Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 151

Tuesday, November 23 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 05:58:39 -0800 (PST)
From: ben waxman <benwaxman55@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Simplicity


The reason one should move to Israel (if you beleive
that) is that one should move to Israel.  It is hard
to believe that the spiritual level here is higher if
you are living in a city filled with avoda zara. 

>>Subject: Re: paper plates

- --- Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> > Subject: Simplicity
> > 
> 
>> In terms of reducing ones cost, i have a simple
> >solution:
>> Move to israel


>The Gashmius standard of living is still higher here
>than it is in Israel. Just because one or two items
>have reduced costs in Israel doesn't mean everything
>does.  Energy costs are higher as are Dira costs (as
>you pointed out). It seems apparent to me the the net
>standard of living is still higher here, or, to put
it
>another way: Living in Israel at the same standard of
>living as the "States" costs you a lot more.

>The reason to move to Israel is that the Ruchnius
>standard of living is higher.

..HM






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:05:08 -0500
From: "Allen Baruch" <Abaruch@SINAI-BALT.COM>
Subject:
RE: Avos (was Retraction) (V4#149)


I know people are probably tired of this but...
RRW wrote (I'm editing it lo leave personalities out of it)
"1) Ramban is a Rishon he can critizce Avrohom
2) RSR Hirsch is a Gaodl of the 19th century he can criticse Yitzchok
3) R. _____ is a MO rabbi and he has the chutzpa even to tangentially 
suggest that Yitachok Ovinu has the slightest defect in his mental acuit, he 
ought to be attacked."

This is not apples and apples.

kol tuv
Sender Baruch


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:30:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net>
Subject:
Re: paper plates


harry maryles wrote:



> By this logic It seems that the financially prudent
> thing to do is to move to Israel.  


For some it may be. I just had 2 job offers in Israel, both at higher
salaries than I make here in the states.

Your comment about dirot is misleading also. If you *must* live in
Jerusalem or B'nei Brak, yes, you're going to pay premium. But there are
other places to live as well. Beitar and Efrat both have available housing
(and I do mean HOUSE, not apartment) for prices comparable to my house in
Baltimore. Admittedly, they're not walking distance to the Kotel, but we
have to strike a balance somewhere.




> Two questions.

Two answers.



> 1.  Why do the vast majority of Meshulachim I see,
> come from Israel?


In my mind, this relates back to the thread a few weeks back about secular
education (or lack thereof) in Hareidi circles, and lifestyle choices.
There just aren't the sheer volume of people not working in the states
that there are in Israel.



> 2. Why are the majority of these Meshulachim asking
> help for Hachnosas Kalla?


Because a father of nine living on a stipend is going to have trouble
paying the bills, even if the wedding itself is cheaper. Call it a Hareidi
theroy of relativity. Smaller bills are relatively larger when viewed from
that vantage point.


> The Gashmius standard of living is still higher here
> than it is in Israel.


Not necessarily true either, though definitely in Hareidi circles.



> Just because one or two items
> have reduced costs in Israel doesn't mean everything
> does.


More than one or two. Food is cheaper, clothing (if you don't demand the
latest Euro styles) is cheaper. Public transportation is cheaper.



>  Energy costs are higher


True, but there are ways around that as well (for a higher initial
outlay). I own a warehouse in Neve Zohar (in the Negev) that runs entirely
on solar power. I have no electric bill there.



> as are Dira costs (as


See above.


> The reason to move to Israel is that the Ruchnius
> standard of living is higher.


No. It may be the BEST reason, but it's not the only one.


---sam


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:58:02 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re[2]: Avos (was Retraction) (V4#149)


My point was simply this

Some people judge or discern by WHO says it
Some people judge or discern by WHAT is said.

I'll stick to that point.

As for me, I sing Mah Tovu ddspite it being utterd by Bil'am.  I think there is 
a point to be learned there.

Rich Wolpoe






______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Avos (was Retraction) (V4#149) 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    11/23/1999 9:05 AM


I know people are probably tired of this but...
RRW wrote (I'm editing it lo leave personalities out of it) 
"1) Ramban is a Rishon he can critizce Avrohom
2) RSR Hirsch is a Gaodl of the 19th century he can criticse Yitzchok 
3) R. _____ is a MO rabbi and he has the chutzpa even to tangentially 
suggest that Yitachok Ovinu has the slightest defect in his mental acuit, he 
ought to be attacked."

This is not apples and apples.

kol tuv
Sender Baruch


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:05:37 -0500
From: gil.student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Bitachon


RYGB wrote:

>>I have a Sunday evening Chabura in the Chazon Ish's "Emuna u'Bitachon". 
At the beginning of the second perek he makes an interesting point, that, 
in his opinion, the "Chassidic" view of Bitachon, that everything that 
happens to an individual is good, is incorrect. Rather, things happen that 
may not be good. Bitachon means one trusts that proper tefilla and avodah 
can be effective in reaching out to Hashem and attaining His assistance in
overriding the bad happenstance.>>

That Chazon Ish has bothered me for a long time.  It makes perfect sense 
but it seems to contradict what I see in the rishonim and mussar sefarim.  
The Sefer Emunah Uvitachon (attributed to the Ramban - ch. 1) explains that 
emunah is the belief that Hashem rewards and punishes while bitachon is the 
belief that Hashem will have mercy on you and everything will be alright.  
This is echoed by Rabbenu Bachya in Kad HaKemach (beginning of bitachon).  
Rabbenu Yonah (Mishlei 3:6) says that we should always have bitachon that 
everything will be alright and, even if it isn't, at least we get schar for 
the bitachon.  The Chovos Halevavos (sha'ar habitachon ch. 1) and the 
Orchos Tzaddikim (sha'ar hasimchah machshavos 1, 3 - Eshkol ed. p. 73) also 
imply that bitachon is a faith that Hashem in His mercy will make 
everything alright.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:09:27 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Re[2]: Avos (was Retraction) (V4#149)


----- Original Message -----
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>

> As for me, I sing Mah Tovu ddspite it being utterd by Bil'am.  I think
there is
> a point to be learned there.
>

That when sanctioned by HKB"H b'yad Moshe avdo, even the words of resha'im
become Torah, right?

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


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:20:08 -0500
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
Subject:
Re: Sources for Da'as Torah and Emunas Chochomin>


<From: OUAKNINE Salomon <salomon.ouaknine@etam.fr>
Subject: Re: Sources for Da'as Torah and Emunas Chochomin
	
1. You might want to look at S. Friedman's article "Emunat Chakhamim" in
Tradition (Summer 1993 volume). Come to think of it you might want to look
at that entire issue which was devoted to the subject of rabbinic authority
and, i believe, as a special bonus also contained a contribution from our
very own RDPETurkel) 

2. Also another volume in the Orthodox Forum series (can't remember who
edited it) was devoted to the same topic of rabbinic authority and doubtless
has material relevant to your interest.  These volumes tend to contain
somewhat longer essays than the Tradition norm.

3. And most definitely -since it tends to get quoted a lot by those in
violent agreement or disagreement with its aggressively posed perspective -
Larry Kaplan's (in?)famous article on "Da'at Torah" and some of the
"refutations" it engendered.  i remember someone showing me a particularly
ill conceived effort by R. Berel Wein - the people's "historian" - printed
(where else) in the Jewish Observer shortly after the appearance of the
kaplan article.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil			H:  (301) 593-3949


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:39:04 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Bitachon


What does the Chazon Ish do with Nachum Ish Gamzu and his talmid Rabbi Akiva
(kol ma d'avad Rachmana, litav avad)?

I would want to be clear whether the Chazon Ish is ruling out the possibility
that bitachon means "everything will be the way I would enjoy" or the
possibility that it means "everything will turn out to be for my own good".
It's hard to be imagine him meaning the latter.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 23-Nov-99: Shelishi, Vayishlach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 73a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:50:50 +0200
From: "Shlomo Godick" <shlomog@mehish.co.il>
Subject:
re: Tzelem Elokim and Women


MSDratch@aol.com writes:

<< While we're on the subject of Tzelem Elokim, note Abravanel's comment on
p.
69 of Vol. 1(5724 edition).  In a nutshell:  Note the language of the verse,
he says, "be'tzelem Elokim bara OTTO, zachar u-nekeivah bara OTAM."  Tzelem
Elokim refers only to ADAM, the male, not Chava, the FEMALE.  He, after all,
was the purpose (hakavanah ve-hatachlik ha-atzma-it) and the ikkar
ha-beriyah.  Woman was created only to be an ezer ke-negdo and for
procreative purposes and as keli tashmisho >>

I haven't seen the Abravanel's comment inside, but I always thought
that pshat was very close to the well-known midrash, in which
the second half of the pasuk is an elaboration of the first half.  Namely,
Adam was androgynous at creation.   When husband and wife marry,
they in a sense restore the original condition at creation : two half-souls
join and (re-)form a whole person.   The spiritual and material
achievements of the couple belong to both of them (and are not
attributed to one at the expense of the other).

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:41:01 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re[4]: Avos (was Retraction) (V4#149)


So are teh words Haddad yofish vokedimo

So are teh words v';lo orich bereicho nichochm!

the point is we do not simply lable the Borcho as "bad" becaue it emantated form
the mouth of a Rosho

And there is also anoher valid your point; maalin bekodesh.

And there is also the point that many statemetns are taken out of context and 
made positive

EG, solachti kidvorecho.  I blieve teh Abarbaenl interprets this negatively that
HKBH WAS soleiach but wouls NOT be loseiach the maaseh mergalim.  neverthelss we
still recite is as a positive

EG v'nakeh lo yniekah - is literally one phrase, 

BUT we cut off the lo yenakeh and and at v'nakeh

EG  Dosson adn Aviram say

"ki chol ho'eido kuolm kedoshim...u'madua tisnas'u al Kehal hashem?"  This IN 
CONTEXT is quite negative.  but I ask you do we not end an aliyo there?

EG Lovon Achosein at tehi l'alfei revovoe - cannot this be construed as emanting
from a rosho?

EG we see bnos cheis were moras ruach for Yitachok and Rivka YET, beni cheis 
said to Avrhom Nesi Elokim ato.  Do we hesitate to quote this because of its 
source?  Or do we accept the statment at face value.

Rich Wolpoe












______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

>

That when sanctioned by HKB"H b'yad Moshe avdo, even the words of resha'im 
become Torah, right?

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


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:58:27 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
Subject:
Chabad and Sinas Chinam


> >From Shlomo B Abeles <sba@blaze.net.au>
> millerr@mail.biu.ac.il wrote:
Shlomo B. Abeles writes:

> >>>I am not a Chabadnik but don't think that one has
> >>>to be in order to be amazed ..........(can I
> >>>eat in a restaurant where the maschiach is a Lubavitcher ....
> 
> I think we will all eat in the restaurant of Mashiach
> - - Lubavitcher or not...

But some will have the fish (as in the old joke, why did H' make the livyatan?)

JJB


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 12:14:23 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Conspicuous Consumption


I didn't realize that Sanhderin or Taanis was the source of Lo Sachmod! <big 
grin>.

OR IOW long before reaching for his gun - the assailant violated a fundamental 
principle that was literally written in stone....

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<SNIP
Envy over another's material possessions is not, as I recall from Sanhedrin 
or Taanis, a defense or other halachic excuse for snuffing out the 
possessor's life with a lethal weapon.<snip>

David Finch


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 12:33:22 EST
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Conspicuous Consumption


In a message dated 11/23/99 11:23:19 AM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< I didn't realize that Sanhderin or Taanis was the source of Lo Sachmod! >>


My mistake. How about Maakos? The Ten Commandments? 

David Finch


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 13:18:19 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re: Bitachon


I just received this newsletter from a non-Jewish source on this very topic:

I am quoting & snipping with permission of the author Nanice Ellisa.

Rich Wolpoe

    Soul Wisdom Newsletter
    November 20, 1999
    
    The Amazing Path of Gratitude
    
    
    <snip>
    
    Many of you are probably thinking ˘What is there to be grateful about when 
    things are out of control?÷  I do understand that it is very difficult to be 
    grateful when life is not going as planned but that is really just an illusion. 
    From a soul perspective, we are always having the exact experience we need to 
    grow and evolve.  It is our choice to recognize the opportunity or not.  When we
    do recognize the gifts and opportunities in our challenges, we then have created
    a space to be unconditionally grateful.  
    
    Problems may feel uncomfortable and no one openly looks for them but they do 
    serve a purpose.  Not only do problems offer opportunities and gifts, they help 
    to move us forward in our lives and especially in our spirituality. They bring 
    us into the present by making us feel.  And they make us aware or at least give 
    us the opportunity to become aware.  
    
    All challenges are just opportunities in disguise.  The spiritual purpose of 
    problems is not to hold us back but rather to move us forward <snip>
    
    
    <snip>
    
    Nanice M. Ellis
    SOUL CREATIONS
    Personal & Spiritual Development Coaching for Life 801-619-1144
    Magikstarz@aol.com
    http://member.aol.com/magikstarz/soul.html







______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Bitachon 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    11/22/1999 9:57 AM


I have a Sunday evening Chabura in the Chazon Ish's "Emuna u'Bitachon". At 
the beginning of the second perek he makes an interesting point, that, in 
his opinion, the "Chassidic" view of Bitachon, that everything that happens 
to an individual is good, is incorrect. Rather, things happen that may not 
be good. Bitachon means one trusts that proper tefilla and avodah can be 
effective in reaching out to Hashem and attaining His assistance in 
overriding the bad happenstance.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:24:49 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Any Orthodox critiques of Documentary Theory ?


RYBS's "The Lonely Man of Faith" can be thought of as a reply to documentary
hypothesis (DH). (It's not a theory, as a theory requires that the idea be
falsifiable, and yet have withstood tests. DH can't be falsified, since any
lingual discrepency is considered "proof" and any similarity across supposed
documents is considered the product of redaction or back-editing.)

RYBS avoids polemics, and the issues of defending an idea once the dialogue
has been cast into its detractors' terms. That approach will always put you
on the defensive, where you can never really show the strengths of your own
position.

However, RYBS describes one of the better known examples of where E and J
documents were supposedly included, and explains the differences in terms
of a single author trying to make a statement about the human condition.

The periodical "Jewish Thought" (I lost my copy, so I can't give you author
or edition) carried an article showing that the two supposed versions that
were allegedly merged to create a single Noah story also reflects this
dialectic.

One could generalize and say that the whole E vs J thing is about Adam I and
his relationship to midas hadin (E) and Adam II relating to midas rachamim (J).
Although that's extrapolation, not actually said by RYBS.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 23-Nov-99: Shelishi, Vayishlach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 73a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 13:28:27 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Bitachon


In reply to RGS and our moderator, RMB's separate query as to the CI on
Nachum Ish Gamzu et al:

1. The CI seems oretty much similar to the Chovos ha'Levavos down below,
i.e., not everything is for the good, but it is goverened by Hashem, so it
may be turned out for the better through teshuva and tefilla.

2. This differs from the Rambam in that it would seem the Rambam holds
hashgocho is not universal, whereas - in this much *like* the Chassidim -
the CI holds hashgocho is universal, just not automatically "good".

I do not know how that philosophy expressed by the Rambam in the Moreh
reconciles with the Rambam you quote below (or, is the quote below from
the Ramba*n*?).

3. The CI at the end of the second hapter says that an occasional
accompaniiment to bitachon is the ruach ha'kodesh sense that this incident
will turn out well. Thiis is not a necessary byproduct, however. Perhaps
he holds that Nachum Ish Gamzu and R' Akiva had this ruach. Perhaps he
might say that NIG and RA were proactively davening for a good outcome. I
do not know.


On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:

> RYGB wrote:
> 
> >>I have a Sunday evening Chabura in the Chazon Ish's "Emuna
> u'Bitachon". At the beginning of the second perek he makes an
> interesting point, that, in his opinion, the "Chassidic" view of
> Bitachon, that everything that happens to an individual is good, is
> incorrect. Rather, things happen that may not be good. Bitachon means
> one trusts that proper tefilla and avodah can be effective in reaching
> out to Hashem and attaining His assistance in overriding the bad
> happenstance.>>
> 
> That Chazon Ish has bothered me for a long time.  It makes perfect sense
> but it seems to contradict what I see in the rishonim and mussar
> sefarim.  The Sefer Emunah Uvitachon (attributed to the Ramban - ch. 1)
> explains that emunah is the belief that Hashem rewards and punishes
> while bitachon is the belief that Hashem will have mercy on you and
> everything will be alright.  This is echoed by Rabbenu Bachya in Kad
> HaKemach (beginning of bitachon).  Rabbenu Yonah (Mishlei 3:6) says that
> we should always have bitachon that everything will be alright and, even
> if it isn't, at least we get schar for the bitachon.  The Chovos
> Halevavos (sha'ar habitachon ch. 1) and the Orchos Tzaddikim (sha'ar
> hasimchah machshavos 1, 3 - Eshkol ed. p. 73) also imply that bitachon
> is a faith that Hashem in His mercy will make everything alright. 
> 
> 

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: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:45:01 -0500
From: gil.student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Bitachon


RYGB wrote:
     
>>2. This differs from the Rambam in that it would seem the Rambam holds 
hashgocho is not universal, whereas - in this much *like* the Chassidim - 
the CI holds hashgocho is universal, just not automatically "good".
     
I do not know how that philosophy expressed by the Rambam in the Moreh 
reconciles with the Rambam you quote below (or, is the quote below from 
the Ramba*n*?).>>
     
It is from neither.  It is "meyuchas" to the Ramban and is printed in 
Kisvei HaRamban (vol 2) but is generally thought to have not been written 
by him.

The Ramban (Iyov 36:7, Bereishis 18:9) and Rabbenu Bachya (Bereishis sham) 
offer a similar view as the Rambam.  The difference is that to the Ramban 
and Rabbenu Bachya hashgachah pratis is reserved for those who achieve 
dveykus with Hashem.

BTW, the Malbim seems to accept the Rambam's view.  See his Artzos HaChaim 
to Shulchan Aruch O"C 1.  He suggests that whole point of "shivisi Hashem 
lenegdi samid" is to think about Hashem so that you have hashgachah pratis 
- ayen sham.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:47:59 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Mitzvos Ma'asiyos


Gila Atwood <gatwood@netvision.net.il> writes in v4n148:
: See Tanya-  in the final essays of the work-  the Ba'al haTanya points out
: that learning about the metaphysical hishtalshlut & effects of a mitzva does
: not accomplish the metaphysical effects of that particular mitzva. That can
: only be accomplished by actually doing that mitzvah le'ma'eseh.
: This kind of learning does accomplish the metaphysical effect of the mitzvah
: of learning itself.  Compare with RSRH.

As neither the Rambam nor RSRH discuss metaphysical effects, it's a matter of
speculation.

R' Chaim Vilozhiner (Nefesh haChaim 1:6) appears to present the idea I asserted
earlier, that metaphysical effects are caused by the change in people, not
by the deed itself. This may reopen my question of whether mezuzos themselves
protect, or whether the kiyum hamitzvah of mezuzah which does.

While I wouldn't claim that the Rambam had this in mind, it's likely that RSRH
had this kind of notion in mind. At least, according to the assertion in the
intro to the translation of Horeb, which identifies Hirsch's "symbols" with
kabbalistic ideas.

Either way, the Rambam's yedi'ah need not mean theoretical knowledge. While
a philosopher may comprehend much about HKBH, without the lima'aseh the
knowledge is superficial. It may therefore be that the Rambam would insist
that the knowledge not only exist, but experientially real. Although I don't
think anyone would go so far as to talk about the Rambam being a gnostic
(two words!).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 23-Nov-99: Shelishi, Vayishlach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 73a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:57:32 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Rights


:> Rights? What are rights? We're talking Judaism, not
:> American law. 

Please let me appologize for the tone in that.

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> replies in v4n147:
: I'm sorry.  Judaism most certainly does discuss
: rights. One big example is Meseches Bava Metzia which
: is full of discussions about rights.

Yes, property rights. Which is the subject in question -- so I stand corrected.
However, I don't think we generalize from ba'alus over posessions to rights
in general. It may therefore be more correct to speak of ba'alus -- control
over objects -- than to use the more general term "right".

: But none of this takes away the right of an individual
: to enjoy his wealth in any (mutar) way he sees fit.

Hefker beis din hefker. Ba'alus can be overridden by gezeirah -- an idea
invoked often in Mes. Kesuvos.

Vihara'ayah, a parallel to the gezeirah you object to was already made 2
millenia ago WRT kevurah. A point I raise again only because I believe
it's a smoking gone that I haven't seen you address yet.

My problem with a takanah is that I don't believe that simchos are the
core of the problem, and I can't figure out how to legislate expenditure on
luxuries in general. For that matter, the line between luxury and necessity
is blurry anyway. People NEED (particular yechidim excluded) a certain amount
of vacation time, access to "toys" and other recreation, etc...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 23-Nov-99: Shelishi, Vayishlach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 73a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         


Go to top.


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


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

< Previous Next >