Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 105

Sat, 22 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 2. Tinok Shenishba (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 3. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi) (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Defining concern for the klal (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 8. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 9. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 10. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 11. Re: time of Purim Seudah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 12. Re: Halakhos that depend on LH? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)

Concerning the spiritual status of tinok shenishba

*Shabbat (68b): *Rab and Samuel both maintain: Even a child who was 
taken captive among Gentiles or a proselyte who became converted in the 
midst of Gentiles is as one who knew but subsequently forgot, and so he 
is liable. But R. Johanan and Resh Lakish maintain: Only one who knew 
but subsequently forgot [is liable], but a child who was taken captive 
among Gentiles, or a proselyte who became converted in the midst of 
Gentiles, is not culpable.

The halacha is in accord with Rav and Shmuel - they have sinned and 
require a korbon even though there was no way that the tinok shenishba 
would know about Shabbos.


It is problematic to understand the Rambam as viewing tinok shenisha as 
blameless.

*Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 3:3) *has been censored. It ends off with the 
statement that the children of the apikorsim are tinok 
shenisba...Therefore it is proper to have them do teshuva  and to 
attract them with peaceful words until they come back to Torah - **and 
people should not be quick to kill them***.

See the index to sources on the Frankel Rambam that understand that if 
they don't repent they can be killed

Similarly the Chazon Ish is widely understood to view them as blameless 
- but that is not what he actually says

*Chazon Ish**[i]* <#_edn1>*(Hilchos Shechita 2:16): *I believe that the 
legal permission to kill heretics only exists in a period of time where 
G?d?s Providence is revealed to everyone. In other words, only in such a 
time when miracles are common and they all heard the Bas Kol (Heavenly 
Voice) and they saw and acknowledged the unique Providence for the 
righteous of the generation. The heretics in those eras?despite the 
great manifestation of spirituality?had an especially powerful lust for 
pleasure and rejecting all religious obligations. In such circumstances, 
the destruction of the wicked served the clear purpose of improving the 
world. Everyone knew that corrupt moral and violating religious 
commandments brought about suffering in the world such as plague, war 
and famine. However at a time when there is the absence of such clear 
awareness of the importance of spirituality, then killing heretics does 
not bring about improvement but rather makes things worse. That is 
because in such a non?spiritual world, the punishment of heretics is 
viewed as destructive and as religious coercion. Therefore, since the 
whole reason for punishing heretics is to improve society, it cannot 
apply to an era when it is not generally perceived as an improvement. 
Thus in our current situation, we are obligated to bring the 
non?observant back to the light of religion?with acts of love and 
affection to the best of our ability.


------------------------------------------------------------------------


??????? ??? ???? ??????? ??' ????' ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? 
???, ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??, ???????? ?? ??? ??????? 
??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? 
???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, 
??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? 
????? ????? ?????' ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ?"? ????? ??? ????? ???? 
??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???????? 
???? ???? ??? ?????? ????.

Both the Rambam and Chazaon Ish obviously undertstand that tinok 
shenishba are in fact sinners - but there is greater benefit in being 
nice to them and having them rejoin religious society than in treating 
them harshly. In fact being harsh would cause major damage to society.

We are talking about tactics in teshuva and tochacha - not about whether 
they are blameless and innocent.

For those who want to see more sources - the Beis Yechezkeil of Rav 
Tzuriel has a chapter devoted to tinok shenishba. He also has a chapter 
on the subject in his Otzros HaMusar.

Received this from Dr. Josh Backon with permission to forward to Avodah

TINOK SHENISHBA: SOMEONE WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT JUDAISM



   *Tinok shenishba* is discussed in the gemara in Shevuot 5a
   and Shabbat 68a,b; Rambam Hilchot Shegagot 7:2 and Hilchot
   Mamrim 3:3.

   Carefully read the definition of *tinok shenishba* as
   codified by the Rema YD (Hilchot Ribit) 159:3 "she'eino yode'a mitorat
   yisrael KLAL" [emphasis mine}; the Chazon Ish YD 2 s"k 16; the
   Binyan Tzion 23; the Melamed l'Ho'il Orach Chaim 5; and even the
   Iggrot Moshe OC 33 [the last three deal with Mechalel Shabbat
   b'Farhesia and concede that today it may be considered
   b'Tzin'a rather than b'farhesia if it's done for $$$].  But a very
   careful reading of all the above does NOT include the one who
   intermarries as *tinok shenishba*. And the Chazon Ish simply refers to
   not carrying out (20th Century) of *moridim velo ma'alin*

   And even with regard to a *tinok shenishba*, there is no prohibition
   of *ona'at devarim* [Rema in Choshen Mishpat 228;1]; there is
   permission to denigrate him [Chafetz Chaim 4:7]; there is no concern
   for his degradation [Chochmat Shlomo ORACH CHAIM 311]; and there
   is a prohibition to honor him [Shaarei Tshuva 3:189].

   And that's for a *tinok shenishba* [someone who grew up without ANY
   knowledge of Judaism whatsoever].

   ?Now we come to the heavy artillery: the definition of an *apikorus*.
   The Meiri in Sanhedrin 90a defines an apikorus as one who doesn't follow
   the Oral Law and one whose rulings cause others to sin ["v'chen
   machti'im ha'rabbim afilu l'dvarim kalim"]. He also explains the
   phrase *megaleh panim batorah shelo k'halacha"  as one who uproots
   a mitzva by explaining it allegorically. The Yerushalmi in Peah 5a
   explains the phrase as someone who denies TORAH MIN HA'SHAMAYIM
   [God giving the Chumash  verbatim to Moses at Sinai].


   The Tshuvat HA'RASHBA VII 179 in the name of Rabbenu Yonah states that
   someone who willfully volates the sabbath or who doesn't believe in
   *divrei Chazal* [the Oral Torah] is a MIN and his touching wine places
   it in the category of Yayin Nesech [prohibited to drink] (see also
   the Nekudot haKesef YOREH DEAH 124]. The Mishna Brura 55 #47 writes
   that anyone who doesn't believe in the authority of the Oral Law can't
   make a *minyan* or can't serve as a chazan [Mishna Brura 126 #2] (see
   also the Biur Halacha 216 d"h "hamevarech apikorus").


   Translation: we have seen how the Conservative clergy have made a
   mockery out of Judaism by abolishing many Toraitic commands: prohibition
   of marrying a Cohen with someone who was divorced; mamzerut; driving
   on shabbat; and many prohibitions of the Oral Law (mixed seating;
   integral parts of Taharat haMishpacha; changing text of prayers;
   permitting stam yeinam; and dozens of other violations.

   There can thus be no prohibition of lashon hara relating to their
   activities.



Josh
backon@vms.huji.ac.il

RMS wrote:
> The gemeinde position in Germany was not that the Reform was tinokot
> shenishbu <SNIP> However,
> German Gemeinde Orthodoxy, including Rav Bamberger, the leading posek
> in Germany at the time of Rav Hirsch, as well as Rav Hildesheimer, and
> as well as the Seride Esh who participated in ?gemeinde activities
> <SNIP> allowed and even
> encouraged religious interaction with the non O formal religious
> communal structure. ?Even though ?many of the rabbinic leaders of the
> non O had grown up O - and many even had O rabbinic training - and
> that they espoused positions that made them mehallel shabbat
> befarhesya and a kofer by many shittot - the O gemeinde still
> advocated continued interactions and being part of the same community.

Bim'hilat kevodo, this picture painted in few brush strokes does not seem to 
square with reality AFAIK it (based on the works of Grauper, Lieberles and 
others). It also seems at odds with people's family traditions about what 
life was like in 19th Century Ashkenaz.

Rather, only the elite could be R, most people were traditional amei ha'aretz, 
too ignorant to be firmly established in any camp. One reason for O to remain 
within the gemeinde structure was in order to take responsibility for the 
masses.

AFAIK, Rav Hamburger and Rav Weinberg would be just as unlikely to maintain 
official contacts with the Liberal institutions as Rav Hirsch would. The 
former, however, did not want to break with the klal, provided O Judaism 
would be sufficiently acommodated for, and would have contacts at the 
neutral, social level. I would consider that more nuanced and more reserved 
than "allowed and even encouraged religious interaction with the non O formal 
religious communal structure".

The social institutions, including the community administration can hardly 
have been considered to be a "non O formal religious structure." It was, 
rather, a formerly religious structure that had become infested with the 
mistaken notion that the desirable national and regional governmental 
separation of church and state in the West should translate into a separation 
within a religious cummonal structure between that, which is subject to 
religion (the synagogue etc.), and that which isn't (the social 
institutions). Then again, once communities included R, there was little 
choice for a different, more wholesome model (except for RSRH's Austritt).

Writing from a gemeinde that, despite attempts to the contrary, always 
respected some important red lines, including the aithority of halakhah upon 
the adminstrative component of the gemeinde.

Kind regards,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RMM wrote:
> Obviously, one can never excuse himself as a TsN - how could one
> possibly do so? By definition, one ignorant enough to be a TsN, does
> not know how ignorant he is, nor does he know what a TsN is. If he
> does know how ignorant he is, or if he does know what a TsN is, he is
> too knowledgeable to be a TsN, and he knows it too.

Eh, didn't you - just a few days ago - post a link to a C clergyman who was 
discussing RMF's teshuvah in a 18 web page paper? Would you call that guy 
ignorant of what TsN is? I think that it is quite clear whom RMF was labeling 
a kofeir, not your Sunday school classmates, but someone who can write 10 
page papers quoting a large number of sources to justify C being kosher. I 
don't know much about that author and am hesitant to label him without 
extensive analysis, but you can get the gist of matters from what I write.

Kind regards,

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

> RMM wrote:
>  > Obviously, one can never excuse himself as a TsN - how could one
>  > possibly do so? By definition, one ignorant enough to be a TsN, does
>  > not know how ignorant he is, nor does he know what a TsN is. If he
>  > does know how ignorant he is, or if he does know what a TsN is, he is
>  > too knowledgeable to be a TsN, and he knows it too.

>  Eh, didn't you - just a few days ago - post a link to a C clergyman who was
>  discussing RMF's teshuvah in a 18 web page paper? Would you call that guy
>  ignorant of what TsN is? I think that it is quite clear whom RMF was labeling
>  a kofeir, not your Sunday school classmates, but someone who can write 10
>  page papers quoting a large number of sources to justify C being kosher. I
>  don't know much about that author and am hesitant to label him without
>  extensive analysis, but you can get the gist of matters from what I write.
>
>  R' Arie Folger

1) I didn't post the link :)

2) As far as I could tell, RMF was labeling *both* kinds of people
kofrim - both the Sunday school classmate and the C clergyman.

3) You make a good point - a C clergyman can be TsN even though he
knows what TsN is. Very well then, let me emend what I said:
a) A TsN cannot call himself a TsN because he is too ignorant to know
what a TsN is.
OR
b) A TsN cannot call himself TsN because he honestly believes he is
correct (as does an apikorus, except the TsN has an excuse), and so he
wouldn't call himself a TsN - he won't try to justify his errors with
his TsN excuse if he doesn't think he has any errors!. If he calls
himself TsN to excuse his errors, then he knows he has errors, and
either he isn't a TsN anymore, or in any case he won't be R/C for very
long. Now, it could be that an R/C clergyman will mock an O in an
discussion by referring to himself as a TsN, thereby deflating the O's
attack on the R/C, but I'm not sure this is what R' Henkin meant...

About an R/C clergyman, I'd say that even with extensive textual
knowledge, they can still be TsN - they still have some deep-seated
ideological beliefs that are not so simply cleansed, especially if
they learned at HUC/JTS, which will only intensify what they learned
growing up. I gave the story of the two C clergymen/theological
students who turned O after a few months at Machon Meir - obviously
they learned *something* not taught at JTS.

Now, some R/C people may NOT be TsN, if they had an Orthodox
upbringing. Tzarich iyun.

Mikha'el Makovi

In a concurrent thread, RMS raised the issue of how important we consider 
Jewish unity to our 'avodat haShem. The stated implication was that we should 
aim for unity through communal institutions, and avoid Austritt.

I must say that, having seen the disorderly American Jewish institutional 
jungle, with, at the local level, a multitude of individual organizations 
dedicated to narrow goals (a synagogue here, a hospital there, etc.), and the 
much more unified approach in European kehillot (everything mostly rolled 
into one), I find equating Jewish solidarity with organizational unity to be 
a heap of nonsense. There is real beauty and power in the Jewish American 
jungle, far superior to what we do in Jewish Europe.

Rav Hirsch was not less concerned about other Jews than the W?rzburger Rav, he 
surely loved them and felt dearly for them, as some of his writings attest. 
Yet, that did not deter him for Austritt and it did not deter Austritt from 
becoming (despite what many MO claim) the dominant American model. Yes, it is 
the strict organizational separation between O and R/C that enables far 
greater solidarity in the US. MO would not have existed if not for Austritt. 

What passes for unity in Stockholm (an umbrela organization with an O and a 
C/R synagogue, a rabbi and a "ra'bbai") would be unthinkable in 99% of MO 
circles.

However, stricter separation has allowed all kinds of O, whether M or not so 
M, to become more secure, by being in control of its religious destiny, by 
being able to build a core social identity within the Jewish people, by being 
able to fully dissociate itself from the eggrerious abuses of Judaism by the 
mere fact that they are organizationally separate from the transgressors, and 
by educating its children in O schools - where some non-O may be accepted, 
but on the premise of them joining an O school.

It is within this more secure O that MO has blossomed, and precisely because 
it isn't threatened by R/C, it can feel more for the klal.

That organizational separation does not equate ethnic separation can even be 
gleaned rom the very name - both in Hebrew and in German - of the Austritt 
communities. They were and still are called "Israelitische 
Religionsgemeinschaft," IOW Jewish religion society. They weren't supplanting 
the full kehillah, but rather creating a separate organization that would be 
centered around religion and the religious experience. In Hebrew, it is even 
more telling: Kehal 'Adat Yeshurun, or the community of *witnesses* *of* 
*Israel*. They weren't the kehillah, though they had a kehillah. Rather, they 
were the witnesses, who would guarantee, that if G"d forbid, everyone else in 
their locality would completely forget what Judaism is all about, would 
testify and bring the knowledge back in the public square.

By their very nature, as their names stress, they were to serve the larger 
Jewish community.

Jewish unity isn't necessarily measured by whether we sit on the same board. 
My concern for my fellow Jew might precisely preclude me from sitting on the 
same board (it did prevent Rav Hildesheimer from joining the assimilationist 
Alliance Israelite Universelle's board. For a long time he didn't even want 
to be a member - until IIRC the Dreyfuss affair - and indeed RSRH didn't join 
at all). However, how I treat such a Jew when in need, whether for welfare or 
security, and how much I care for his spiritual well being, as i shown 
through our qiruv efforts or the lack thereof, that is the true barometer of 
unity.

I must cut this short, for I have to attend a board meeting ;-)
(no, really, I am going to sleep now)

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

> R' Daniel Eidensohn
> Concerning the spiritual status of tinok shenishba
>
>  *Shabbat (68b): ...
>
>  The halacha is is ... they have sinned and
>  require a korbon even though there was no way that the tinok shenishba
>  would know about Shabbos.

Doesn't hurt my case (that a TsN is innocent)- saying a TsN has sinned
and needs kappara is analogous to saying that any shogeg is a sinner -
if one is troubled by the fact that a TsN needs kappara, he'll be
troubled just as much by the fact that if Shimon accidentally eats
chelev and dam he needs kappara.


>  It is problematic to understand the Rambam as viewing tinok shenisha as
>  blameless.
>
>  *Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 3:3) ...and people should not be quick to kill them.
>
>  See the index to sources on the Frankel Rambam that understand that if
>  they don't repent they can be killed

Indeed, Rambam says you shouldn't be quick to kill them, which he
implies that he is rather ambivalent about their right to live. So
indeed, he doesn't seem to see them as blameless.

>  Similarly the Chazon Ish is widely understood to view them as blameless
>  - but that is not what he actually says
>
>  *Chazon Ish**[i]* <#_edn1>*(Hilchos Shechita 2:16): *I believe that the
>  legal permission to kill heretics only exists in a period of time where
>  G?d's Providence is revealed to everyone. ...  In such circumstances,
>  the destruction of the wicked served the clear purpose of improving the
>  world. Everyone knew that corrupt moral and violating religious
>  commandments brought about suffering in the world such as plague, war
>  and famine. However at a time when there is the absence of such clear
>  awareness of the importance of spirituality, then killing heretics does
>  not bring about improvement but rather makes things worse. ...
>  Thus in our current situation, we are obligated to bring the
>  non?observant back to the light of religion?with acts of love and
>  affection to the best of our ability.

But Chazon Ish seems to be speaking of heretics, not TsN - he never
says TsN - he says "heretic" and "nonobservant", which in the context
would seem to mean apikorsim b'meizid. I'd completely agree with him
that for a b'meizid mamash apikorus, we ought to kill him in theory
but not nowadays due to practical considerations, and instead we
should do kiruv - for meizid apikorsim!

I don't know from this source what the Chazon Ish holds about the
nonobservant today, but I'd wager a guess that "at a time when there
is the absence of such clear awareness of the importance of
spirituality", and at a time when "G?d's Providence is {not} revealed
to everyone" and "when miracles are {not} common and they all {have
not} heard the Bas Kol (Heavenly
Voice) and they saw {not} and acknowledged {not} the unique Providence for the
righteous of the generation", I'll wager he considers them innocent
TsN that should not be killed - I believe R' Cardozo in Thoughts to
Ponder vol. 1 quotes this very Chazon Ish to make the same case I am
making.

>  Both the Rambam and Chazaon Ish obviously undertstand that tinok
>  shenishba are in fact sinners - but there is greater benefit in being
>  nice to them and having them rejoin religious society than in treating
>  them harshly. In fact being harsh would cause major damage to society.
>
>  We are talking about tactics in teshuva and tochacha - not about whether
>  they are blameless and innocent.

Rambam I'll agree with you. Chazon Ish, based on what you've shown so
far, I will not agree with you.

Mikha'el Makovi

I previously said,
>"With all due respect to Reb Moshe, I find the idea laughable."

It was then said to me in a private message

> You wrote "With all due respect
>  to Reb Moshe, I find the idea laughable."
>  I was so bothered by this statement that I had to write. I think I have
>  seen you write that you are 20 years old, and have been religious for a
>  couple of years. Rav Moshe Feinstein was the Gadol hador. Along with the
>  Chazon Ish, he might be the greatest halachist of the last 100 years.
>  Anyone who can learn (by that I mean anyone who spent years in Yeshiva)
>  is literally astounded at the greatness of Igros Moshe. For you to write
>  something Rav Moshe wrote is laughable is horrifying. You should go to
>  Rav Moshe's kever and ask mechila. He is buried Yerushalayim (either in
>  Har Hamenuchos or Har Hazeisim). You need to have a little humility when
>  talking about Rav Moshe.
>  Kol tuv,

I responded,
>Oh $hit. I had already previously said, "With all respect to Reb Moshe, I
>honestly cannot understand these words (if I didn't have respect for
>Reb Moshe, believe you me, I'd use MUCH stronger terms)."

So lest there be any doubt, I completely retract my second utterance
("laughable"). I said I would have used much stronger terms, and
regrettably (VERY regrettably), I accidentally did - I wasn't even
aware I had said this. Believe you me, if I could withdraw this I
would.

Mikha'el Makovi

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> ... Nisqatnu hadoros means that we will have to
> increasingly rely on formal law.
> ...
> And thus, it's not calamitous. It's the preplanned way of
> dealing with our increasing distance from maamud Har Sinai.
>
> Moshe gave us formal law in addition to values. "Miymino
> AishDas lamo." We lost many of those values when Moshe died,
> and Asniel had to reestablish those scenarios on more formal
> grounds. Similarly, all of the cases of "shakhechum vechazar
> veyasdum", where AKhG had to use formal rules to reconstruct
> the values lost during Bavel. Similarly churban bayis
> leading to the mishnah, and when we spread out beyond Bavel
> and EY, for the gemara. Loss of culture was ALWAYS, since
> Yehoshua's day, supplanted with use of formal rule.
>
> This is not catastophe. It's why Hashem gave us an AishDas,
> a halachic process unified with those values.

How can I argue with this? It is so simple. It is so logical.

And it is also so cold.

Not cold in a cruel sense, but cold in a lonely sense. In fact, it reminds of the themes which run through Rav Soloveitchik's "Lonely Man of Faith".

It also reminds me of how society at large is finding it more and more
difficult to judge the quality of anything, other than by quantifying it in
some manner. Standardized test for students are just one example of this.

As we distance ourselves from our roots, we're losing a great deal of
sensitivity. We try to compensate for this loss of of subjective
discernment by increasing our objective rules, but it pales in comparison.

RMB's comment that "And thus, it's not calamitous." was intended to be comforting. But it is a cold comfort. But, I suppose, that's galus for ya.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Great pay, great benefits, rewarding.  Click for information on a healthcare career.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAYvQ28XzinzoDNC96KUHWZ4l9akm70QNSRORAJVREaCYBG4q/

R' Daniel Eidensohn asked:
> 2) Furthermore I haven't seen any source that the rabbis
> of Reform and Conservative are considered tinok shenishba.
> Do you have any such source?

It seems to me that, by definition, we cannot be referring to those who had
a proper education and then abandoned it. Such people would not be
considered tinok shenishba by anyone. Rather, we must be referring to those
who did *not* have a proper education.

So, if we're talking about "rabbis" who did not have a proper education, then why would they be different from the laity?

If you would say that the rabbis were in schools which did expose them to
True Torah, then I'd answer that you're contradicting yourself. Either the
teachers at C/R seminaries are legitimate Torah role models, or the
students are tinok shenishba.

I say this with no sarcasm: I'm sure there is a flaw in that logic, but I cannot find it. Can someone please find it for me?

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on how to become certified as a project management professional.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAYumcPRctYsDTSKdn6b5f7LsvmqfR5XfvCzfB7lKAP36wq5U/

I compared having a Purim meal in the late afternoon with a separate Shabbos meal soon after, with having one long meal combining the two, and I asked:

> I think most people will agree that the first idea is very
> b'dieved, while the second one (despite the practical
> problems such as were mentioned in Rav Teitz's post) is
> fully sanctioned, at least for Sefaradim. Why such a
> disparity? Does Oneg Shabbos really suffer more in the
> first than in the second?

R' David Riceman responded:
> I think the problem here is not Oneg Shabbos but bensching
> in the middle of a meal.  Is it really appropriate to
> benstch when you intend to continue eating in a few minutes?

I will grant that benching in the middle of a meal is indeed a problem. But
it is a Hilchos Brachos problem, and that's *not* the one that the poskim
focus on. Rather, they focus on the Hilchos Shabbos problem, that one's
appetite for a Shabbos meal has been ruined by the meal on Erev Shabbos.

My evidence of that is: If the hefsek were the main or only problem,
halacha would object only if the seuda was in the last half-hour or so of
Erev Shabbos. And even then, the complaint would only exist for people who
daven at home. But the truth is that halacha considers the Erev Shabbos
meal to be a problem even if it is in the early afternoon. If a person eats
a meal in the early afternoon, and another in the evening, that cannot
possibly be a Hilchos Brachos problem. But it *is* a Hilchos Shabbos
problem.

Perhaps I did not explain my question adequately. I'll try again: If one
combines the Purim Seudah and the Shabbos Seudah by means of Pores Mappah,
why does it *not* ruin his appetite for the Shabbos portion of the meal?

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click here for great computer networking solutions!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAYu6qdQ0Zc8d1JE2Yq7Z2LaPev4o59BFmsmD5akyb8GEG7kW/

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Here is what I thought he was asking... How do we codify
> halakhos that presume people will continue to be
> avaryanim? Particularly given the severity of LH?
>
> To add to the question... Do you think these dinim will
> necessarily change le'asid lavo, when LH would be rare?

I still don't understand the question. Why are you singling out LH for this
question? Wouldn't it apply just as well to gezel and murder and chometz
and over 600 other mitzvos?

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on online degrees and make up to $150K/ year.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAYOxiwY5MLpaBH9sa4kl282yGAn6SBegGotwMwftw5ZJ3Fay/




------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 105
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."