist state." TLMD13 13:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)TLMD13

Other derachim

I'm very impressed by the learning in this article. But don't we need a shorter article under another title, giving the differences between all the different methods: Brisker, Telz, Mir etc.? I'm afraid I haven't the learning to provide this. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 15:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Feminism

Anon. IP deleted the story about R' Chaim signing the wedding invitation, and instead focused on the split between Brisk America and Brisk Israel today. I think any material about the earlier generations is important and should be retained. Furthermore, the phrasing used here was rather Rabbi Joseph-Dov-centered -- which is fine for his own page, but I think a bit too much for a page regarding all things Brisk. Also worth mentioning (though not necessarily here) is the distinction made between Mesechtos/Perakim that pertain to the Halachic process as we see it today (Berachos, most of Moed), and the more "theoretical" Kodshim/Nezikin/Taharos. Lastly, there's the distinction of what education is proper for most women, vs. what to do with those who go out and ask for it -- while yes most Israeli Briskers are into everything Haredi, what about the Brisker Rebbetzins/daughters themselves? I've heard that Rebbetzin Lifsha Feinstein, Shlit"s (R' Velvel's daughter) can quote you one Gemara after another about how women don't know how to learn! In light of all this, I'm going to to restore the invitation story (said over in Queens at R' Yoshe Ber's tenth yahrtzeit) and edit the remaining commentary. Please discuss this here before making more changes. TLMD13 16:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)TLMD13

Etymology of Soloveitchik

The article says Soloveitchik is Polish for nightingale. This is likely to be partially false, since the Polish-language cognate of that surname is słowiczek ("slovitchek", diminutive from proper słowik). Sołowiejczik is almost certainly Eastern Slavic, such as Russian or perhaps Belarussian.
— 6birc (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm I guess I'd either misheard, or the lecturer who had said it (or his source) got his Slavic languages confused. Very well, I'll change it to generic "Slavic language", and let readers figure it out for themselves. TLMD13 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

crushing soda cans?

I don't understand the bit in the article about crushing soda cans. Can someone explain it? thanks. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Technically, every plate, glass, pan etc needs immersion in a mikveh before you use it for the first time. I suppose the point here is that something disposable and easily crushed is exempt from this requirement; so by crushing the can after use they are confirming in their own minds that it was OK from the beginning. But that's just my guess. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)