Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 355

Thursday, February 10 2000

• Re: Smoking and Halocho
• Re: Beano
• Re: Video cameras
• RE: video cameras on Shabbos
• RE: Beano
• Re: gezel akum
• Re: Beano
• FW: opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim" (was "3 quest ions (Go'al Yisrael out loud)")
• Re: yo'tzros (was "Re: Gaw'al Yisrael")
• Re: Beano
• Re[2]: yo'tzros (was "Re: Gaw'al Yisrael")
• Re: FW: opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim" (was "3 quest ions (Go'al Yisrael out loud)")
• Re: Video cameras
• Re: gezel akum
• Re: science and halakha
• Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Re: Beano
• Re: Video cameras
• opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim
• Re: gezel akum

On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 10:43:55PM +0000, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
: bad is usually translated as "ra" - which makes one think of "r'eih
: nasati lfanecha hayom es hachaim v'es hatov v'es hamaves v'es hara".

RSRH finds the root of "ra`" in /reish-ayin-ayin/ (to shatter). As opposed
to "tov", which means to prepare (as in "hatavas haneiros", see "Abayei hava
misadeir...").

As smoking is self-destructive, it is "ra". As to whether it's shattering
the same thing as the "ra" in the posuk you quote is a different question.

: Perhaps we should go with your other language, stupid.  Perhaps k'sil is
: the right concept.

However, R' Mosheh associates smoking with "p'saim", not "k'silim".

FWIW, Nefesh haRav quotes the Rav as saying it's assur to be stupid. That's
the extact word, it's transliterated by R' Schachter into Hebrew letters. The
two examples R' Schachter cites are: 1- hypnotism for non-medical reasons,
and 2- bowing to the teacher in a Jewish-run karate dojo. (Presumably if the
teacher was raised in a culture where such was a natural show of respect,
it wouldn't be stupid to do it.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Feb-00: Revi'i, Terumah
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 16

Whether or not Beano is medicine has little bearing on halachah.

The questions are: 1- Is it ra'uy la'achilah (or, if you want to take it on
Pesach, la'achilas kelev)? 2- Does it aid my health?

I'm pretty sure that the answer to the first question is "No, a k'zayis of
Beano isn't ra'uy la'achilah". Therefore it needn't be kosher (at least,
me'ikkar hadin), regardless of how one defines "medicine" vs "food additive".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Feb-00: Revi'i, Terumah
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 16

On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:36:53PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Rabbi Adler raised the question of using a video camera on
: Shabbos. Walking by a video camera which is on causes changes in
: electronic impulse, much as speaking into a microphone does, and is
: therefore prohibited.

Not really. A CCD (charge coupled device) based video camera (as in
newer VCR cameras) actually turns bits on or off based on quantity of
electricity. It's digital, not analog. The better comparison is to a
microphone connected to a digital recorder. You are actually causing
circuits to open and close, your assumption about "changing an existing
electronic impulse" is flawed. Albeit the changes are in things smaller
than beitzei kinim. <malicious grin>

Second, does it make a difference if there's a monitor, which gives off
light, connected in real-time to the camera?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Feb-00: Revi'i, Terumah
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 16

>
> This is the response I received from the poster on MJ. I have
> not yet looked
> up the IM's he cites, but I would have tended to the positon
> R' Akiva Atwood cited previously.

I have several problems with this post. Comments follow:

> > Chicago -- discussed virtually this Sheila with
> > Rav Moshe zt"l [we discussed changing the image in front of a
> closed-circuit
> > video camera] and he told us clearly that causing any
> change in electronic
> > impulse on Shabbos is assur. This conforms with what Rav
> Moshe writes
> > several places in Igros Moshe, including Orach Chaim IV #84-85.

By that logic (WADR) it would be assur to move your arm or leg on shabbos,
since those activities require changes in electronic impulse (the nerves and
the brain)

> >     Video cameras have viewfinders. Those viewfinders are
> made either like
> > classic TV [chas v'sholom, I mean computer] screens, or with LCDs.

MOST cameras have viewfinders of these types -- closed-circuit cameras, and
cheap camcorders don't. They either have nothing (Closed Circuit cameras) or
a simple hole to look through (like instamatic cameras).

> > screens basically have three. Now, as the image changes, the flow of
> > electricity goes TO DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE "GUN", thus it
> is creating essentially a new circuit.

Incorrect -- the INTENSITY of the flow changes, true, but there is always a
flow going to the gun.

Furthermore, the circuits already exist (the wires, printed circuit boards,
transistors, etc). With the exception of the mechanical on-off switches (the
standard case of boneh or makeh b'patish) the circuits all exist before
power is turned on. Again, the *flow* of electricity (which is *not* similar
to water flowing through a pipe) can be redirected via transistors from one
point to another.

> >     On LCD screens, the "cells," along the screen light up.
> Thus again, I
> > don't think there's really any electricity flowing to
> certain of those areas at all times.

LEDs light up due to electricity -- but viewfinders use LCDs.

with LCD screens, the electrical current causes the pixels to darken.

> >
> >     In addition, since the viewfinders "light up" there are
> the shiitos that
> > "asser", at least Midrabonon [since it's non-filament], because of
> "havara."

only the TV style viewfinders light up.

Up to this point, he wouldn't seem to have any objections to a camera
without a viewfinder (or one with the viewfinder turned off).


> > i.e. -- are all areas of the "head" always
> connected, or is the
> > connection dependent on what's being recorded. If the
> latter is the case,
> > you are creating a new circuit which, according to
> everyone, from what I
> > understand, is assur.

there is always a basic carrier signal going to the recording head -- which
is modulated to record information.

If a non-Jew wanted to video you on shabbos while you were walking down the
street, would you be over on any issurim? If not, then setting up a camera
with a timer shouldn't be any worse.

I honestly don't see what problems there could be with a (non-viewfinder)
video camera recording something on shabbos.

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

> 2- Does it aid my health?

*This* is a sticky point -- since halacha doesn't seem to recognize
preventative medicine as such.

>
> I'm pretty sure that the answer to the first question is "No,
> a k'zayis of
> Beano isn't ra'uy la'achilah".

Why not?

Akiva



A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

Akiva Miller wrote:
: I can think of several examples of where the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach do not
: apply to Jews. One is that therapeutic abortion is assur for non-Jews in
: certain cases which would be mutar for Jews. 

David Glasner replied:
: As I noted some time ago on the list, this is incredibly difficult. I hate
: to sound like a right-to-lifer, but what this suggests is that a gentile
: fetus is more worthy of protection than a Jewish fetus. Atmeha!

Permitting abortion has to do with the *relative* value of protecting the
fetus's life to the mother's. The fact that it is assur to abort a non-Jewish
fetus in more instances than a Jewish one implies that the life of a non-Jewish
fetus and a non-Jewish mother are closer to equally worthy of protection.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Feb-00: Revi'i, Terumah
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 16

Better they learn in Kollel?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Beano 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    2/9/2000 7:56 PM


Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:33:01 -0500 
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[2]: Beano 

<<Pesach isn't only about Kashrus, rather it's  also about supporting 
Jewish 
enterprises that rely upon Pesach for parnosso, etc.>>

	I hardly think subsidizing someone's overpriced product    (this means 
not only toothpaste,  but "nisht gevasheneh eyer" and every other 
narishkeit which has a hechsher because someone is willing to pay for it)
  because he made it for Pesach is in and of itself an obligation.  And
what about all the people who buy it despite the fact that they can't 
afford it and nobody told them they don't have to?

	How far can this be reduced ad absurdum?

Gershon

AEStein replied:
> Actually, I am pretty sure that R' Henkin *was* grouping "onim" with the
previous word "k'echad" to the exclusion of grouping "onim" with the
subsequent phrase "v'omrim b'yir'ah".  Similarly, by the phrase "zeh kaili
anu v'amru" in maariv, R' Henkin says that one must group "anu" with the
previous words "zeh kaili" and not with the subsequent word "v'amru".
Again, I think most chazanim are not careful about this, and they group
"anu" together with "v'amru"....As for bad habits, ever since I first saw
what R' Henkin said, I have tried to phrase everything the right way,
especially when davening for the amud, and it's amazing how difficult it is
change the way one davens (even though its only a matter of phrasing). <

Michael Poppers wrote:
>Then, b'm'chilas kovod shel Godol baTorah, I have to note that this opinion
is not the "right way" merely because you agree with Rav Henkin.  As I
mentioned, there are various nuscha'os -- some, such as "onim b'yir'ah
v'omrim" (which, IIRC [sorry, quoting from memory], Baer [see Siddur Avodas
Yisroel] found in Machzor Roma), clearly imply otherwise (in the example's
case, because it makes no sense for the next phrase to begin "b'yir'ah...")
and are quite long in the tooth.  Since you brought "zeh kaili" as further
evidence for Rav Henkin's apparent "separate aniyah from amirah" point of
view, I have to ask whether it's sensible to group "onu," which is not in
the Torah, with "zeh kaili" (Sh'mos 15:2), as opposed to grouping two verbs
(esp. when the second verb is prefixed with a conjunctive "vov"); if you
understand my logic on this point, it may be extended without undue effort
to "kulam k'echad...."<

=======> I think you're missing R' Henkin's point: it is the phrasing that
is important.  By way of example, it *is* sensible to group "onu" with "zeh
kaili" rather than with "v'amru".  In order to illustrate this, it is easier
to look at how it sounds in english:

"This is my G-d" we answered and we said "Hashem yimloch l'olam v'ed"

According to the way most chazanim say it (on Shabbos), it sounds like this:

"This is my G-d" (pause)....................we answered and we said "Hashem
yimloch l'olam v'ed"

According to R' Henkin, it sounds like this:

"This is my G-d" we answered (pause).................and we said "Hashem
yimloch l'olam v'ed"

I think R' Henkin's way is logical.  Grouping the two verbs, IMHO and R'
Henkin's opinion, does not sound right.  Of course, this rule applies to
whatever nusach a person is using: make sure it would sound right if you
were engaged in a regular conversation, kavayachol.  So, returning to "kulam
k'echad", it *does* makes more sense to group "onim" with the "kulam
k'echad" rather than with the subsequent phrase "v'omrim b'yir'ah". Unless
one is davening nusach sefard; then it would be "onim b'aimah" (pause)
"v'omrim b'yir'ah". 

Kol tuv
Aryeh

On 9 Feb 00, at 16:26, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:

> In Avodah 4#348, CSherer replied:
> >> EG, how many Litvisher Minyanim STILL say piyyutim on the 4
> Parshiyos?  On Yom Tov? <<
> > Rav Savitsky used to say most of the piyutim in chazoras hahsatz
> on Yom Tov and the yotzros on Shabbos Shkalim and HaChodesh
> (Musaf only - there are no yotzros in Musaf on Zachor and Para). <
> "Yo'tzros" are piyyutim said specifically in the midst of birchas "Yotzair
> Or"; I believe Richard meant "piyyutim" 

I'm not sure of this. I have seen many siddurim which refer to 
"yotzros" in the chazoras hashatz of Shachris. Of course, that 
could be the publisher's mistake....

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

If Beano is a refuah, why is it being taken on Shabbos?


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Not so much a "mistake" as not being fully accurate.
*yotzros* technically refer to Piyyutim in the birchas yotzeir - usually 
(always?)  introduced by Or olam b'otzr chayim...

However, in popular usage, it refers to all the additional piyyutim.

Note that EVERY mornign we say a piyyut in Yotzer
it is either the piyyut Keil Borcuh or Keil Adon (on Shabbos)

Both are alphabetic acrostics

The very exitence of different piyyuim for differnet occssions (i.e chol and 
shabbos) hint or suggest that this is a place for piyyuim and that the nusach 
was not completely fixed, but allowed for "embelishment".

The fact that dozens of paytonim acutllay did embelish Birchas Yotzeir shows 
that this was ane xcepted fact for centuries and was ratified by the Remo.

But things have changed during the last 200 years...

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


I'm not sure of this. I have seen many siddurim which refer to 
"yotzros" in the chazoras hashatz of Shachris. Of course, that 
could be the publisher's mistake....

-- Carl

On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:42:52AM -0500, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
: =======> I think you're missing R' Henkin's point: it is the phrasing that
: is important.  By way of example, it *is* sensible to group "onu" with "zeh
: kaili" rather than with "v'amru".  In order to illustrate this, it is easier
: to look at how it sounds in english:

: "This is my G-d" we answered and we said "Hashem yimloch l'olam v'ed"

Since we are being medayiek in lashon, it's "'This is my G-d', they
answered, and they said, 'Hashem will rule...'"

FWIW, I'm not sure how to parse the sentence without the comma there.
What's "Zeh keili" if not what they answered as part of the responsive
singing of "Az Yashir"?

Also in Shacharis, "licha anu shirah bisimchah rabba, viamru chulam 'mi...'"
It makes no sense to put the comma before "bisimchah", as per most shelichei
tzibbur.

And why do we have so many places there we wait for the chazan mid-phrase?
Such as between "vi'amru" and "Hashem yimloch"? Or before "Es sheim" in
the b'rachah of "Yotzeir Or" (shacharis)?

More complicated is a line in "Yotzeir Or" where it is unclear if it's:
    bisafara berurah uvne'imah kidoshah, kulam ki'echod onim...
or
    bisafara berurah uvne'imah, kidushah kulam ki'echod onim

If the latter, then the sentence requires a comma between the "onim" and
"omerim". To translate:
    In clear language and in pleasantness, they all answer "Kedushah" as one,
    and
    they say "Kadosh..."

IOW, the "Vi'omerim 'Kadosh...'" is an expansion of "'kedushah' ke'achad onim".

This would also explain the parallelism of the nusach that has "onim be'eimah
vi'merim biyir'ah". Therefore perhaps, the presence of "be'eimah" is related
to holding the word is "kedushah" and not "kidoshah" (and therefore where
the comma goes).

Let's not forget my pet peeve. The commas in
    Az bikol, ra'ash gadol, adir vichazak mashmi'im kol...
make no sense. It should be
    Az, bikol ra'ash gadol adir vichazak, mashmi'im kol...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Feb-00: Revi'i, Terumah
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 16

But doesn't your analysis make it worse? Instead of modulating, by walking
by a camera you are opening and closing circuits - that seems to transgress
the CI's defintion of electricity being forbidden because of boneh.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Cc: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Video cameras


> On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:36:53PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M.
Bechhofer wrote:
> : Rabbi Adler raised the question of using a video camera on
> : Shabbos. Walking by a video camera which is on causes changes in
> : electronic impulse, much as speaking into a microphone does, and is
> : therefore prohibited.
>
> Not really. A CCD (charge coupled device) based video camera (as in
> newer VCR cameras) actually turns bits on or off based on quantity of
> electricity. It's digital, not analog. The better comparison is to a
> microphone connected to a digital recorder. You are actually causing
> circuits to open and close, your assumption about "changing an existing
> electronic impulse" is flawed. Albeit the changes are in things smaller
> than beitzei kinim. <malicious grin>
>
> Second, does it make a difference if there's a monitor, which gives off
> light, connected in real-time to the camera?
>

In a message dated 2/10/00 7:11:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
DGLASNER@SIRIUS.FTC.GOV writes:

> As a concession to the yetzer ha-ra similar to the law of
>  y'fat to-ar, consumption immediately after shehitah violated the principle
>  of mi ika midi, but was only granted as a grudging concession. 

The Gemara Sanhedrin 59a asks about Yefat Toar and answers that they are not 
Bnei Kivush, hence it seems that Dibrah Torah KNeged Yetzer Hora is not 
sufficient to overrule Mi Ika Midi, (Vkal Vchomer that the additinal wait of 
a few seconds should not overrule it).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/10/00 7:05:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
DGLASNER@SIRIUS.FTC.GOV writes:

> There is the treifa explicitly mentioned in the Torah 
>  "basar b'sadeh treifah" for the consumption of which one would be 
>  punished by the lash.  To qualify for this prohibition, the animal must be 
>  nat'ta la-mut mahmat makoteha, which means that it could not survive 
>  more than 24 hours.  

According to the wording in Sefer Hamitzvohs the only Treifa for Malkus is 
Drusah (there is discussion on this in the Ragitchover).


WRT Treifos of human the Gemara (Reish Eilu Treifois), and Poskim discuss 
whether Treifos for human and animal are the same, there are poskim who say 
that human D'is Lei Mazla can be cured from conditions that by animals would 
be fatal.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 17:36:00 -0500
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical
Evidence

<mucho snipped>

<<On the other hand, what a person writes to an e-mail list with 100's of
subcribers may not be what he or she really thinks.  And I am definitely
not going to tell anyone here what I really think!>>

	What are you posting if not what you really think?  I am totally thrown
by this last comment.  Please elaborate.

Gershon

On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:34:25 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<Better they learn in Kollel?>>

	Maybe.

	There's always the option of working for a living,  whether in a
business that does not prey   

(1.  Don't pun this one!!!     
 2.  I use the word,  as strong as it sounds,  because a more appropriate
one does not come to mind right now.)

on ignorant temimim in an attempt to separate them from their hard earned
money under the pretense that product X with a hechsher is so much more
kosher than product X which doesn't NEED a hechsher, or for an honest
wage.  

Gershon

On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:49:11AM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: But doesn't your analysis make it worse? Instead of modulating, by walking
: by a camera you are opening and closing circuits - that seems to transgress
: the CI's defintion of electricity being forbidden because of boneh.

Yes, it does. The intent of my "not really" was to your "much as speaking
in a microphone does" alone. For example, R' Ovadia Yosef, who allows use of
passive element microphones (which limit the current without generating any),
would not necessarily allow digital equipment.

Assuming the problem is "boneh" (whatever the CI meant by that; makeh bipatish,
maybe?) would it apply to activity within chips, where everything is going on
microscopically?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Feb-00: Revi'i, Terumah
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 16

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 17:26:26 -0500
From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
Subject: RE: opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim" (was "3
quest ions (Go'al Yisrael out loud)")

<<Then, b'm'chilas kovod shel Godol baTorah, I have to note that this
opinion
is not the "right way" merely because you agree with Rav Henkin.  As I
mentioned, there are various nuscha'os -- some, such as "onim b'yir'ah
v'omrim" (which, IIRC [sorry, quoting from memory], Baer [see Siddur
Avodas
Yisroel] found in Machzor Roma), clearly imply otherwise (in the
example's
case, because it makes no sense for the next phrase to begin
"b'yir'ah...")>>

	OK;  how does this read: 

		venosnim reshus zeh lazeh
		lehakdish leyotzrom benachas ruach, besafa vrura (I think this is
indisputable;  let me know if you dispute the "rafeh") unvin'ima

		Here the nuschaos diverge:  if you say "kedosha",  then it modifies
ne'ima,  and it reads:
		
		uvin'ima kedosha
		kulam ke'echad onim ve'omrim beyir'ah.  No change of habit required per
Rav Henkin.

		However,  if you retain "kedusha",  then the next  *phrase*  after
uvin'ima begins with the *subject*  word,  kedusha:

		kedusha kulam ke'echod..............where's the verb?

		kedusha kulam ke'echod onim!

Apologies for the nitpicking,  but Rav Henkin felt it worthwhile.

Gershon

>>I don't mean to sound hostile>>

It didn't work.

>>Pray tell, would you care to share with us the name of this sefer, or do you 
have some reason for withholding it from us? If I know (or at least have good 
reason to believe) that the Noda bi-Yehuda believed what the disclaimer said, am
I supposed to pay greater heed to some anonymous mehaber who by his own 
admission is being less than fully honest?>>

Sefer Seder Ya'akov on maseches avodah zarah.  He tends to be more scholarly 
than most yeshivish sefarim and delves extensively into kisvei yad.  He has a 
lengthy piece on the disclaimers and in the first edition of his sefer included 
one on his own sefer.  The difficulty with these disclaimers is that they appear
on sefarim (such as those of the Noda BiYehudah and Chasam Sofer) in which the 
authors explicitly say that the Christians in their day are ovdei avodah zarah 
and that the various halachos in the gemara do apply to them.

Were the printers of the gemara less than fully honest when they changed words 
like nochri to kena'ani or kusi?  Maybe, but if not for that we would not have 
had any printed gemaras for centuries.  Similarly, if not for these disclaimers 
we would have lost centuries' worth of chiddushei Torah.  Perhaps this was an es
la'asos laShem.

>>I don't see the problem. He says that you can't steal form an idolator, but he
is going out of his way to say that Christians are not idolators, to teach 
people who think that they are idolators that they are wrong to think that 
Christians are idolators.>>

No.  The Noda BiYehudah disagrees with the Rama and holds that Christianity is 
avodah zarah.  See the Pischei Teshuvah in Y"D 147:2.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]