Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 106

Mon, 24 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 2. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Defining concern for the klal (Rich, Joel)
• 4. purim seudah (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Half-Shekel found from the time of Bayis Sheni (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: half shekel (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Meir Shinnar)
• 9. Re: . Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi) (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Re: [Areivim] rabbi org) (Daniel Israel)
• 11. Re: . Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi) (Daniel Israel)
• 12. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Daniel Israel)
• 13. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Arie Folger)
• 14. tachanum on Sunday (who holds what..) (M Cohen)
• 15. Re: daas torah & history [& O vs. C methodology] (Richard Wolpoe)
• 16. Re: half shekel (Richard Wolpoe)
• 17. Re: Tinok Shenishba (Richard Wolpoe)
• 18. Re: half shekel (Zev Sero)
• 19. Re: half shekel (Micha Berger)
• 20. Re: Simchas Shabbos : was Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Daniel Israel)
• 21. Re: daas torah & history [& O vs. C methodology] (Micha Berger)

R' Michael Makovi wrote:
>> R' Daniel Eidensohn

>>  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.

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

I did a search with Bar Ilan and the majority view seems to be that 
dealing with tinok shenishba reflects the likelihood of getting them to 
do teshuva - and not their degree of blamelessness. An example is the 
Ginas Veradim who criticises the Mizrachi's view that the Rambam didn't 
mean that they were deserving of killing. It is reasonable that the 
Chazon Ish would agree with this view.

*Ginas Veradim[1] <#_ftn1>(Orech Chaim 2:31): *We need to investigate 
careful this that Rambam states in a teshuva that is cited by the 
Mizrachi (#57). ?*Question*: Concerning those Karaites is it permitted 
to circumcise their sons on Shabbos? *Answer*: It is correct to respect 
them and to approach them with honest actions and to deal with them with 
humility, truth and peace ? as long as they also deal with us pleasantly 
without strident words and mistaken criticism of the words of the rabbis 
of the generation?If they act properly towards us it is correct to honor 
them and to ask after their welfare even in their homes and to 
circumcise their sons even on Shabbos and to bury their dead and to 
comfort their mourners?? These are the words of the Rambam. But the 
Rambam seems to contradict himself in this matter. We see in this 
teshuva that the Rambam is exceedingly careful about the need to honor 
the Karaites and to ask after their welfare and to circumcise their 
sons. But if they are deserving of being killed [as is stated in Hilchos 
Mamrim 3:3] why should there be so much concern for respecting them and 
to circumcise their sons on Shabbos? The Mizrachi strains to reconcile 
this contradictions and makes the ?elephant pass through the eye of a 
needle.? He suggests that the expression in Hilchos Mamrim 3:3 ?not to 
be hasty to kill them? does not mean  that ultimately it is necessary to 
kill them but the Rambam?s intent in this phrase reverts back to the 
genuine heretics ? the Tzadokim and the Baysusim  - to whom no mercy is 
to be shown at all and no hestitation should exist for killing them. In 
contrast the Mizrachi insists that the modern Karaites are not in the 
category of ?quickly killing them? which is in truth applicable to the 
Tzadokim and the Baysusim. The Mizrachi has to go to extreme lengths in 
changing the meaning of the Rambam?s words in Hilchos Mamrim in order to 
justify this reading. However it is not compatible with the Rambam?s 
commentary at the beginning of Chulin. And the Mizrachi concludes that 
the matter requires further thought?.However in my humble opinion the 
resolution of the different statements of the Rambam is quite clear and 
obvious. Concerning the respectful stance of the Rambam in the teshuva 
and circumcising their sons on Shabbos ? it only applies to those 
Karaites who we have experienced that they relate to us with respect and 
openess without harsh and strident language against us and our rabbis. 
Since they have reached  this level of respect towards us they are 
fairly close to repenting and rejoining us. Therefore they are to 
betreated with dignity and we assist them with whatever mitzvos we can. 
It is not like assisting them in idolatry because it is reasonable and 
likely that they will return to the true Torah way. This understanding 
is also supported from the teshuva of Rabbeinu Hai Gaon that is cited by 
the Mizrachi. ? Concerning mila our rabbis have not refrained from 
circumcising the sons of Karaites on Shabbos because it is possible that 
they will repent.? We see clearly that Rabbeinu Hai Gaon justifies the 
circumcision on Shabbos with the reason that it is possible that  they 
will repent ? as is stated in the Tur that they have to have a Jewish 
mother. The reason is not because they have the absolute status of Jew 
regarding gittin and kidushin. Because even if they are complete Jews 
one can not be lenient and circumcise their sons because there is no 
benefit when they grow up as heretics and as rejecters of rabbinic 
authority. Therefore the reconciliation of the apparent inconsistencies 
in the Rambam is that there are two different types of Karaites. The 
first type is referred to in the Rambam?s commentary to Chullin and in 
Hilchos Mamrim 3:3 and for these it would be prohibited to circumcise 
their sons on Shabbos or even during the week. The second type are those 
that are predisposed to repent and for them it is permitted to 
circumcise their sons even on Shabbos.

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


???? ???"?? ?????? ????? ??????' ???"? ??' ?? ??"? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? 
???? ????? ???? ????? ???"?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? 
??????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? 
??????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? 
????? ???' ????? ???? ??? ????? ????' /?????/ ?????? ???' ?????? ????? 
?? ????? ????' ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???' ??"? ??????? ????? 
????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? 
????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? 
???? ???? ???' ????? ???"? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? 
??' ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? 
?? ???? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? 
?????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? 
??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???' ????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ????? 
????? ????? ?? ??? ????' ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? 
??????"? ?"? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???"? ?????' ??' ??.

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

RMM wrote:
> 3) You make a good point - a C clergyman can be TsN even though he
> knows what TsN is.

I didn't write that. Wanting to avoid any discussion about the specific case 
of the author of said article, I deflected any arguments about him by writing 
that "I don't know much about that author and am hesitant to label him 
without extensive analysis," but I believe that from my writing that "Would 
you call that guy ignorant of what TsN is" in reaction to your suggestion of 
how broad TsN is, one would easily see that:

-> I meant that a R/C clergyman could definitely qualify for being an apikores 
and a 'hoti uma'hti et harabbim.

However, most importantly, what I really tried to put in the foreground was 
that RMF did not label the Sunday school students apikorsim. That much is 
clear, as RMF explicitly condemns "their ra'bbais" and not all R/C.

I can also see - from personal acquaintance - how the level of the R/C 
leadership has dropped to the point that RMF might have condemned them in a 
kinder way. In the words of one former C ra'bbenical student, his 12 year old 
daughter in Prospect Park Yeshivah knew more Judaism than he did at the end 
of the JTS program.

Nonetheless, unquestionably, religious leaders who lead their flock astray, 
even out of ignorance, are in a worse position than those who are privately 
ignorant. Conversely, the leaders' potential in teshuvah is so much greater, 
as they can draw so many other people with them (RMM's story about two C 
clergymen coming to his yeshivah and then, upon their return, wanting to 
install a me'hitzah, resonates).
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

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.

Kol tuv,
--
Arie Folger
========================================================

And where do you see the pirud disappearing, or is this not a goal? (I'm
reminded of a cartoon of a mathematical proof which ends in "and then
there was a miracle" - perhaps in a way this describes a very basic
philosophical issue - how much weight do we focus on the
individual/micro halachik issues (the knife is not tamei) and say hkb"h
will take care of the big picture and how much on the community/macro
issues (yes you all gave tzedaka but we still need to feed the hungry))

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

<<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?>>

The gemara in berachot has a whole discussion of  eating a meal that
goes into shabbat (not connected to Purim) and is not bothered by your
question. Being in galus I dont have all my seforim but I recall that
RYBS has one of his yahrzeit shiurim dedicated to this gemara.

In any case why would have the first course on friday purim ruin the
main course on shabbat. Chinese eat 5 or 10 course meals. Poskim seem
to require only a kezayit on shabbat itself.

I was also confused by the discussion of benshing. Those that continue
the meal from Purim to Shabbat bensch only at the end not in the
middle. The consensus is that one says both al hanissim and retzeh for
shabbat

kol tuv

Eli

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 09:57:02PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: AIUI, many shkalim have been found over the past 200 years or so, and
: they tend to be in the 13-14 gram range.
...
: The shekel of Moshe's time was 320.  The Shekel Tzori of Chazal was 384.
...
: The Rambam's grains are 1/64 of a dirham, and his dirham was definitely
: no bigger than the Ottoman dirham of 3.2 g (and there is some reason to
: believe it was a bit smaller), which makes a grain no more than 50 mg.

That comes to 19.2gm for a Sheqel Tzori!

To get 14gm, you would need a grain that is less than 36mg. That's quite
a "bit smaller".

I would still say that of the three rishonim, the Rif is closest to the
coints cound.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

As I see it, here is the basic problem...

If TsN is defined entirely in terms of information, then a product of
non-O education was exposre to enough Torah, they would be koferim.

However, if someone looks at TsN in terms of intuitive sense of guilt,
then motivation becomes a factor. Someone who knows much Torah, but all
their education came from sources that important it along with an anti-
bias, it very difficult to justify assigning guilt to their choice.

The CI's qulah presumes the latter definition, FWIW.

The JTSA alumnus knows enough Torah to normally not be considered a
TsN. But learned it in a milieau where Document Hypothesis, denial of
Torah miSinai, and distortion of the halachic process are the norm.

The question RMM wrote on Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 08:04pm IST becomes
compelling:
: So Reb Moshe says they are kofrim, and one might say that they are
: b'shogeg, but Reb Moshe would retort that since they know shomrei
: Torah u'Mitzvot, they ought to know the Torah is true.
: Such words I find absolutely astounding...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 02:36:51PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: Is it possible that perhaps, part of the leniency was because the coin
: wasn't itself an idol, but rather, a memorial to an idol? No one would
: ever actually bow down to a coin, AFAIK...

Many years, around this time of year, I would point out a problem with
the US $1 bill. On the back of the bill are the two faces of the seal
of President of the US. The obverse of the seal is the eye-and-pyramid,
an old Masonic symbol, chosen by Washington (a Mason). The all seeing
eye represents a Deistic model of god. A well designed universe, the
pyramid, with the eye disonnected fromit.

Quite easily arguable to be AZ.

(And so, if you need me to dispose of this AZ, just send me your $1
bills...)

But the same problem pertains. Slightly less so, as I don't think
too many people can identify the AZ, are interested in worshipping
this kind of deity, etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
micha@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

Unfortunately don't have the time for full engagement.
However,
a) WRT R A Folger response to my comments:
        i) I appreciate his description of gemeinde - but,BMKVT,it is  
irrelevant to the point that I was making.  I wasn't arguing that  
anyone held gemeinde to be the ideal in the sense that isn't it  
wonderful that instead of everyone being O, we have diversity.  The  
issue that arose on this list was the very permissibility of dealings  
with the non O, given their status, according to some poskim, as  
kofrim - and the heter being sought was that they were tinokot  
shenishbu.  My point was that the gemeinde approach permitted and  
even encouraged such interaction - I would agree for the sake of the  
masses who were am aratztim - but the status of the leadership did  
not prevent the formation of institutional ties.  I would think that  
the vast majority of American R/C are as much am aratzim as the  
German 19th century -  and the lack of institutional relationships  
limits our ability to reach out to them.

Being willing to have a common umbrella and insitutional relationship  
does not translate to being willing to compromise on halachic issues  
- and there were clear red lines.  Rav Hildesheimer was head of a  
nominally austritt congregation, because he wanted to have autonomy  
and not be subject to pressure from the gemeinde that migh compromise  
his halachic integrity - but he still was willing to interact on an  
institutional base with the general community - which did mean  
dealing with their rabbinic leadership.

REB was continuing this tradition - of dealing with the R and C.  The  
essay that RDE cited that he found so objectionable was just REB  
telling the R and C that they have to understand that he thinks that  
they are wrong, and he also understands that they think that he is  
wrong - and he can't convince them, and they can't convince him, so  
they will still work together for the common good.  A classic  
gemeinde position - not an acknowledgement of the rightness or  
equality of the other position - but an acknowledgement that we are  
unable to convince each other, but still want to work together on  
common issues.

WRT second point - that the lack of relationship has allowed  
Orthodoxy to flourish - I don't know that there is a basis for e such  
a claim.  I think that the American model of nonstructured  
communities has allowed much more diversity of models of institutions  
and personal initiative than possible within the European communal  
model - and that in the European model, allocation of resources may  
have been far less responsive to changing needs and demographics -  
but that is a different issue than the issue of unity.  I do agree  
that (unfortunately from my viewpoint), austritt has been the  
dominant model in America - and even for MO, RYBS version of  
cooperation is far less than the German gemeinde model.
  I would add that the Netziv's opposition to austritt on halachic  
and theological grounds is well known, and Rav Kook argued that it  
was a hora'at sha'a for Rav Hirsch and the Hatam Sofer, but  
intrinsically, the notion of austritt is tantamount to kfira (based  
on the rashi on the mishna in megilla on yevarchucha tovim) - and  
some of us think they were right...
Meir Shinnar

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Meir Shinnar <chidekel@gmail.com> wrote:

> RMB
> >  REB even realized his argument was specious, which is why he had to
> >  mention the metahalachic concept of "eis la'asos" -- this must be done
> >  despite it violating the normal rules. I fail to see how this is an
> >  eis la'asos, as no one's relationship to Hashem is saved through it,
> >  "just" unity would.

> I don't have the time now to get into the debate.  However, the above
> paragraph summarizes a major problem and difference in perspective.

> The argument that the unity of klal yisrael does not affect one's
> relationship to hashem is, to my mind, quite startling - although,
> perhaps, reflective on an approach emphasizing the individual rather
> than communal perfection.

> Meir Shinnar

Psycho-thearapy was supposed to help people be more socialyl functional
human beings. At times it emphasizees a narcisstic self-reflection

Mussar -or at least basd mussar - falls preyto the same problem
The Torah was given to effect  a mamleches kohanim and Goy Kaddosh by HKBH's
own words and I am locked into an argument that Torah is about
self-prefection, an attidue probably first seriously considered by  RY
Salnter or his followers.

I have no qualms with RYS per se, jus the abuse of mussa to twist the
centrality of the kehal, khilla, Am, society etc.  The klal is a ubiquitous
theme in Yekke hashkafa in genral and in Hirsch in Particualr [see 19
letters!] but since it is not "politically correct" in America and in the
mussar movement to consider the peoplehood over the individual so it gets
white-washed

Now Vayikra CERTAINLY can be understood as suggsting that the nassi, the
kohen Gadol and the Sanhedrin should be into self-prefection, but that is
obviously due to their high office. The idea that the "amcha" should be
concerned with self-perfection over serving the klal is imho not a Jewish
hashkafa at all, more like Teddy Roosevelt's rugged individualism or some
monastic ideal associated with other religions who  praise self-denial.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080323/08129ee9/attachment.html 

I'm glad to see my query sparked some discussion, and sorry that I put 
it out there and then dropped the ball on this thread.  I just got back 
from out of town from Purim, and am going to try to catch up, which may 
mean a string of responses tonight.

Apparently RDE (disagreeing with me) and RMM (agreeing with me), both 
misunderstood my position.  I actually am not sympathetic to RMA's 
proposal at all.  However, as the proposal itself has been discussed at 
length, I tried to write be neutrally in order to raise another issue. 
My neutrality was apparently too well done, and read as approval.

The issue I wanted to raise was sparked by the suggestion in some posted 
link that RMA and co. might start some new batei din, and I was 
wondering, b'dievad, what would be the implications of this, l'halacha.

Because of this misunderstanding, I am going to respond to some of your 
points out of order, emphasizing the issue I intended.

The basic issue is in the following:

 > 9) And yes the vast majority of poskim would declare posul - a convert
 > who is not clearly committed to keep the entire Torah.

The requirement is "kabbalos ol mitzvos."  My reading of that is 
accepting the binding nature of the mitzvos and the obligation to keep 
them, as opposed to a promise to actually keep them.  To take a concrete 
example: what about someone who clearly states that he accepts the 
entire Torah as binding, _but_ also states that he is (at this time) not 
capable of completely ceasing to eat a particular non-kosher food.  He 
acknowledges that he will be violating halacha to do so, and that this 
halacha is min haShamayim, but he simply feels his taivos in this area 
are too strong.  It is not clear to me from the sources you are talking 
about what the status of this case is.

I see three possibilities:
1) We say that the requirement of "kabbalos ol mitzvos" actually means 
someone promises to keep all the laws.  The problem here is (a) it 
doesn't fit the simple meaning of the words (IMHO), and, (b) where do we 
draw the line between this person and the one who says he will try to 
keep the halahca, but he's only human and know he will mess up occasionally.
2) We say that such a person, although he claims he accept the mitzovs, 
is insincere.  But the problem is this is directly contradictory to his 
own words.
3) We say that the person is sincere, but that the BD that accepts him 
as a ger creates a tremendous michshol.

My question is this: assuming the third is correct, then b'dievad if 
such a BD actually forms, wouldn't we have to accept their geyrus?

This is exactly my reaction to RMA: what he is proposing would be 
irresponsible, but not posul.  If you disagree with this analysis, then 
where exactly is the point of divergance?

This is all assuming that we are speaking of the case where there is a 
statement of kabbalos ol mitzvos, but not a clear immediate practice, 
which is how I read R' Uziel, as well as many of RMA's statements.  As 
opposed to the case where there is an intermarriage without real 
kabbalos ol mitzvos, or accpeting C&R converts for the sake of "achdus." 
  The latter I don't see any basis for.

I would also note here that keeping the entire Torah is clearly beyond 
any of us.  Clearly a beis din can't demand perfection, but can't be too 
lax either.  My impression is that a BD doesn't really quiz the 
candidite, "will you keep this, will you keep that," but relies on a 
basic knowledge of the candidate.

> 3) The issue of success rate is critical. If the majority of people who 
> convert end up non observance and are a negative force on the community 
> then conversion should obviously be discouraged - or the standards 
> raised so only the most sincere candidates are accepted. 

Fine.  But can we use this on a BD by BD basis?  If a BD has a low 
"success rate" suitably defined, then all of a sudden we declare their 
geirus posul?  What happens to geirim that were m'gayir before we 
"discovered" the low success rate?  What about "successful" candidates 
afterwards?

In discussions with a particular Av Beis din who is considered very 
reliable about another BD which is not so responsible, he pointed out to 
me that it is not so simple to start posuling geirus, particularly on a 
case-by-case basis (although I know others who will do so, using their 
own evaluation of the candidates sincerity).

Switching to the case at hand, if RMA starts a BD, can we posul based on 
a presumed low success rate?  If not, can we do so for an established 
low success rate?  Again, I don't see this as a clear cut issue.

> 6) There is an ancient tradition of discouraging converts (Yevamos 48). 
> There are some who would assert that there should be no discouragment 
> when the person has a Jewish father or mistakenly views himself as a Jew 
> (Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky according to his son R' Nosson Kaminetsky and Rav 
> Moshe Feinstein according to R' Shlomo Fuerst).

My understanding is that his son, Rav Dovid, also holds like this (as 
far as a Jewish father, I don't know about the other case).  AFAIK the 
reason is that there is some spiritual connection.

> There is no written 
> teshuva that allows encouraging conversion of an intermarried couple  
> who know that they are  living in sin.

But most community Rabbaim and BD that I am familiar with are willing to 
be meikil in some aspects in cases where there is a real appearance of 
sincere interest on the part of the non-Jewish spouse.  I know of 
several such cases.

Again, just so the discussion doesn't veer off on a tangent, let me make 
it clear that I am not sympathetic to RMA's approach.  It seems to me 
that it creates many communal and halachic difficulties.  The only 
question is how the majority who disagree with RMA would have to treat 
the geirim he produces.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

Meir Shinnar wrote:
> ... it is clear that today, most of the non
> O community has little contact with the O community and therefore, it
> is quite reasonable to argue that  the metziut has changed from the
> time of that psak of RMF.

Adaraba, I think with the growth of kiruv effort, there is arguably more 
contact.  (As to how to evaluate the evolution of frum/non-frum dynamics 
  with regard to whether RMF's psak still applies, I wouldn't presume to 
be qualified to judge.  I simply note that things have changed in ways 
that makes it impossible to do a simple extrapolation from previous psak.)

> I would add that there is a tshuva by rav shlomo goren zt"l, who asks
> about a ger who fully accepts ol malchut shamayim and the mitzvot, but
> does not accept the national identity - and says that such a ger is
> not valid gerut.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with this t'shuva, but what exactly is "national 
identity"?  I mean, how is he rigorously defining this in an halachic 
context.

> Lastly, one small related  issue that was addressed in the past.  RDE asks
>>  1) Could you please give a citation that a tinok shenishba "bears no
>>  guilt".
> See in the first few chapters of Pachad Yitzhak by rav hutner on
> pesach, where he specifically argues that a tinok shenishba does not
> have the status of a rasha, even though he violates all the mitzvot.

I'm not sure that "doesn't have the status of a rasha," is the same as 
"bears no guilt."

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> All these seem to be cases of where a prospective ger is simply
>> flat-out turned away. But did any of them go so far as to deny the
>> Jewishness of a ger who had already converted under someone else's
>> auspices?

> *Rav Moshe Feinstein(Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:157):* *Question:* Concerning
> a convert who does not accept the obligation of doing mitzvos is he 
> considered a convert? *Answer: *It is clear and obvious that he is
> not a convert at all even after the fact. This is also what my father
> actually ruled in Strabin. He said in such a case that the person was
> not a ger in any sense whether for leniencies or strictness. That is
> because the acceptance of mitzvos is an absolutely necessary
> condition to become a convert (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 268:3). Even if
> the person asserts he is accepting the mitzvos ? if we are aware that
> he is not actually accepting them ? his assertion is meaningless.

I still don't see a clear answer to the question, because we are still 
conflating accepting that one is obligated to do the mitzvos, and 
promising that one will do the mitzvos.  These are different, and unless 
we have a clear source indicating that the latter is required for 
geirus, I'm not sure why we should presume that that is what RMF or 
other poskim mean.  Of course, there is very strong reason not to accept 
RMA's position even so, so as not to create geirim who are also avaryan. 
  But that is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is posuling 
gerus done by a BD based on the former kabbalah only.

> *Rabbi Bleich* has written page 274 In Contemporary halachic
> Problems:

Which volume?  I don't have this one.

> All authorities agree that an application for conversion may
> justifiably be entertained only if the Bis Din is satisfied that upon
> conversion the condidate will become a Gd fearing Jew and will
> scrupulously observe the commandments of the Torah. It is clear that
> according to halacha certainty of future religious observance is a
> necessary condition for acceptance of a prospective convert:"

R' Bleich writes here more explicitly, but without knowing his sources I 
can't tell how compelling his conclusion is.

>> Even if at the time of conversion he *was* clearly committed to
>> keep the entire Torah?

> *R' Angel* is not concerned with whether they are committed to keep
> the entire Torah. He stated the following in an interview published
> in Forward November 2007

He also said (I don't have the quote handy) that he would require 
kabbalos ol mitzvos, just not a promise to actually do everything.  So 
b'dieved, what do we make of that?

Keep in mind, although I used in a previous post a clear-cut example 
(eating treif) the reality is likely to be a candidate who plans not to 
cover her hair after marriage, or will eat fish in restaurants: i.e., 
practices which are not uncommon in certain communities where people are 
more lax in halacha.  Furthermore, the BD in practice does not ask 
(AFAIK) what a person will do about these kinds of things, rather it 
relies on knowledge of the person.  So what if there is a BD that 
accepts candidates that it feels sincerely accept Torah min haShamayim, 
but that it suspects will conform to the practices of the more lax 
members of the community?  Can we posul this b'dievad.  For simplicity, 
let's even forget the cases where there are additional factors to create 
suspision, such as conversion for marriage, where the convert commits to 
keeping nothing, or C converts.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

On Monday, 24. March 2008 01.02:44 Meir Shinnar wrote:
> a) WRT R A Folger response to my comments:
>    i) I appreciate his description of gemeinde <SNIP> but the status of the
>    leadership did not prevent the formation of institutional ties.  I would
>    think that the vast majority of American R/C are as much am aratzim as the
>      German 19th century -  and the lack of institutional relationships
>      limits our ability to reach out to them. 

But there are institutional relationships, in social areas, which is precisely 
what the gemeinde had become, a provider of Jewish social welfare, including 
perhaps such social religious services as providing for kosher food (you do 
need to feed people), but the rabbinic leadership had become sectarian.

>SNIP>

> Rav Hildesheimer was head of a
> nominally austritt congregation, because he wanted to have autonomy
> and not be subject to pressure from the gemeinde that migh compromise
> his halachic integrity - but he still was willing to interact on an
> institutional base with the general community - which did mean
> dealing with their rabbinic leadership.

I am unaware of REH's extensive nonpolemical contact with R spiritual 
leadership. Please enlighten me. AFAIK (see Ellinson's biography of REH) he 
polemicized extensively against Liberal Judaism, including using any 
expedient argument to legally thwart the advancement of heretical Judaism.

> REB was continuing this tradition - of dealing with the R and C.  The
> essay that RDE cited that he found so objectionable was just REB
> telling the R and C that they have to understand that he thinks that
> they are wrong, and he also understands that they think that he is
> wrong - and he can't convince them, and they can't convince him, so
> they will still work together for the common good.  A classic
> gemeinde position - not an acknowledgement of the rightness or
> equality of the other position - but an acknowledgement that we are
> unable to convince each other, but still want to work together on
> common issues.

I am willing to be enlightened, but AFAIK, none of REB's mentors were so 
accomodating to the R/C spiritual leadership.

> WRT second point - that the lack of relationship has allowed
> Orthodoxy to flourish - I don't know that there is a basis for e such
> a claim.  I think that the American model of nonstructured
> communities has allowed much more diversity of models of institutions
> and personal initiative than possible within the European communal
> model - and that in the European model, allocation of resources may
> have been far less responsive to changing needs and demographics -
> but that is a different issue than the issue of unity.  I do agree
> that (unfortunately from my viewpoint), austritt has been the
> dominant model in America - and even for MO, RYBS version of
> cooperation is far less than the German gemeinde model.

But the evidence shows that the German communal model was not succesful in 
turning around the communities. German communities still suffer from that 
ambivalence to this day.

>   I would add that the Netziv's opposition to austritt on halachic
> and theological grounds is well known, and Rav Kook argued that it
> was a hora'at sha'a for Rav Hirsch and the Hatam Sofer, but
> intrinsically, the notion of austritt is tantamount to kfira (based
> on the rashi on the mishna in megilla on yevarchucha tovim) - and
> some of us think they were right...

Nu, that is debatable. It is a legitimate ma'hloket no less than other 
halakhic disputes.

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

the velt says this is a machlokes between RSZA and R eliyshuv 

technically, the diyun is whether the 16th (including chiyuv simcha) is
nidcheh to sunday, or only the seudah is nidcheh.

the main nafka mina is whether to say l'mnatzeach or not.

(even if l'mnatzeach is said, c/be tachanum is not said)

in print, RSZA in minchas shlomo says the minhag is not to say tachanum
RMoshe says one s/say
R sholomo miller (Toronto) holds that one s/say.

Mordechai cohen

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Example, AFAIK ZERO Reishonim prohibit women reading for Megillah
> onbehalf
> > of other woemn and Rashi/Rambam EVEn permit it for me. Many acharonim
> > changed this [see Beis Yosef and Magen Avrahm]
> > Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
> > RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

> Rabbi Henkin has an interesting article on this in Equality Lost (and
> Bnei Banim). I forget all the details, but he says something about how
> there are three shitot:
> 1) Women = men, b'klal

This is an explicit Rashi and Tosafos

> 2) Women have mitzvah to hear, and a lesser obligation than men to
> read. So women can read for each other, but not for men.
> 3) Women have only obligation to hear, and they cannot read even for other
> women

> I think number 3 is Tosefta, either 1 or 2 is the Talmud, and I forget
> what the other one is.

The Beis Yosef having seen Tosafos's defense of BEHAG frames R. Henkin's #3
as  #2. AFAIK NO RISHON  equates the Tosefta with #2 and AFAIK the Magen
Avrham is the first to make #3 the peshat in BEHAG/Tosefta as normative.

Surprisingly, RYDS seems to back up this MGA over the
Rambam/RAshi/Tosafos/BY etc.  Quite an anomaly to my mind.

This is the problem of a systme that says "IQ" trumps.   Since RYDS has a
higher IQ...therefore we should ignore Halachic history and toss out
Rishonim and start from scratch!

BTW, the BY [and FWIW Rema] tried to get away from an ego-centric system to
an objective survey the poskim methodology.   Both wer too humble to rule
solely on the basis of their own "gefeel" and relied upon precedent..

> So, Rabbi Henkin brings many sources (Rishonim on 1, Gaonim on 2, if I
> remember correctly). Then, he brings Tosafot and the Rosh who hold
> number 2. But they were misunderstood by many (including Korban
> Netanel and Mishna Berurah) to hold 3, but Tosafot haRosh (unavailabe
> to KN and MB) clearly and undoubtedly holds 2, so women can most
> definitely read for each other.

> A primary issue for some, between 2 and 3, was kavod tzibur....

Mikha'el Makovi

Just my opinion but WADR some people come up with Halachic kullos from left
field and this seems to be from Right Field!  Did Rashi/Tosafos/Rambam ALL
overlook this issue?
And what about Beis Yosef who frames it as hakkol moddim that #2 is a
minimum!

I don't like Radical shifts in Halchah from Left or Right because I see
Halacha as based upon a precedent type systems. I also see an issue of
zilzulei devei dina.

Now for academic purposes I don't have an issue if a sincere effort to read
BEHAG as 3 is supported by really good reason. But I would not overturn BY
on this basis.

Lemme give you an example of a radical  read:
Hilchesa ysavui ysavinan mevorchai lo mvarchinan [sp]

Traditional Read: one MUST sit in the Sukkah on Sehmin ATzeres in the Golah
BUT w/o a bracha.
Radical Read: one MAY sit in the sukka on Shmini Atzeres [optional] but
certainly a bracha is assur [probably due to bal tosef]

This argument MIGHT be used [and has been used] to defend a minhag of not
sitting in the sukkah  on ShAtz, but to introduce this as a brand new model
and run with it is  IMHO  radical shinuy.

Re-reading the Behag to be #3 after ALL Rishonim see the possible positions
as  between #1 and #2 to me is a shinuy.

-- 

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080323/5af265eb/attachment-0001.html 

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now the Rabbanim in the year 19/18 BCE had a serious problem. On the
> one hand, the giving of the Holy Half-Shekel is a Torah Commandment.
> The problem arises with the motif of the Tyrian Shekel. On the obverse
> appears the image of Melkhart, known to us as Hercules, the god of the
> Phoenicians. On the reverse, appears an eagle on the bow of a ship
> with the legend: "Tyre the Holy and City of Refuge", and the date of
> issue.
> Reverse side of the the Tyrian shekel from the Second Temple period.
> The Half shekel coin had the same motif The obverse and reverse of the
> Tyrian half shekel from the time of the Second Temple in Jerusalem,
> used for the mitva of the Holy Half-shekel

> Both images, a foreign god (or any likeness of man) and an eagle, are
> Torah prohibitions. And yet the Rabbanim decided that the importance
> of the giving of the Holy Half-Shekel superceded the violations
> incurred in using the Tyrian motif. ...

> --
> Eli Turkel

I'm still stumped how Hazal permitted Tammuz [the name of a Babylonian
deity] as the name of a Jweish month.  After all "Sheim elohim Achaeirim lo
sazkiru".  How  did Tammuz get in the mix?   couldn't they at least change
it a bit [e.g. Gammuz  etc.]

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080323/8b3e9cab/attachment-0001.htm 

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
wrote:

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

> T
>   Translation: we have seen how the Conservative clergy have made a
>   mockery out of Judaism by changing text of prayers;
>   permitting stam yeinam; and dozens of other violations.

> Josh
> backon@vms.huji.ac.il
> _

Just to quibble

Many Ortho's have made wholesale changes to nusach.  Too many to even list.
An Ortho working as educational director in a C shul told me that he could
not understand the hypocrisy of attacking C changes in Nusach when  many
ortho's have done it, too. I must confess, I had no answer - except to
become a student of the history of authentic nusach

Disclaimer:, I am in no way endorsing the C position as Halchially OK on
this issue  but as far as stam yeinam goes, there is SOME wiggle room here
and even the Rema opened the door on this with a radical Teshuva.  AIUI a
lot of commercial wine is precessed w/o human contact at certain critical
times.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080323/7b12177f/attachment-0001.html 

Micha Berger wrote:

> Many years, around this time of year, I would point out a problem with
> the US $1 bill. On the back of the bill are the two faces of the seal
> of President of the US. The obverse of the seal is the eye-and-pyramid,
> an old Masonic symbol, chosen by Washington (a Mason). The all seeing
> eye represents a Deistic model of god. A well designed universe, the
> pyramid, with the eye disonnected fromit.

Washington was not a Deist.  His religious views were basically Unitarian
(though officially he was an Anglican, and would attend church semi-
regularly).  He definitely believed in Providence, i.e. a God who actively
intervened in history, and to Whom it was appropriate to pray.  Thomas
Paine was probably the only Deist among the founders of the USA.

> Quite easily arguable to be AZ.

How is Deism arguably AZ?  It's arguable whether there's a meaningful
distinction between it and atheism, but AZ?

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:24:30PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
:>                         The obverse of the seal is the eye-and-pyramid,
:> an old Masonic symbol, chosen by Washington (a Mason). The all seeing
:> eye represents a Deistic model of god. A well designed universe, the
:> pyramid, with the eye disonnected fromit.

: Washington was not a Deist.  His religious views were basically Unitarian
: (though officially he was an Anglican, and would attend church semi-
: regularly).  He definitely believed in Providence, i.e. a God who actively
: intervened in history, and to Whom it was appropriate to pray.  Thomas
: Paine was probably the only Deist among the founders of the USA.

I didn't say Washington was a Deist. I said he was a Mason, and chose a
Masonic symbol that happens to have a Deist meaning.

: > Quite easily arguable to be AZ.

: How is Deism arguably AZ? ...

The All Seeing Eye, being an image representing deity, is easily arguable
to be AZ.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Tngentially I'm not sure how it came about that if Ga'onim are closer to 
> the Talmud how come Rishonim over-rule them anyway?

> Is being close in time and place a factor or not?

> Niskatnu?

AIUI, within an "era" we go by the later authorities.  Do we consider 
the ga'onim distinct from the Rishonim in this sense?  It would seem 
not.  (IOW, is "Gaonic" a halachic concept?)

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

On Thu, March 20, 2008 12:46 am, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: What I have added is that I have seen MANY Ortho responsa also abandon
: Halachic proces in favor of reaching ad conclusion and retrofitting
: the sources to fit, as opposed to honestly viewing sources.

Define "halachic process". Until you do that, how can you assert that
teshuvos do or do not abandon it?

This was my objection some months back... You are critiquing O fealty
to halachic process while at the same time saying you never saw a
clear definition of that process. Why not deduce the process from the
examples?

IOW, are contemporary acharonim overruling precedent (whether sefarim
or minhag) in ways that rishonim wouldn't? Overruling or force-fitting
texts isn't a violation of the process until you prove it's not part
of the process.

...
: I am also concern3ed that O abandonenmnet of [legitimate] Minhag Avos
: in favor of certain textualism as a VERY dangerous precedent at times.
: Yekum purkan and the yehi Ratzon [i.e Tefillas Rav] before birchas
: haschodesh [Aruch hshulchan jumps on this one, too!] are much more
: halachically problematic than Baruch Hashem l'olam!

Again, only if you don't have a notion of when minhag avos outweighs
textual argument... No, even that is phrased wrong. Not all minhagei
avos or sevaros are created equal. A poseiq not only has to have a
clear sense of the importance of precedent and of sevara in general,
but also the quality of each instance in their particular collisions.

On Wed, Mar 19, '08 11:49pm EDT, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> What outweighs minhag WRT qitniyos? Tefillin on chol hamo'ed
:> violates an aggadic value,

: and is omitting a mitzva d'orraiso!

Nu, it omits a qiyum asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh.

:> if you base your agadic values on the Zohar,

: When did the Zohar become an authoritative text in Ashkenaz!

Never. That's why I didn't call it a sevara (textual procedural)
argument. Rather, it comes from the need to accomodate people's
religious needs. And as an aggadic source, the Zohar has some
authority. (Unlike, say, egalitarianism.)

> Qitniyos violates what? Simchas Yom Tov?

: Minhag Ta'us.. Vilates nothing buit if minahg avos is dsiposable why
: keep a minhag Ta'us? se Beis Ysoef!

Isn't every minhag ta'us /someone's/ minhag avos -- otherwise in what
sense are we using the word "minhag"? The question is defining grounds
for repealing a minhag. The post to which you're replying argued that
in order to be be disposable, the minhag has to actually violate
something, not just be basis-less. This is an argument the Rambam
makes WRT elements of shemitah bizman hazeh, as already discussed
months back when this discussion began (last revived).

Qitniyos doesn't actually violate anything. For that matter, it would
seem that the question of not performing a qiyum asei -- tefillin on
chol hamoed -- isn't sufficient grounds. At least in the eyes of those
poseqim who would not tell those who don't wear tefillin on ch"m to
start wearing them.

However, if someone feels that Barukh H' leOlam violates semichas
geulah letefillah, then his sevara is that the minhag actually does
violate something. And, given his assessment of the quality of the
sevara, the quality of the minhag, and the inherent weighting he gives
sevaros and minhagim, he could decide to do away with saying BHlO on
those grounds. You may disagree with the importance he gives each and
thus his conclusion, but procedurally it's something very different
than doing away with something basis-less. (E.g. Qitniyos for reasons
other than simchas YT; which, I admit, may be arguable.) That's
eliminating minhag avos with no other Torah value in mind.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 11:31pm EDT, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Tngentially I'm not sure how it came about that if Ga'onim are closer
: to the Talmud how come Rishonim over-rule them anyway?

: Is being close in time and place a factor or not?

Not by itself. One needs both rupture and reconstruction to delimit
eras. Without mishnah, shas, the SA (et al) or the like, there is no
era definition. From a halachic authority POV, a gaon are just another
kind of rishon. (More complicated is whether the savoraim were amoraim
or rishonim. That in itself seems to be a machloqes rishonim. Although
"Ravina veR' Ashi sof hora'ah" seems in my eyes to be incontravertable
evidence for shitas haRambam that they are "rishonim", not "amoraim".)

Rishonim never accorded ge'onim the same "who are we to argue?" that
they gave amoraim because they aren't dealing with a reconstructed
version of shitos hage'onim. And without reconstruction, halakhah
kebasrai, since he sees the arguments of the earlier in addition to
his own.

On Sun, Mar 23, '08 10:30pm EDT, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: This is the problem of a systme that says "IQ" trumps.   Since RYDS
: has a higher IQ...therefore we should ignore Halachic history and toss
: out Rishonim and start from scratch!

And therefore there is no value to sevara, and nothing should keep
minhagei ta'us in check?

The truth is that your characterization of the position "'IQ' trumps"
is so far from anything I described, I don't know where to begin.

: BTW, the BY [and FWIW Rema] tried to get away from an ego-centric
: system to an objective survey the poskim methodology.   Both wer too
: humble to rule solely on the basis of their own "gefeel" and relied
: upon precedent..

They relied on balancing precedent, sevara, and the need for practice
not to be out of touch with "Torah values". That balancing act
requires a feel, a weighing of the factors (pros and cons of each
alternative, as in any decision making) that can't be done
mathematically or algorithmically. Not only sevara, not only minhag.

On Sun, Mar 23, '08 10:55pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Many Ortho's have made wholesale changes to nusach.  Too many to even
: list. An Ortho working as educational director in a C shul told me
: that he could not understand the hypocrisy of attacking C changes in
: Nusach when  many ortho's have done it, too.

Isn't the issue one of procedure, not results? In which case, what's
the question here? One change could be within the process, perhaps
because it is in response to an argument from textual mesorah or some
aggadic source, whereas the other is outside the process, because it's
in response to a desire to be more egalitarian by including the imahos
or to stop mentioning qorbanos or...

Until you define to your own satisfaction what the process is, I fear
these conversations will never reach conclusion. But certainly such
critique as the one here or the one quoted at the top of this post is
premature.

: Disclaimer:, I am in no way endorsing the C position as Halchially OK
: on this issue  but as far as stam yeinam goes, there is SOME wiggle
: room here and even the Rema opened the door on this with a radical
: Teshuva. AIUI a lot of commercial wine is precessed w/o human contact
: at certain critical times.

This is Silverman's argument, and it's flawed on both levels. We
discussed it on scjm, where R' Craig Winchell (who at the time owned
Gan Eden wines) contributed some information about the metzi'us.

No or almost no commercial wine is processed without human contact.
And of the little that isn't, one would still need a mashgiach to
eliminate the possibility. It's simply too common.

Second, the Rama was mangled beyond recognition. His teshuvah states
that stam yeinam is clearly assur. However, since the Jews of Moravia
have been drinking it for generations, they are still kosher Jews WRT
things like minyan despite being avaryanim in this regard. To use the
Rama to argue lequlah is to quote part of the teshuvah out of context
to prove the opposite of the author's intent. (This is actually one of
the examples I was thinking of when I said such mis-quoting was
endemic to the C responsa I have seen. R"Dr Josh Backon went as far as
putting the teshuvah on line for the disputants to share.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

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


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

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 106
***************************************
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..."