Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 036

Wednesday, October 28 1998

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:28:46 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Ma'akeh


In a message dated 98-10-28 10:26:00 EST, you write:

<< 
 This is actually a point that I find interesting.  The Torah obligates a
 ma'akeh because of the fear of falling, "ki yipol..."  Perhaps the extent to
 which we should take precations IS defined by what society would consider
 liability.  I nother words, how do we decide what is a risk that has to be
 protected against, and what is beyond th escope of rational expectation.
 While American law might be excessive in its attributing liability in many
 situations, it could still be seen as a general yardstick by which to measure
 this sort of chiyuv.
 
 Eliyahu Teitz
  >>

Or perhaps the issue is one of shomer psaim hashem(a la R' Moshe's tshuva on
smoking) and how do you define at what level society's acceptance of a
particular danger rises to making shomer psaim inoperative?

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:32:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Rambam's definition of Torah - Wow!


On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> Simple, yes.  But totally unfounded.  You suggest, without any evidence
> from any of the Rambam's voluminous writings, that Hakhmah Tiv'it is not
> Torah in his eyes.  Indeed, the suggestion is flatly contradicted by
> Rambam's own defintions of his terminology. 
> 
> As noted before, Rambam explicitly defines ma'aseh bereshit as part of
> Pardes.  Now look at Hil. Talmud Torah 1:12, where he defines Gemara as
> including Pardes.  To summarize graphically (for those who came in
> late): 
> 

Major yasher koach! "Ee'lav de'dalis li chaspa lo gilisi margenisa tutai!"

The Rambam obviously holds that Gemara is not co-extensive with Torah (I
knew this is not the repsonse that you hoped for :-) )! (Oh, sorry about
the exclamation marks ;-) ).

This is obvious when you read those halachos in Hil. TT 1:11-12. 

Gemara = Tools by which one understands Torah. That is a third third of
one's trifold pursuits: Torah she'be'al Peh, Torah she'b'ksav, Gemara. In
Hil. Tefilla 7:10, in discussing the chiyuv of Birkas HaTorah, he mentions
only the former two, not the latter category...


YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:36:55 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Gadol hametzuveh vi'oseh


LAD alert!

I'd like to propose a different explanation as to why "metzuveh vi'oseh" is
greater.

Why would HKBH obligate us to do something? Because that particular job is a
necessary part of our tafkid in life (be it understood as "d'veikus" or
"t'mimus"). The "eino metzuveh" isn't commanded because it is less critical
for her path to her ideal.

Since the act is more important to the metzuveh, of course the metzuveh is
greater. BTW, note it says the metzuveh -- the person -- is greater, not the
asiyah. Which implies the relevant difference is in the deed's impact on its
respective participants.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5962 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 28-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:44:17 -0500
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject:
more on atem k'ruim adam


Not that I've detected any groundswell of interest in reviving this thread
(though it may provide an opportunity for diverting attention from the tv in
YU thread), I have some further observations and questions concerning
the drasha atem k'ruim adam v'lo ovdei kochavim k'ruim adam which we
discussed last month.

I looked more carefully at Tosafot on the sugya in Yevamot 61a.  As I
recall, they address the question of other p'sukim in tanach in which the
word adam is used in reference to gentiles.  Tosafot offer two
explanations. First Rabeinu Tam distinguishes between the word adam
and the word ha-adam.  He argues that ha-adam does refer to gentiles. 
(In one of the other Tosafot discussing the issue, as cross-referenced in
Yevamot, Rabeinu Tam elaborates that both adam and the definite article
are restrictive so that the principle ein miut ahar miut ela l'rabot implies
that gentiles are included in ha-adam even though they are excluded
from adam.  Rabeinu Meshulam offers another theory which is that the
drasha itself only applies when adam is used in the context of some
misfortune (puranut) but as a general rule adam does include gentiles. 
Since the verse adam ki yamut b'ohel obviously refers to a misfortune,
the drasha can be applied in interpreting that pasuk.  Thus, the only
p'sukim (out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of instances in Tanach in
which the term adam is used without any apparent distinction between
Jews and gentiles -- for example look at the number of times adam is
used in Kohelet or in p'sukei d'zimra where it would make no sense to
interpret the references as restricted to Jews -- were from Jonah and
Ba-midbar where the context was clearly one of puranut for those
involved.  The Gemara therefore answers (on behalf of R. Shimon) that
in those two instances the reference to adam was called for because of
the juxtaposition in the same verse to b'heima justifying the use of the
most elevated term for a human being as a designation for gentiles.

The Torah Temimah in commenting on the pasuk adam ki yamut b'ohel
comments at length on the drasha.  I haven't looked at his comment for a
long time now, but what I remember is that he considers the explanation
of Rabbeinu Tam highly implausible.  I think, but my memory is very hazy
on this, that he seems to find the explanation of Rabeinu Meshulam more
satisfactory.  He also cites with approval the explanation of the Mahartz
Chajes printed in the back of the Vilna Shas to Yevamot 61 that the
drasha should not be understood as in any way denying or minimizing
the humanity of gentiles.  The drasha is simply used to say that the
application of laws in which the term adam is used may be restricted to
Jews.  I would venture to say that despite the eminence of the Maharatz
Chajes and the Torah Temimah, their interpretation of the drasha is not
universally accepted.

However, the suggestion of Rabeinu Meshulam seems to be refuted by a
verse in Ezekiel 39, which uses the term etzem adam in prophesying
how the Jewish residents of Israel would collect human bones for burial
after the battle of Gog and Magog.  The context is clearly one of puranut,
and there is no juxtaposition to the word b'heima as in the verses in
Jonah and Bamidbar.  The only explanation that I can suggest here is that
there is an implicit juxtaposition to non-human bones since the human
bones to be gathered might have to be selected from non-human bones. 
However, I think that even if that is the answer, it simply underscores
how great the dohak of the underlying drasha is in the light of the
overwhelming and routine application of the term adam to gentiles
throughout Tanach.  
That fact underscores the opinion of the Chachamim who reject the
drasha of R. Shimon.  In fact, R. Meir, R. Shimon's contemporary, states
in Avodah Zara 3a that a gentile who studies Torah is considered to be
like the High Priest.  Tosafot in Yevamot and Avodah Zarah see the
contradiction between this opinion and the drasha of R. Shimon and
conclude that R. Meir agreed with the Chachamim and rejected the
drasha of R. Shimon.

The question, which I alluded to in earlier posts, arises why the halacha
would follow the opinion of R. Shimon against that of the Chachamim. 
(The halachah generally does not follow the opinion of R. Shimon even
against that of R. Judah!).  I suggested that the halachah did not originally
follow that of R. Shimon against that of the Chachamim until Ravina, much
later, found a way to follow both opinions by restricting the drasha of R.
Shimon to ohel but following the opinion of the Chachamim concerning
tumat maga u'masa.  This suggestion elicited some degree of outrage. 
And I must now concede that Tosafot in Nazir 54a maintain that Ravina
was explaining the opinion of R. Shimon and was not mixing and
matching as I suggested.  But if that is the case, then clearly before
Ravina (the last of the Amoraim) R. Shimon's opinion had been
understood differently as shown by the sugya in Yevamot.  At any rate, I
wonder if anyone is aware of any discussion about why the halachah
follows the opinion of R. Shimon against that of the Chachamim.

Finally, one might suggest that the disagreement between R. Shimon and
the Chachamim is in fact based on a fundamental difference in attitude
toward gentiles, with the Chachamim taking a basically positive view and
R. Shimon taking a basically negative view.  Otherwise, why is R.
Shimon attempting to base a halachah on such a forced interpretation of
the meaning of adam?  Of course if one goes back to the famous story
of how R. Shimon wound up in the cave, it all started when R. Shimon,
outraged by R. Judah's praise for all the contriubtions made by the
Romans to human civilization and welfare, responed that the only
motivation of the Romans in making these contributions was to facilitate
their indulgence in immoral pleasures.  When R. Shimon's retort was
reported to the Romans, he had to flee to the cave.  So there is some
evidence that a deeper disagreement may have underlay the dispute
about the drasha of atem k'ruim adam.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:49:15 -0500
From: Joel Margolies <margol@ms.com>
Subject:
Re: Gadol hametzuveh vi'oseh


I wish I knew what an LAD was, but regardless - I have learned that the
reason behind 'gadol ha'metzuveh' was because one who is metzuveh to do
something automatically will have a yetzer horoh not to do it. 
Therefore, he is overcoming his yetzer to do it, whereas the one who is
not metzuveh can take the mitzvah or leave it.  He has no yetzer
generated struggle to do the mitzvah.  (BTW I wish that I felt more like
R' Maryles' pshat about trepidation  - I wish I felt trepidation about
most of the mitzvos I do)  

As an aside, this pshat lends a beautiful twist to the famous question
of why HKB"H made teshuvah a mitzvah.  (Teshuva would have been no big
deal if it weren't a mitzva, the yetzer would care less - now that it's
a mitzvah - the yetzer fights it and our eventual nitzachon BE"H, is
that much sweeter for us and HKB"H)

Take care,

Joel 

Micha Berger wrote:
> 
> LAD alert!
> 
> I'd like to propose a different explanation as to why "metzuveh vi'oseh" is
> greater.
> 

-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:01:49 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Orthodoxy and Feminism


In a message dated 98-10-28 10:57:54 EST, you write:

<< the differences. They 
 have invaded the domain of men's mitzvos to do so. Our mothers and 
 grandmothers (going all the way back to Sinai) did not have women's 
 Tfilah groups and did not feel the need to go beyond the pale of halacha 
 to acheive Dveikus.  Were they stupid?  Are we of the modern era so 
 superior in intelligence that we now understand the importance of 
 Women's tfila groups and the need to violate halacha in this regard, and 
 our ancestors didn't?  Clearly not. >>

 I will reread the JP article tonight to get a clearer understanding of the
context of the statement and I doubt anyone would disagree that you can't just
pick a particular issue and say I won't accept halacha on that.However...
I don't think it's necessary to assume that it's casting aspersions on
previous generations to see that there are women who are looking for more
spiritual fufillment than the "enabler" role (eg your avodat hashem is to take
care of the kids). Do I wish we lived in a society where this were not the
case? Maybe , but the facts are already on the ground and we need to deal with
them. Perhaps the answer is educating women to be satisfied with the enabler
role, perhaps there are halachic alternatives(why is it there seems to be less
concern about kavod bat melech pnima when a wife goes out to work in the
public venue to support a husband's learning?). My impression of R' Moshe's
tshuva was that it all comes down to motivations-is feminism the driver and
primary goal or is the ratzon hashem  the driver and we need to deal with
changing society. I don't know if halachic answers can be worked out or
accepted but if the driver is the ratzon hashem then I expect they can and
will be. The fact that they were not worked out before doesn't persuade me- I
remember the Rav drawing an analogy between the Manhattan project and halachic
focus/creativity. When the new need became apparent, great minds focused and
dealt with it. I'd hate to lose anyone we don't have to, especially those who
are sincerely seekers.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

PS regarding your comments on male  tfila - see the current issue of
Tradition-R. Twersky's article


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:05:08 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Gadol hametzuveh vi'oseh


Joel Margolies wondered what LAD was. It's hebrew for IMHO (in my humble
opinion) -- l'fi aniyas daa'ti. The explanation he gives is the same as the
one I was responding two, and is, admittedly, that of Rashi.

Perhaps the words of Rashi could even be k'neitched to my p'shat: Not only that
because it is metzuveh, the yeitzer hara puts up a bigger fight. But also,
someone whose yeitzeir hara is more likely to put up a bigger fight is the one
who needs the mitzvah, and is therefore the metzuveh.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5962 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 28-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:47:00 -0500
From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject:
Orthodoxy and feminism


From the same Jerusalem Post article:

                  RACHEL Levmore, a rabbinic court advocate from Efrat,
who is also
                  involved in the Religious Women's Forum, said her
overall desire is for
                  "women to be respected and have the opportunity to
express themselves
                  through the ritual in a way that they can find
fulfillment, all within the
                  guidelines of Halacha."

R. YGB quotes:

>"If women preserve the boundaries on every issue but this one, and go
>a little beyond it here, we will remain within the Orthodox camp. If we go
>beyond the boundaries in every area, that is a diffirent story."

I think the difference is clear -- one does not want to violate
Halakhah, the other does.  The Jerusalem Post reporter, perhaps looking
for a more interesting story, quoted at length from a woman who feels
she can go beyond Halakhah.  This caught the eye of R. YGB, as it did
mine.  Far less emphasized by the reporter is the woman who wishes to
work within the bounds of Halakhah.  I have no idea which woman is more
representative, but I sincerely hope it is Rachel Levmore.

On the subject of averah lishmah, I would think that an action can
qualify as averah lishmah only if the desired (lishmah) result cannot be
achieved without committing the averah.  But if it can be achieved
within the bounds of Halakhah, then averah lishmah would not apply.  (I
have no source for this, only sevara.)  If so, for her program to
qualify as averah lishmah, the anonymous feminist quoted by R. YGB must,
at a minimum, prove that Ms. Levmore's strategy will not achieve the
hoped for changes.  If the changes can be achieved without breaking
Halakhah, then we definitely have a plain vanilla averah.

Incidentally, the radical feminist quoted in the article mentioned
nothing specific about what she would like to see change.  So we don't
even know what her desired result is.  She said only that she thought
the position of women in Orthodox Judaism was "bad."  She never makes
clear what she thinks needs to be done to change this "bad" to good.  I
would say -- again mi-sevara -- that an averah lishmah needs to have a
specific goal.  But I could not find one in this case.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:53:49 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: slaves


<<
I saw today in the haemek davar Perek 7 Pasuk one that Noach had slaves
which he took on the ark. If this is true it could be that the world was
populated by people other than noach and his sons. this would interest me
for a number of reasons. Therefore, I'm wondering if anyone ever saw a
medrash or statement from a rishon which indicated that there were other
humans Besides for OG who survived the Mabul.
>>

Not having my Torah Sh'lema with me I can't check.  But the place to look
would be on Perek 7, Pasuk 23, "Vayisha-er ach Noach".  The ach is a miy'ut
achar miy'ut and it is l'rabose, as noted by the mefarshim there.  The quoted
( in Mikraos G'dolos ) midrashim cite this as refering to Og, but maybe other,
non-cited medrashim find others to include.

Eliyahu Teitz


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:06:15 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Women's T'filla Groups


<<
Obviously, we are talking about serious 
women who feel that participating as men would, in their own tefiloh 
betzibur gives them a hightened sense of Kedushas Hashem. 
>>

There is an article in the most recent Tradition where Rav YB Soloveitchik's
grandson addresses this issue.

<<
And to the extent that one feels a greater connectionn to G-d then it is OK or
even 
preferable to do the mitzvah by violating Halacha.
>>

I think this is not such a simple statement.  This is the crux of aveyra
lishma - is the lishma better than the aveyra.  If one felt a closeness to
HaShem in blending together meat and milk, and thereby synthesizing the two
components, and bringing harmony to the yetzira ( the opposite of the reason
given by some to prohibit it ), does that make it okay?  What if someone felt
that to show his d'veykus baHaShem he is compelled to offer a sacrifice, and
the dearest thing to him is his children.  Is aveyra lishma to be sanctioned
in that case?

I know I offer a radical departure in my second case, but where do we draw the
line.  It is a classic slippery slope, which might be why some forbids any and
all aveyra lishma as simply aveyra.

Eliyahu Teitz


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:02:22 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re[2]: Ma'akeh


     I'm not sure it applies but
     How about the concept of Bor Birshus horabbim?
     
     I quess that R YGB eliminated Odom Muod l'olom by taking off the 
     responsiblity from an individual (gavro)...

Regards,
Rich
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
     
<< 
 This is actually a point that I find interesting.  The Torah obligates a 
 ma'akeh because of the fear of falling, "ki yipol..."  Perhaps the extent to 
 which we should take precations IS defined by what society would consider 
 liability.  I nother words, how do we decide what is a risk that has to be 
 protected against, and what is beyond th escope of rational expectation. While 
 American law might be excessive in its attributing liability in many 
 situations, it could still be seen as a general yardstick by which to measure 
 this sort of chiyuv.
     
 Eliyahu Teitz
  >>
     
Or perhaps the issue is one of shomer psaim hashem(a la R' Moshe's tshuva on 
smoking) and how do you define at what level society's acceptance of a 
particular danger rises to making shomer psaim inoperative?
     
Kol Tuv
Joel Rich
     


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:08:30 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re[2]: Orthodoxy and Feminism


     Joel Rich says:
     >>My impression of R' Moshe's tshuva was that it all comes down to 
     motivations-is feminism the driver and primary goal or is the ratzon 
     hashem  the driver and we need to deal with changing society. I don't 
     know if halachic answers can be worked out or accepted but if the 
     driver is the ratzon hashem then I expect they can and will be.<<
     
     Omain.  Sincere Jewish females need more sophistication and 
     intellecutal challenge than several gnerations ago.
     
     Feminism is IMHO - similar to other isms - at odds with Judaism.
     
     How about a tz'eno re'eno updated for the 1990's? Same for Techinos?
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe   
     


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:16:05 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re: Orthodoxy and Feminism


     R YGB concludes: >>
     But I still believe that the underlying motivation (perhaps 
     subliminally)of women's Tefilah groups, eventhough these women are 
     L'shmah, is the Radical feminist ideal. As such, the aveirah L'Shma 
     aspect gets wiped out.  The violating of Halacha in avodas hashem on a 
     feminist issue puts one outside the camp of Torah Judaism. <<
     
     No pillory here.  Can't women gather to daven in a traditionally 
     Jewish setting?
     
     My Mom (tibadel lechayim) told me that her Mom OH was one of few women 
     who could actually read the siddur and the "ivri teitch" - while the 
     otehrs davened "oiseveainik". (in other words she was slightly more 
     literate and slightly better educated).  When she cried they all 
     followed suit; she became the defacto SHATZ for her ezras noshim...
     
     (and was also about as anti-feminism as can be.)
     
     My guess is that something could be done that would accomodate halocho 
     and the more educated women...
     
     Regards,
     Rich W. 
      
     


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 14:52:04 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re: more on atem k'ruim adam


     A slight side-track from this thread -re: terminology of Non-Jews...
     
     When is Akum as used by TB, SA, etc literally mean an Oveid kochovim 
     and when does it mean any eino-yehuid in general?
     
     Anecdote:  I had a Chavruso in Tus and Beis Yoseif and we had slightly 
     different editions.  One significant recurring difference is one 
     edtion had A"Y (eino yehudi) while the other had Aku"m or A"Z (oveid 
     avodo zoro).
     
     L'mai nafko mino?
     I've heard from not-so-relizbel sources that there might be nafo minos 
     re: stam yeinom, i.e. an eino yehudo who is not a pagan would not 
     cause "Stam Yeinum" according to some Rishonim...
     
     Regards,
     Rich wolpoe
       


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:08:35 -0600
From: "Steve. Katz" <katzco@sprintmail.com>
Subject:
Ma'akeh


Several years ago I heard this story which I am sure is apocrophal.

A Rosh HaYeshiva, who happens to be a Gadol HaDor, came to his board of 
directors and asked that they approve his plan of switching from plain 
kosher meat to Glatt. They responded, "of course, Rabbi, you are the 
R.H.
Some time later he came with a similar request concerning the serving 
of only Chalav Yisroel. Again the response wa similar, "you are the RH.
That summer it was quite hot and as the dorm was not air-conditioned 
many of the boys took to sleeping on the roof. Se again he took himself 
to the board and requested that a fence be built on the roof.
The directors responded, Rabbi when you came to us with halachic issues 
sic (glatt and chalav yisroel) we acceded to your wishes but now you 
come to us with a maintenance matter.	
Before anyone get's the wrong idea this is not a story about YU.
steve katz YC'52


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 17:04:46 -0500
From: Saul Guberman <sguberman@leshkowitz.com>
Subject:
Orthodoxy and Feminism


> YGB
> Is this aveirah lishma or plain aveirah?

Nothing was sighted to let us know details as to whether something was
even an aveirah let alone lishma. What happened to Dan l'chaf zechut? 

>Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
>The idea that one can violate even one halacha, even slightly, is incompatible with the >Torah.  That would be like saying "I'm am a tzadik L'Chol Hatorah Kula except for the >fact that I eat cheeseburgers". Obvously, no one would consider such a person a >halachik Jew.

Just a few issues back we were dealing with aveirah lishma and noted
that the Rogachover himself was doing things different then halacha.  We
still call him, and he was a tzadik. The Ramchal was run out of town and
his books were banned for centuries; they are now considered main
stream. There are many more examples. 
It seems that we try to fit things into what we know exists and if that
changes we do our best to make them jive. The classic example is David
and Batsheva.  The pshat of the story says that a major aveirah happened
yet the Gemorah says that nothing of the sort happened.
My point is, that on the feminism issue people do not empathize with the
women's' point of view.  It is much easier to say that things are not
and have not been done this way and therefore it is no good.  This issue
needs to be looked at from the perspective of there are many women who
could relate to torah Judaism through this prism.  What can be done here
and what are the boundaries!


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 17:13:10 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re: Ma'akeh


     Poshut The RH should have said that a fence is MUCH cheaper than 
     central air conditioning <smile>
     
Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
SThat summer it was quite hot and as the dorm was not air-conditioned 
many of the boys took to sleeping on the roof. Se again he took himself 
to the board and requested that a fence be built on the roof.
The directors responded, Rabbi when you came to us with halachic issues 
sic (glatt and chalav yisroel) we acceded to your wishes but now you 
come to us with a maintenance matter.        
     
     


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 14:44:39 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re: Orthodoxy and feminism - Aveiro Lishmo


     Would the 250 makrivei Ketores be categorized as doing an "aviro 
     lishmo"??
     
     Regards,
     Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:01:14 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: more on atem k'ruim adam


In a message dated 10/28/98 3:56:58 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> When is Akum as used by TB, SA, etc literally mean an Oveid kochovim 
>       and when does it mean any eino-yehuid in general?

The main difference is whether or not it was censored.


>       L'mai nafko mino?
>       I've heard from not-so-relizbel sources that there might be nafo minos
>       re: stam yeinom, i.e. an eino yehudo who is not a pagan would not 
>       cause "Stam Yeinum" according to some Rishonim...

Many differences WRT Yayin see Y"D 121:1, WRT Tzuros see Y"D 143:3, and many
more.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:01:35 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Ma'akeh


In a message dated 10/28/98 10:26:00 AM EST, EDTeitz@aol.com writes:

> The Torah obligates a
>  ma'akeh because of the fear of falling, "ki yipol..."  Perhaps the extent
to
>  which we should take precations IS defined by what society would consider
>  liability.  I nother words, how do we decide what is a risk that has to be
>  protected against, and what is beyond th escope of rational expectation.

The S"O gave the guidelines.

>  While American law might be excessive in its attributing liability in many
>  situations, it could still be seen as a general yardstick by which to 
> measure  this sort of chiyuv.


I wouldn't use American law as any yardstick of financial liability, much less
so for liability of not being M'kayeim the Mitzvas Maakeh.


Kol Tuv


Yitzchok


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:01:30 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Ma'akeh


In a message dated 10/28/98 11:29:21 AM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:

> Or perhaps the issue is one of shomer psaim hashem(a la R' Moshe's tshuva on
>  smoking) and how do you define at what level society's acceptance of a
>  particular danger rises to making shomer psaim inoperative?

Shomeir Psaim is where the danger is hidden not revealed to the naked eye, the
dangers of smoking where mostly quashed (well I guess everyone agrees to that
already).  Falling dosen't fit the bill IMHO.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:01:20 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: slaves


In a message dated 10/28/98 12:55:02 PM EST, EDTeitz@aol.com writes:

> Not having my Torah Sh'lema with me I can't check.  But the place to look
>  would be on Perek 7, Pasuk 23, "Vayisha-er ach Noach".

He brings there according to some also Sichon (Medroshos Chalukos as to who
was Sichon's mother and consequently where she was during the Mabul)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok


Go to top.


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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

< Previous Next >