Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 042

Thursday, November 5 1998

• Women's Tefillah Groups
• 1. Hamurabi; 2. Hok & Rav Soloveitchik
• Re: Women's Tefillah Groups
• Re: Brisker Rov Keeping two days in EY
• Re: Kadima of Av in Mitzvas milah, mitzvat yishuv ha'aretz
• Hagar and Yitzchak
• Re: 1. Hamurabi; 2. Hok & Rav Soloveitchik
• Inclusion vs. Exclusion
• Re: Avodah V2 #41 Brisker Derech
• Jewish webzine ISO writers/readers (fwd)
• Re: Avodah V2 #41 Brisker Derech
• Re: Ramban on Avraham and Sarah
• Re: Shomer psa'im
• Mitasek
• Re: Chok vs. Mishpat
• nimrod/Hammurabi
• Re: Avodah V2 #41 Brisker Derech

Where is the beef? What is the aveirah?


YGB-> Is this aveirah lishma or plain aveirah?

HM-> 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.

Teitz-> 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.

Wolpoe->    Feminism is IMHO - similar to other isms - at odds with Judaism.

Wolpoe->     If a women's ONLY weakness/flaw were fenisits deviations, she
might be doing an aveiro but still be considered frum.  one aveiro is 1
aveiro; it's not right but I don't think it's fair to heneceforth lable
them as non_orthodox or non-shomer Mitzvos.  It probably wouls be valid to
label them as chot'os...


I am having problems with this discussion because I am at a lost to
understand exactly what aveirah you are talking about. As I understand it
from the Gemorah in Brachot through to the Mishnah Berurah in spite of a
Mogen Avraham to the contrary a woman is obligated in in the Shmonah Esrah
of Shacharit and Mincha. The Rambam seems to say that the place to pray is
with a group.

Now I find it hard enough to pray on my side of the mehitzah in are average
minyon I can only imagine the difficulty a woman might have on her side of
the Mehitzah.

So what is the crime in her gathering with a group of woman who take
tefilah and learning seriously?


    Richard & Rosalie Fiedler    dfiedler@ibm.net       /\
    Skokie Il   (847) 329-9065 Fax (847) 463-0582   \--/--\--/
    Efrat Israel  (02) 9932706  Fax (02) 9932707     \/    \/
                        __________  _~o __o          /\    /\
                       __________   -\<,-\<,        /--\--/--\
                        ..........(_)/---/(_)           \/

> 
> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:56:43 -0500
> From: mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com
> Subject: Re: Nimrod/ Hamurabi
> 
>      A few years ago I heard from Rav Yakov Weinberg that Kidolomer in
> ancient syrian (I may have the language wrong) spells out Hamurabi.  I have
> no idea how he knew this, but chazal say Kidolomer was Nimrod....

The suggestion that Amraphel=Hamurabi bounced around a generation or two
ago (Shinar=Sumer). My impression is that scholars no longer take it
seriously.


> > JoelOn page 95 in 'Mand of Faith in the Modern World" R. Besdin writes: 
> 
> "Clearly, mishpatim too must be accepted as hukim, lest they be 
> rationalized away.
> 
> If we only look at mitzvot beyn odom l'chaverh as rational mishpatim 
> without an element of chok, how are we diferent from any ethical 
> non-believer?

R. Besdin is not publishing the Rav's own words, but rather his
recreations of lectures. The idea expressed here is consistent with many
statements I heard from the Rav, such as that "hukkim are absolute," and
permit no exception. See also the passages from "U-Bikkashtem miSham,"
translated in my "Pluralism and the Category of the Ethical" in the book
of essays on the Rav edited by Rabbi Marc Angel.

I guess you missed my original post. It had no direct connection to WTG.
It was a quote from a Jer. Post essay on a confrence in Y-m where a
participant said she is confident she remains Orthodox if in all issues
she adheres to Halacha, even if in the area of Women's Issues she
deliberately goes beyond the Halacha (expecting Halacha to follow her, I
assume).

I posed the question (and continue to do so, since the conversation as
veered to the tangent of the more concrete and specific issue of WTG) on
the *perspective*, not on any given *practice*.

On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Richard K. Fiedler wrote:

> Where is the beef? What is the aveirah?
> 
> 
> YGB-> Is this aveirah lishma or plain aveirah?

YGB

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

I always thought that the Brisker Rov kept two days in Yerushalayim
because he believed (based on rambam kidush hachodesh 5:6,9-12) that 
even in EY, only places that Jews lived during bayis sheini, that actually
observed one day, continue to observe one day.  All other places, even in
EY, that did not have Jews living there, or for whatever reason the messengers
did not get there, must observe two days.

And Rev Velvel was not sure if Jews lived in Geula during Bayis Sheini.

Moshe

>I would like to note, speaking of Briskers, that the Brisker Rav continued
>to keep Yom Tov Sheni privatelly even while living in EY. While one has
>the right to change a minhag - l'kulla - upon moving to a new locale -
>even immediately, certainly after 30 days - one does not have to.

>But, I don't understand what the Brisker Derech has to do with this.


>YGB

In response to a message from C1A1Brown@aol.com, I wrote the following-
 
>However an interesting point of discussion is according to R' Yochonon in
Gemoroh >that holds Hamol Yemol how could Avrohom be Mal before he himself was
Nimol, >(B'nogeia himself Les Breiroh). forthermore according to the 2nd idea
of the >Ramban that others did it for the Avodim the question is even
according to Reish >Lokish who holds that just a Goy is precluded, unless we
come up with the novel >sevoroh that he gave it to his Shfochos to do, and we
can say that they are >included in Kman D'mehils Damyo, but that would get
involved in tznius unless >every eved had a shifcho for a wife, which sill
would leave the question according to >R' Yochonon.

However as C1A1Brown@aol.com pointed out to me I erred here, and so I am
correcting it Ltovas HaKlal.

The Gemoroh in Avodoh Zoroh 27a brings a Machlokes why a Goy is not Kosher to
be Maal, Raav says because it says Veatoh Ess Breese Tishmor, R' Yochonon says
because it says Himol Yemol which can also be read as Hamol Yemol, the Gemoroh
over there goes into many ways of explaining the Halachic difference between
the 2 opinions, and concludes that the only differences is whether a women can
be Maal (as many will definitely think of Yocheved the Gemoroh answers it
there), according to Raav a women can not be Maal, according to R' Yochonon
she can as she is considered Kman Dmhiloh Damyo.  However both agree that a
Zachar that is not Nimol can be Maal since he has the obligation.

According to the above there is no problem with Avrohom being Maal himself or
others before he was Nimol, however it still leaves unresolved the 2nd idea of
the Ramban that he got others to be Maal his Avodim, who might these others be
that are not Goyim, unless as we stated earlier that he enlisted his Shfochos
but that would only help according to R' Yochonon, however according to Rav
(and the Ramoh says that one should be Nizhor like him) no women can be Maal
so who where the others that helped him, however B'pashtus he enlisted some of
his own Avodim to help him out, and he kept reducing the help until he did the
last or last few.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok 

David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV> wrote:

> Subject: Ramban on Avraham and Sarah

[...]

> Neither suggestion strikes me as persuasive.  I would suggest a
> different explanation.  The contrast is between Avraham's lavish embrace
> of Avimelech (coupled with complaints to Avimelech about
> misappropriation of his property by Avimelech's servants) and his
> miserly and insensitive way in which he casts Hagar and Ishmael out of
> his home.  Even if it was the will of the Almighty that they no longer
> reside in Avraham's house, the Scripture does not say that it was the
> will of the Almighty that they be cast out alone and empty-handed into
> the wilderness.  Perhaps Avraham was relying on G-d's promise that
> Ishmael would also become a great nation, but how could that promise
> absolve Avraham of his own responsibility as a father?  So it seems to
> me that the akeida is not just a test, but a kind of retribution exacted
> by the RSHO from Avraham for his mistreatment of Ishmael when he
> expelled Ishmael from his house.  I haven't yet looked carefully at the
> p'sukim in the Hagar story and the akeida story, but from memory there
> appear to be a number of parallels and contrasts.  Both include
> vayashkem Avraham ba-boker.  Both Yitzchak and Ishmael are at the point
> of death when a heavenly voice intercedes to prevent their demise.
> Avraham relies on G-d's promise that Ishmael will become a great nation,
> Avraham is told to sacrifice Yitzchak notwithstanding G-d's promise that
> Yitzchak will be his sole offspring. 

I've heard Rabbi Riskin give a very similar analysis.

Freda Birnbaum, fbb6@columbia.edu

On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Shalom Carmy wrote:
> 
> The suggestion that Amraphel=Hamurabi bounced around a generation or two
> ago (Shinar=Sumer). My impression is that scholars no longer take it
> seriously.
> 
Can you please explain your impression, which scholars and why  they don't
take
it seriously

     R. Pehcamn writes:
     >>> 
     >      distcintion between violating halocho (even in a group 
     > instituional 
     >      setting) and out and out rejection of Halocho.  One 
     
     What is the mitigating nature of a "mere" violation as opposed to an out 
     and
     out rejection?
     
     > rebbe of mine, (R. 
     >      Yosef Weiss) gave us Mussar to as inclusive as possible 
     > to people who 
     >      were only partially observant...
     
     I understand that the inclusion should be with the ultimate goal of making
     the partially observant more fully observant. Are we really meant to accept
     the partially observant as they are, without any underlining goal of kiruv?
     
     Ok,
     several points. In context he said something (quoting someone whom I 
     forget) that Koreis applies (al pi mussar/hashkofo) on someone who vioaltes 
     all cases, that a person who violates 1 of 36 (as I recall the total) has 
     NOT completely cut themselves off...
     
     I think my point was simple, but I will elaborate a bit.
     Fact:  In the 1940's, and 1950's many Orthodox shuls permitted and even 
     sponsored mixed dancing.  At that time, no gadol I know said it was ok, so 
     my guess is that this was in violation of halcoho:
     
     Question:  Do you think that this violation of Halocho consittuted a 
     violation of haolcho or a rejection of Halocho?
     
     lmai nafko mino
     If this was a REJECTION then the shul IMHO would no longer be deemed 
     Orthodox and would be posul along the lines of a shul that considered 
     itself Orthodox but lacked a mechitzo.
     
     If this was a violation, then the people involved are WRONG but not michutz 
     lamachene.
     
     Now I know for a fact that one shul that permitted mixed dancing had some 
     very important gedolim who davend there upon occasion.  Persoanlly, I do 
     not consture that as a heter, or that the gedolim condoned the  practice at 
     all.
     
     IMHO I think is that they realized that even shuls that adhere to the 
     halochic process do not always follow 100%.  And that there is a valid 
     distintion between rejecting halcoho and playing fast and loose with 
     halocho on an ad hoc basis.
     
     BTW, that shul eventually DID restrict mixed dancing.
     
     I am also informed that gedolim were simliarly tolerant of Mechitzo's taht 
     were possul.  Not that they felt it was OK.  Rather, they felt that if a 
     shul did have a mechitzo, even if was not kosher, that they woiuld 
     evntually come around to imporving it k'din.
     
     I heard besheim R. Shimon Schwab that one should be willing to tolerate 
     deviations on small matters as long as the individuals were loyal on "big" 
     matters; not becuase the small ones don't count, but that eventually they 
     would outgrow their "foolsihness" and come around to the emes. 
     
     I think that sets up a REALLY good precednet for both pointing out the 
     halcohic shortcomings of WTG, while not condmning individual women for 
     bending/breaking the haclocho.  Ideally, if thye wer on the proper 
     madriego, they would see that adhereing to Halocho is so much more 
     important then doing something for hashem that feels good.  ( IMHO both the 
     makrievei ketores and Shaul haMelech fell into the same trap!)  But guess 
     what, in Anmerica many of us are not on that level.  I'd rather keep people 
     loyal to the halchic process and deviate l'teyovon, then reject them and 
     have them deviate le'hach'is.  Isn't there a principal mutov thetihyu 
     shoggim vlo mezidim??  (I know, now that I've said that, someone will 
     undboutedly limit its impact to just one specific case  in the entire realm 
     of halocho <smile>)
     
     Regards,
     Richard
     
           
     
     
            

     Re: R YB's comment
     the Ikkar Brisker Derech is in making disctinctions, (lomdusher or 
     halachic) so as to set up boundaries and defintions of terms.  My 
     Rebbe (Yeruchom Gorelick) made that quite clear.
     
     Here is the defintion of terms re: migration and changing of minhog 
     that I am requesting: come up with a definition to tell me when I can 
     change my minhog, when I must change my minhog, etc.
     
     Why would wearing Tefillin on CHhM in public be construed as bizuy moed 
     and not simply be construed as adhering to a person's own minhog?
     
     If a Dutch Jew migrates to the USA and continues to cait only 1 hour is 
     he challenging the prevailinig monhog - or is he simply maintaining his 
     own minhog? (I realize there is no bizuy moed here, but there MIGHT be 
     a poreish min hatsibbur problem or a Pretz Geder problem, etc.)  
     
     And BTW how did the Brisker Rov handle Shmini Atzeros WRT to Sukkah?  
     And what about a beni chutz lo'oretz in EY WRT to Sukkah on Smini 
     Atzeres?w
     How did the Brisker Rov handle Isru Chag WRT to Tefillin?
     
      
     
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe
     

As per a suggestion I made to the undersigned in a phone conversation,
here is a request that I think will be relevant to several of our Chevra
here.

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:00:01 -0500
From: JWR Editor-in-Chief <bljolkov@jewishworldreview.com>
To: ygb@aishdas.org
Subject: Jewish webzine ISO writers/readers

Hi:

My name is Binyamin L. Jolkovsky and I'm the editor-in-chief of Jewish
World Review -- http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- now the most
accessed Jewish site on the 'net.

We are looking for contributors to write about contemporary Jewish
issues in a sophisticated way. A daily kiruv magazine, we appear to be
secular at first blush --- purposely. Few non-Orthodox Jews, after all,
would be interested in reading the "Jewish Observer online." Indeed,
we've reprinted several pieces from the JO and received great feedback.
Some may call this deception, I call it effectiveness ---  and it works.
We're now being read literally around the world and are attracting a
highly-educated, sophisticated crowd.

I would also highly recommend that readers here inform individuals in
the process of becoming frum   -- or the newly observant -- about JWR.
readers are immediately attracted to our great design and breadth of
coverage. They'll also find great stuff from Project Genesis
(Torah.org). In fact ,PG receives its most referrals from JWR.

Kol tuv,
Binyamin

On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

>      Why would wearing Tefillin on CHhM in public be construed as bizuy moed 
>      and not simply be construed as adhering to a person's own minhog?
>

I believe this is different, becaues among the rationales given for not
wearing Tefillin on ChM *is* Bizui Mo'ados, so, if the overwhelming
majority of people conduct themselves that way, public perisha min
ha'tzibbur may be construed as a bizayon. This is not relevant in the case
of waitng an hour, where: a) there is little issue of publicity; b) there
is no issue of bizayon, while: "Kol ha'mevazeh es ha'mo'ados..." It seems
from your next paragraph that you anticipated all this.
      
>      If a Dutch Jew migrates to the USA and continues to cait only 1 hour is 
>      he challenging the prevailinig monhog - or is he simply maintaining his 
>      own minhog? (I realize there is no bizuy moed here, but there MIGHT be 
>      a poreish min hatsibbur problem or a Pretz Geder problem, etc.)  
>      
>      And BTW how did the Brisker Rov handle Shmini Atzeros WRT to
> Sukkah? 

Not recorded, but I assume he only kept d'oraysos and only b'tzina'a. The
only info I have is in the Brisker Haggada, p. 275.

  
>      And what about a beni chutz lo'oretz in EY WRT to Sukkah on Smini
>      Atzeres?

Bal Tosif!
 
>      How did the Brisker Rov handle Isru Chag WRT to Tefillin?
>      

Kan"al, I am sure he put on tefillin even on YT Sheni.

YGB

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

On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, David Glasner wrote:
  However, I
> don't believe that that lets Avraham off the hook.

If you admit yourself that the same Ramban who criticized avraham before
doesn't criticize him now --then why don't YOU believe it lets him off the
hook-apparantly the ramban felt he was off the hook


   Does it not strike anyone as more than a bit
> strange that Avraham could not have sent his concubine and first-born
> son out into the desert on foot with nothing more than a sack of bread
> them enough bread and water to last them until they got to Be'er Sheva. 
 
you make it seem like you have discovered a question which now needs an
answer, what do you mean "strike Anyone" Rashi, ibn ezra,ramban,radak,
ralbag,and rashban to name a few dealt with this question and needless to
say they didn't answer like you did---in fact its clear you didn't see all
the meforshim because some explain that Avraham did give hagart money.

 Rashi comments on this noting two
> opinions -- one that there was heavenly criticism of Avraham who made
> a lavish meal for Avimelech but only offered a single sheep as a
> sacrifice to the RSHO, the other that Ishmael had boasted that he had
> willingly undergone circumcision at the age of 13 whereas Yitzchak's
> circumcision was performed on him without consent at the age of 8
> days.  Thus, each explanation seeks to find something in the previous
> two stories that motivated the test of Avraham, in one it is Avraham's
> stinginess in offering sacrifices to G-d compared to his lavishness in
> entertaining Avimelech, in the other it is to provide Yitzchak with an
> opportunity to outdo Ishmael in his mesirut nefesh.
> 
> Neither suggestion strikes me as persuasive.  I would suggest a different
> explanation.  So it seems to me that the akeida is not just a
> test, but a kind of retribution exacted by the RSHO from Avraham for his
> mistreatment of Ishmael when he expelled Ishmael from his house.
Let me get this straight, you don't like two medrashim which rashi writes
so you'd rather invent your own answer. This whole approach is upsetting
to me because it not only ignores almost every rishon it even contradicts
many, I request that RAbbi Glasner find at least one chazal or rishon
which indicates that the akeida was an onesh for yismael thus
giving some legitimacy to his view otherwise i'll
view this as his personal p'sat which runs kineged chazal. I'm not against
chidush---but not where it points fingers at the avos and calls events
punishments which might not be, we need to seriously question our abiity
to make some statements. Again---I'll be more than happy to retract my
concerns if Rabbi glassner can produce one legitimate source, otherwise I
have to view it as RAshi,Ibn ezra, radak etc VS. Rabbi Glassner and Rabbi
Riskin
Elie Ginsparg

In article <017199810300052.SAA20334@majordomo1.host4u.net>,
EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
><<
>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?
>>>
>
>R. Moshe's tshuva might have been applicable before the dangers of smoking
>were well known.  I feel that to rely on it now is to ask for shomer posh'im,
>than psa'im, and I don't know that HaShem is so generous with those who show
>disregard to known dangers.
>
>Eliyahu

My Rav said once that R. Moshe's tshuva on smoking (which I have not
actually seen) was based on two prerequisites for shomer psa'im hashem.
Firstly, the degree of sakana must be minor.  Secondly, it must be
generally accepted by society.  He then said that R. Moshe, later in
his life, acknowledged verbally that for smoking both of these points
became seriously weakened.  It became known that the degree of danger
was higher, and a large population of people who had quit smoking
developed.  My Rav implied that this phenomenom (people who had
previously subjected themselves to the danger ceasing to do so) was
of greater significance than a simple matter of fewer people beginning
to smoke.

Yitzchak (not ykzd)

I think that firstly we have to decide what Melacha was done by the
Mitasek of moving the urn. If it was only the connection of the
electricity but no Bishul the water may not become assur even if there
was a total Shogeg.This is Maaseh Shabbat by Grama.If the water in the
urn had been boiled already, If it was still warm the Ashkenazim Pasken
that there is no Bishul Achar Bishul (OC 318 15 see also 253 4). If
totally cold, since the reason that Ashk. Posek that still warm has no
b.a.b because they are mistamech on the shita that there is no b.a.b
even when totally cold but are Choshesh to Daat Hamechaber when totally
cold, (minchat cohen the eglay tal ofeh 8,14 gives a different reason)
then no issur bishul was done because meikar hadin Ashk. hold that there
is no b.a.b. even in liquid once cooked but now totally cold.However the
Eghlay Tal in melechet Ofeh 8 states that water is different and that if
water is totally cold or even slightly warm but not warm enough for most
people to drink as a hot drink, there is b.a.b. only Tavshilim of
liquids are as stated above. I don't know if there are Cholkim on the
Eglay Tal but if there are you can be somech on them for a question of
Maaseh Shabbat.(See also the hashmatot of eglay tal)
One more thought. The Rama is Osser in 319 to put liquid that is partly
warm in to a Kli rishon on the fire. Two explanations are usually given
for this A) Michzay Kimvashel (M.B. 98) B) On the fire their is b.ab. in
any circumstances. (Shaar hatziyun 318 46). In the urn case there would
seem to be no Michzay but yes Al Haesh. once again since b.a.b. all
haesh when otherwise it wouldn't be considered b.ab. is a machloket
poskim, legabay maaseh shabbat one can be somech on the mekilim. (318 mb
2)

I never meant that the only reason we do the mishpatim is because of
their reasons, chas v'shalom!!!  Clearly, we do the mitzvos because
Hashem commanded us to do them - and if you'd like to call this 'chok'
go ahead.  (See Bais HaLevi in Parshas Lech Lecha on V'heye Tamim -
although we have limud torah in finding ta'amim, we must do mitzvos as
an animal following his master- without thought or rationalization) 
That said, the Torah clearly delineates chukim vs. mishpatim.  In the
simplest sense - Chukim are not understandable, Mishaptim are.  All
elements of mishpatim can be deduced through halachik analysis using the
specific tools given to us at Sinai and handed down through the doros. 
Elements of chukim are much more difficult to derive and rule on if it
is not clearly delineated in the chok.  		

Although I personally don't love the term chok when referring to
mishpatim - If the earlier posters of Rav Soloveitchik's words were
alluding to the concept in the Bais Halevi I paraphrased above - I have
no argument [Isn't that magananimous of me... :)] 

Take care,

Joel
Steve. Katz wrote:

> If we only look at mitzvot beyn odom l'chaverh as rational mishpatim
> without an element of chok, how are we diferent from any ethical
> non-believer?
> steve katz

-- 

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

     Your'e right (Rashi is a gemarah in Eirivin 53) - I mixed it up.
There seems to be a debate among secular historians whether Amraphel was
Hammurabi.  I don't know  if what they are saying is based on anything
Jewish.  I'm not sure if years wise it works out either.  I saw in one
classic secular history book that hamurrabi lived from 2123 BCE to 2081 BCE
(and we know Avraham lived from 1813 BCE to 1638 BCE), but if there's a
makor for this idea I would assume the history book is mistaken.
Moshe

Rashi brings a medrash which says amraphel is nimrod, is there a medrash
which i'm forgetting which says Kidolomer is nimrod
Elie Ginsparg
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com wrote:

>      A few years ago I heard from Rav Yakov Weinberg that Kidolomer in
> ancient syrian (I may have the language wrong) spells out Hamurabi.  I
have
> no idea how he knew this, but chazal say Kidolomer was Nimrod....
>
> -Moshe
>
>      In one other note, I'd like to know if anyone has  heard the theory
> (or
> has proof or disproof) that Hamurabbi was NImrod
>
> ELiE GiNSPARG
>

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> >      And what about a beni chutz lo'oretz in EY WRT to Sukkah on Smini
> >      Atzeres?
> 
> Bal Tosif!


Could you please be a bit more specific?  I remember that in Yeshiva
(Kerem B'Yavneh) most of the Americans sat in the Sukkah for Shmina
Atzeres and were expected to.  None of the rebbeim said anything.  Are
you trying to say that they should not have sat in the sukkah?

(please forgive me if I missed part of the thread - but doesn't this get
into the huge machlokes about what bnei chutz la'aretz should do if in
EY for the Chagim?)

Take care,

Joel 
-- 

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

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


[ 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 ]