Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 108

Wednesday, February 19 2003

• Rambam and Yissachar-Zevulun
• Re: manipulating the pshat
• Re: fanaticism
• Fanaticism
• Re: Choosing a yeshiva
• Half a pasuk
• Re: rambam yisachar zevulun
• Re: rambam yisachar zevulun
• Re: nursing
• Re: Self Evident Apikorsus - answer key/corrigendum
• Re: Chamushim
• Re: Half a pasuk
• Re: Fanaticism and Mordechai
• Re: fanaticism
• Re: Half a pasuk
• Re: Half a pasuk/savrei moronon
• Re: Self Evident Apikorsus - answer key/corrigendum
• Re: tehillim hachida
• Re: nursing
• Re: Choosing a yeshiva
• Re: Torah difficulty
• Subject: Re: Self Evident Apikorsus

mgofman asked about harmonizing the Rambam in Shekalim with his opposition
to payment for Talmud Torah:

See Hagahoth Maymonioth H. Talmud Torah 1:7 (seif katan 6) who understands
the halacha in Shekalim as sechar battalah.

He also asked about the Rambam occasionally using the term "schar"
with respect to mitzvoth:

That's why I pointed you to H. Yesodei HaTorah 4:13 : "They (halachoth)
are the great good which God poured out in order to enable habitation
of this world (shehishpia l'yishuv haolam hazeh) so that we can inherit
the world to come."

In other words, schar mitzvoth enables yishuv haolam hazeh, which in
turn enables yediath hashem (e.g. H. Tshuva 9:1), which in turn enables
chayei olam haba (H. Yesodei HaTorah 4:9). Compare H. Deoth 3:1-2.

David Riceman

In a message dated 2/16/2003 4:44:08 PM EST, mgofman@zahav.net.il writes:
> Are you saying that the Kesef Mishna, Aruch Hashulchan, Mishan Berura,
> and Rav Moshe were explaining "WHAT YOU THINK IT OUGHT TO MEAN"? If they
> didn't believe that the Rambam actually had in mind their respective
> interpretations, on what were they basing their psak? Why didn't they
> just say kach nira li lifsok? Why bother mention the Rambam? What is
> your explanation of the halachic process- an arbitrary selection of
> psakim loosely based on rishonim?

My views on Halachic methodology have been outline on Avodah over
the years. Please check the archives

You only need one thing to know: Each poseik apporaches what he sees
from his own paradigm.

Consider the following. Rema says, hey if you're late to davening you may
skip from the v'hu rachim in Hodu to the one at the end of Yehi chavod -
jsut before Ashrei

Now assusming you are Sephardic do you now skip from Hodu to Yehi Chavod
and skip baruh she'amar?

or is Rema's comments only applicable to ASheknazaim who have already
said Baruch she'amar.

And if so why didn't Rema spell this out?

Give me about 3-4 weeks with the SA, Rema, and MB and I will show you
that virtually all of their comments assume their own contexts or
paradigms and overlook the others.

BEH I will post a little pshetl on how The Tur., Rema and MB have 3
completely differing views on saying pasukim before Birchos Krias Shma.

Back to niddan diddan. I don't know how the poskim saw the Rambam, but
AISI they did not fathom a world in which TSBP teaching was mamash free.

There is a similar case where oen poseik - I think the Mechabeir -
says that one must cover their head for daveing means a SECOND head
covering. Meheicha teisi? Wel lhe PRESUMES that a head-covering is
ALWAYS there. but as we knwo that presumption is by no means universal.

Also see the peirush Harabmbam on Masseches Yadayim. There the Rambam
insists that the only case of less than revi'is MSUT be mayim shni'yimn?
Meheicha teisi? The Gmar in Chullin reads very well w/o this pshat.
In fact I was baffled how the Rambam got this unitl I saw the Tosefta.
FWIW, the Rambam thinks this Toseftta sets up the Mishna and the Gmara
in Chullin, but in fact few other Rishonim {if any} learn it this way.
Point? Since the Rambam presumed revi'is is needed for mayyim rishonim
he forced the pshat of the Mishna into Mayyaim shiniyyim.

Now think of every Tosafos in Shas that modifies the local peshat because
of a conflicting Gmara somewhere else. Well, Rashi legaibe nat bar nat
says we pasken like Rava over Abbaye and dismisses he sugya of Rav and
Levi as lo k;halacha. But if you hold like Tosafos, there is no such
thing as one sugya aruging on another. So Tosaofs says what he says.
But according to Rashi, sugyos MAY argue with each other. Now see how
this underlyinbg preumsption affects pshat

What if you held that Zohar NEVER argues with Bavli? Would that change
your interpretations of how to learn a sugya?

BTW, re: salary for teaching karbanos according to Rambam teaching torah
shebichsav can be done for a fee. I'm not sure if this helps or not

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.comA>

In a message dated 2/16/2003 7:55:10 AM EST, mgofman@zahav.net.il writes:
> The ultimate crime in today's world is being a fanatic. However, why do
> you assume that Judaism agrees with that assumption. Moral relativism
> automatically tars fanaticism as being politically incorrect. However,
> if there is an absolute truth, does fanaticism have no place? ...

there is nothing wrong with being fanatic as long as that does not cloud
your ability ot see the reality of situation
There is a saying, if all you have is a hammer thaen the whole world
appreas to you as nails

If you are fanatic about serving Hashem as best as you can, what could
be wrong with that?

However, if you say something like aliya is the only mitzvah I have my
heart in and then you view RYBS or Reb Moshe Feinstein or Tosafos as
flawed because they did not make aliya, then you fanaticism has colored
your reality to the point in wihch you cannot get to the emes becasue
your blinders are on.

Fanatics tend to mis-perceive reality. E.G.: of Baruch Goldstein
perceived the Arabs in the Mosque as about to comit a pogroam then he did
a big mitzvah. But if he exaggereated is perceptoins and saw worshipping
Arabs - who indeed might have harabored hatred, but had no immentnt
battle plans - then he succeeded inexecuting people for THINKING wrong.

The Crucible outlines how the fanaticism in Salem, Mass. as well
as suspects in the McCArthy era caused mis-labeling of all kinds of
innocent people.

Remember, havu massunim badin. Take your time in making judgments. It
does not mean that you NEVER judge or never execute, just be careful that
you are not carried away by passion without chekcing out the emes first

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.comA>

"gofman" <mgofman@zahav.net.il> wrote:
>The ultimate crime in today's world is being a fanatic. However, why do
>you assume that Judaism agrees with that assumption. Moral relativism
>automatically tars fanaticism as being politically incorrect. However,
>if there is an absolute truth, does fanaticism have no place?
>Is it wrong to be "excessively enthusiastic" about the truth?

Just to add my own 2 cents on this. How many people out there would have
described Mordechai (from Megillas Esther) as a fanatic?

I accidentally erased Rabbi B's post, in which he acknowledged that
whether one may write divrei Torah is a machloketh acaharonim.

Does that mean you discourage this young man from getting the education
that produced the Chatham Sofer?
Is that general advice, or particular to that person?

David Riceman

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>

<<Last time around this is where RGD (IIRC) >>

Not guilty.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

RMB wrote:
> I would suggest that Zevulun -- and all subsequent "Zevulun"s
> -- are rewarded for assuming the shutfus be'olam hazeh. IOW, Zevulun's
> reward is for valuing Torah enough to make it what he wants to spend
> his money on.

I agree with your explanation as to why Zevulun is rewarded; however,
the midrash implies that 50% of Yisachar's reward is given to Zevulun.
Acc. to your pshat, why does Yisachar not receive the full reward for
his learning?

motya

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 08:19:17PM +0200, gofman wrote:
: I agree with your explanation as to why Zevulun is rewarded; however,
: the midrash implies that 50% of Yisachar's reward is given to Zevulun.
: Acc. to your pshat, why does Yisachar not receive the full reward for
: his learning?

The medrash says they're shutefim in olam haba. I'm not sure if
the implication you make is muchrach. Do you have an exact
mar'eh maqom to be medayeiq in? It's been a while since I saw
it inaveinig.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

>> 1) Kesubos 60a indicates that there is a doreissa prohibition of mefarek.

> The Gemara is NOT discussing nursing a baby on Shabbos.

Of course the gemora is NOT discussing nursing a baby on Shabbos. But It
does discuss the case of an adult nursing from a goat in order to relieve
heart pains. Once we have a principle that the removal of milk constitutes
a doreissa issur of mefarek [as opposed to Tosfos] this indicates (i.e.,
suggests the question) that there is a doreissa prohibition of mefarek
for a baby. The gemora states that nursing from a goat is not the normal
manner so therefore it is only a rabbinic issur which is permitted for
suffering. In contrast a baby nursing does constitute the normal manner
so the hetair of kelachar yad would be removed [If one was needed].

>> 2) Shulchan Orech 328:34-35 in Biur Halacha also indicates there is an
>> issur doreissa in the nursing process

> Do you mean where the Biur Halacha is rejecting this implication from the
> To"Sh?

My understanding of this Biur Halacha is 1) He states that both for
a human and an animal - expressing milk into a container is an issur
doreissa 2) A human nursing from a goat is only a rabbinic issur while
from a woman it is a question of whether it is doreissa. The case of
a baby from a woman is considered the normal manner and thus could not
be a rabbinic issur. The question is therefore whether it is an issur
doreissa or not melacha at all.

>> 4) Shemiras Shabbos 36:21 [corrected from original post] in footnote
>> raises the question of nursing close to the end of Shabbos.
>> If the baby can wait there is no longer a
>> hetair of pikuach nefesh. He notes that R' Shlomo Zalman permitted it
>> because of various doubts even though there are others that say to wait.

> RSZA is quoted there as saying this is permitted without any doubt.

You are right regarding RSZA who does not consider a baby comparable to
a leech while those cited in SS who view a baby as halachicly equivalent
to a leech would require waiting.

>> 5) Shemiras Shabbos also cites a teshuva of R' Pesach Frank that states
>> that there is not a blanket hetair because of sakkana. He was responding
>> to a psak that it would be permitted to put milk in a cup for use later
>> on Shabbos since it is sakana (Yevamos 114a) for the baby not to have
>> milk. He noted that the sakkana is limited to the time the baby actually
>> needs the milk and is not a general hetair.

>> Question - since the hetair seems to be pikuach nefesh it would follow

> See your OS and HZ that both reject this line of reasoning.

Har Tzvi #201says that a baby is considered in sakkana if he doesn't get
milk. However once he has been fed there is no sakkana until he gets
hungry again. Without the sakkana it is not permitted to express milk
into a cup. Besides making this distinction the Har Tzvi also notes the
Ohr Someach and R' Eliezar Gordon of Telz who take the original question
seriously.[also cited by SS] R' Frank rejects their analysis and thus
does not consider nursing a problem.

Point being that it is not a klutz kasha .

My original post was not an attempt to write a dissertation on the
subject of nursing [so I apologize for some imprecise citations]. I was
presenting it as an example of an issue that produced strong reactions
amongst talmidei chachomim [including R' Shlomo Goldstein] as to whether
it constituted a legitimate halachic concern.

A similar issue seems to be the issue of artificial insemination. Rav
Moshe's hetair was challenged by "even the bishop knows that it was wrong"
and his reply was that only Torah analysis was relevant not what the
man in the street thought. There are certain issues which seem to rest
on the bedrock of cognition and thus are intuitively viewed as either
obviously important or obviously irrelevant - independent of intellectual
proofs or analysis. An additional example is the mussar movements concern
with issues of natural law and the human concerns of the enlightenment
[e.g., Toras Avraham and the chapter on Toras Seichel Enushi] while the
traditional yeshiva approach is to start and end with chazal. [This also
is connected to whether the issue of killing women and children of the
7 nations is perceived as troublesome]

                                        Daniel Eidensohn

One "p'litas peh-n" to correct. For #12 I wrote Yom Tov Elem, my fingers
being too accustomed to the conjunction of yom & tov. That should've
been R. Yoseph Tov Elem.

From: RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com
>>> 3. to say our torah is like moshe's torah should not be understood
>>> literally, because it isn't. rather it should be understood in the general 
>>> sense, i.e. it is for all intents and purposes the same as moshe's.
>> 3. R. Yaacov Weinberg z"l (late rosh yesivoh of ner israel)

> ... Gemara (Kiddushin 29 or 30) says the same thing. RYW was saying "We
> are not bekiim in Chaseiros and Yeseiros", but in a different way. Raffy>>

Not sure why you think that chaseiros viy'seiros are the only difficulty
or why you think R. Weinberg a"h thought so. They're not -- as R. Weinberg
was certainly well aware. BTW for a non-standard peirush which rejects
the notion that chazal were not b'qi'in in moleh v'chosir, see mechqorim
battalmud of r. reuvein margolis. The g'moroh in qidushin is interpreted
just as r. yosi's problem but nobody else's

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
> >7. the sof'rim changed words of the torah
>7. Rashi

<<I'm not sure which Rashi... R. Dr. MS Feldblum taught us that the term
Tikkun Sofrim was not literally a change of the text BY the Sofrim but was
an idomatic way of saying the text is using a euphemistic circumlocution
somewhat like using lashon sagi nahor.>>

see e.g. rashi b'reishis 18:22. while I don't remember that from my own
stint with R. Feldblum a'h, that's understandable because there are a
great many other things that flowed in and then out my ears without much
neuronal impedance during my formal education. And that is certainly
a defensible interpretation though it does not seem to me reflective
of a straightforward reading of the rashi. But what is more important
perhaps is that certainly others have also read rashi in the way I've
suggested. BTW one of these was R. Moshe Feinstein who was so incredulous
that he simply rejected the notion that rashi could have penned it and
insists that its a forgery. Can check it out somewhere in IM.

Mechy Frankel			H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil		W: (703) 845-2357
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

>Question:
>among the 20% survivors were MANY resha'im - E.G.: Dassan and Avirom
>So how come all Resh'aim did not perish BEFORE the Exodus?

The Shaarei Aharon quotes the Medrash Cheifetz saying that at the time of
the palgue of darkness Moshe prayed to Hashem asking why was he killing
all of the Jews. Hashem replyed that he knew that they were unworthy;
however if Moshe was concerned he would save two - Doson VAvirom.

About the others; the question is how do we know that they were reshaim.
If you prove it from all of the troubles after the Exodus; Hashem olny
judges people as they are at that point in time.

Doson and Avirom were shown to be reshaim even in Egypt.

Kol tov,
Ezriel

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 05:06:23PM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: <<Last time around this is where RGD (IIRC) >>

: Not guilty.

It was RRW who made the suggestion -- and labeled it "hypothesis". BTW,
the thread is titled "Kiddush intro", if anyone wants to check the
archive. (Go to www.aishdas.org/avodah and select "K" from the subject
index.)

-mi

In a message dated 2/18/2003 4:12:33 PM EST, cmarkowitz@scor.com writes:
> Just to add my own 2 cents on this. How many people out there would have
> described Mordechai (from Megillas Esther) as a fanatic?

Based upon the simple peshat Mordechai indeed appears to be lich'ora
a fanatic

However if it was eis shmad, then he may have felt it was time to take
a stand, kind of like Matisyahu did against Antiyochus IV.

And it seems that the Midrashim support the idea that asimlation was a
real danger. I even say something - maybe on our list - aboud the word
Habira implying that the Yehudim considered Shushan Habira to be the
New Yerushalyim, long before Berlin was designated as such.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

At 01:58 AM 2/18/03 -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>there is nothing wrong with being fanatic as long as that does not cloud
>your ability ot see the reality of situation
>There is a saying, if all you have is a hammer thaen the whole world
>appreas to you as nails
>
>If you are fanatic about serving Hashem as best as you can, what could
>be wrong with that?

While I agree with the tenor of the post (and much of what I have
therefore deleted) I think that it is oxymoronic to use "fanatic" the
way you have done here. Fanaticalness by definition clouds ability to
see the reality of a situation.

[Email #2. -mi]

At 10:32 AM 2/18/03 -0500, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
>Just to add my own 2 cents on this. How many people out there would have
>described Mordechai (from Megillas Esther) as a fanatic?

Not me :-) .

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

In a message dated 2/18/2003 9:13:39 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 05:06:23PM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> : <<Last time around this is where RGD (IIRC) >>
> 
> : Not guilty.
> 
> It was RRW who made the suggestion -- and labeled it "hypothesis". BTW,
> the thread is titled "Kiddush intro", if anyone wants to check the
> archive. (Go to www.aishdas.org/avodah and select "K" from the subject
> index.)

yasher koach and Baruch shekeivanti...

Remember though I induced the half-passuk hypothesis from more than
just Kiddush at night; after alll there is the kiddush in the morning
that uses al kein beirach, and there is al pi Hashem beyad Moshe and
several other half-psukim scattered throughout our liturgy.

I would also recommend, that where we have a bona fide Masorah to use a
half-passuk I see no reason to be machmir and to require completing the
passuk. OTOH, I think we should not ADD half-psukim to this accepted list

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

RYGB:
>:> A number of years ago I adopted the minhag of just starting from "Yom
>:> HaShishi" as I believe there is a leniency for less than three words.

> RSBA wrote:
>: Isn't that the reason for our minhag (doesn't everyone do it?) of saying
>: 'Vayhi erev vayhi voyker' in an undertone?

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> But that's still half a pasuq. I do know people who start with "Vayar
> E-lokim es kol asher asah vehinei tov me'od; vayehi erev..."

I had a look a few serious siddurim today to see what they say on
this matter.

The Otzar Hatefilos in Iyun Tefila brings the CS OC-10 who explains to
those who have a problem with half a posuk when beginning VEVV saying
that the RT of Yom Hashishi Veyechulu Hashomayim is the Shem Havayeh.
But as it would make no sense in just saying the words 'Yom Hashishi'
[sh'ein bo mashmo'us klum], therefore they added the VHVV.

And the reason we don't begin at the start of that posuk [vayaar
Elokim es kol asher oso.. vegomer] because Chazal darshen on Tov M'od -
'zeh hamoves'.

(How this answers the question of dividing a posuk - I don't know.
Maybe in the tshuva itself he says more.)

However in the Emden siddur it does begin with Vayaar Elokim etc
[belachash].

Re the meaning of 'Savrei Rabonon' - see the OH siddur and also the
peirush in siddur Avodas Yisroel.

Rav Yaakov Emden writes that even 'beyochid' one should say 'savrei' -
but not 'moronon'.

.......
And what about if the only person/people at the table are women or
children - do we say 'moronon' ??

SBA

In a message dated 2/18/2003 9:05:06 PM EST, michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com writes:
> see e.g. rashi b'reishis 18:22. while I don't remember that from my own
> stint with R. Feldblum a'h, that's understandable because there are a
> great many other things that flowed in and then out my ears without much
> neuronal impedance during my formal education. And that is certainly
> a defensible interpretation though it does not seem to me reflective
> of a straightforward reading of the rashi. But what is more important
> perhaps is that certainly others have also read rashi in the way I've
> suggested. BTW one of these was R. Moshe Feinstein who was so incredulous
> that he simply rejected the notion that rashi could have penned it and
> insists that its a forgery. Can check it out somewhere in IM.

<<And that is certainly a defensible interpretation though it does not
seem to me reflective of a straightforward reading of the rashi. >>

I agree that this may be construed as a form of apologetics. But I find
it unlikely that Rashi would have meant it literally and RMF apparently
found that hard to believe also.

Feldblum's answer, IIRC he was but quoting others, is an elegant way out.

And I have to object to your methodlogy a bit. Rashi did say Tikkun
Sofrim but it is debatle what he meant by that term. Your framing seems
to pre-suppose a phsyical re-writing which is indeed a possible or likely
read but by no means a required read.

FWIW: 
I recently read the Bes Yosef who quoted IIRC the Ramban first and the
Rambam 2nd. I asked why out of order? A 2nd look showed that the Rambam
was ONLY via Mashma'us, and so I interpet this to mean that a later
authority who says soemthing straight out is a higher level source than
a mere mashma'us of an earlier source...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/17/2003 9:51:32 PM EST, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> I don't have a gemoro here but IIRC it's "Kol piske" - and if so would
> IMO mean - not to mangle a posuk - rather than saying them not in order.
> After all, are all the kapitlech and psukim from tehilim that we say in
> our tefilos in proper order?

FWIW
See Mishle 3:17 and 3:18 and uvnoucho yomar in which the 2 psukkim are 
inverted

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

RDE
>>> 2) Shulchan Orech 328:34-35 in Biur Halacha also indicates there is an
>>> issur doreissa in the nursing process

>> Do you mean where the Biur Halacha is rejecting this implication from the
>> To"Sh?

RDE:
> My understanding of this Biur Halacha is ...The case of a baby from a
> woman is considered the normal manner

This is what the BH rejects.

RDE:
> Point being that it is not a klutz kasha .
> My original post was not an attempt to write a dissertation on the subject
> of nursing [so I apologize for some imprecise citations]. I was presenting
> it as an example of an issue that produced strong reactions amongst talmidei
> chachomim as to whether it constituted a
> legitimate halachic concern.

My objection was only to your posting a "conclusion" that 'today it is
forbidden by the Torah to nurse on Shabbos.'  I think this is both
irresponsible and baseless.
>
> A similar issue seems to be the issue of artificial insemination. Rav
> Moshe's hetair was challenged by "even the bishop knows that it was wrong"
> and his reply was that only Torah analysis was relevant
> not what the man in the street thought. There are certain issues which seem
> to rest on the bedrock of cognition and thus are intuitively viewed as
> either obviously important or obviously irrelevant - independent of
> intellectual proofs or analysis.

Here I also would not want to read someone rushing to "conclusions".

> An additional example is the mussar movements concern with issues
> of natural law and the human concerns of the enlightenment [e.g., Toras
> Avraham and the chapter on Toras Seichel Enushi] while the traditional
> yeshiva approach is to start and end with chazal. [This also is connected to
> whether the issue of killing women and children of the 7 nations is
> perceived as troublesome]

I would agree that it is hard to disagree with Rabbeinu Bachaye who finds
this difficult.

Kol Tuv,
Shlomo Goldstein

At 08:16 AM 2/18/03 -0500, David Riceman wrote:
>I accidentally erased Rabbi B's post, in which he acknowledged that whether
>one may write divrei Torah is a machloketh acaharonim.
>
>Does that mean you discourage this young man from getting the education that
>produced the Chatham Sofer?

Yes.

>Is that general advice, or particular to that person?

General.

Zechuso shel R' Tzadok yagen alav.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

At 08:21 AM 2/18/03 -0500, David Riceman wrote:
>The mitzva is to destroy a civilization; killing people is the means
>to that end. In terms of halacha l'maaseh it doesn't affect us, since
>only God has the authority to tell us when a civilization is so depraved
>that it must be destroyed. In terms of theory it does affect us, and
>the point is precisely that sometimes we have to kill the innocent to
>prevent them from growing up to become guilty (there is a similar point
>in ben Sorrer UMoreh, which also never comes up halacha l'maaseh).

I very much like RDR's definition and explanation - and think it
highlights the similarity to Ir ha'Nidachas.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

I have been teaching the 13 Ikarim at Ohr Someach for the past year and
this is what I tell my students and would propose as a question to you:

Granted taht there are isolated views other than the Rambam that mitigate
the holder of that views from being called an apikoros.

But, is it a good position to be in to say " I am an apikoros only
according to some shittos but not others::

Or is it much better and healthier to be a kosher Jew according to all
the shittos<

M. Levin

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


[ 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         ]