Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 96

Thu, 13 Mar 2008

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:44:11 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] history


If I take this idea of his a bit further, we can say
that b'vadai, many things were not written in the Torah, but orally
they were still transmitted - not only halacha, but history too! You
think that Avraham's descendants didn't have stories of Avraham's
life of tzidkut, told by Avraham to Yitzchak to Yaakov etc.??!! Heck,
moreover, Avraham probably told a lot of mundane stories about funny
thing that happened when he watering his camels,>>

Why bothers me is that we have all these history stories from way back.
However descriptions of the bet hamikdash a few years after its
destruction is subject to controversy. Even where the mizbeach stood
is subject to a machloket of Taanaim not to speak of the details of
many korbanot, details of he parochet etc. Some of these would only be
known or cohanim or even only a few cohanim. However, other facts like
the position of the mizbeach should have known to everyone


-- 
Eli Turkel



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:36:29 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] history


R' Eli Turkel:
> Why bothers me is that we have all these history stories from way back.
> However descriptions of the bet hamikdash a few years after its
> destruction is subject to controversy. Even where the mizbeach stood
> is subject to a machloket of Taanaim not to speak of the details of
> many korbanot, details of he parochet etc. Some of these would only be
> known or cohanim or even only a few cohanim. However, other facts like
> the position of the mizbeach should have known to everyone

I think your question is a good one. I was thinking, though, what if someone
would ask a group of Auschwitz survivors about the position of, say, one
bunk relative to the barracks door? I would guess that one might get
differing answers, and I would attribute it to the total indifference a
survivor would have to such details. The enormity of the tragedy would make
that detail insignificant. He wouldn't think of that detail for fifty years
- is it any wonder that that he might make a mistake when someone finally
brings it up? 
Considering the tragedy of the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash and the
succeeding times - not a picnic for Klal Yisroel - I'm not surprised that
memories would diverge on these things. 

KT,
MYG  




Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:14:07 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Shechting animals upside down


>  I am absolutely stunned by this. This practice of only shechting when
>  the animal is on it's back has become very widespread and has led to
>  many problems. To find out that it has no halachic basis is very
>  disturbing.

Did anyone ever claim that it DID have halachic basis? I thought it
was universally understood that there was no basis for this, and it
was all a senseless chumra?

Think about it: in Biblical times, did they have giant steel conveyor
belts that could be used to hoist a cow upside down? And what do you
think they did in Yemen? Obviously, they had no way AFAIK to feasibly
hoist it upside down, and therefore, it cannot be a halachic
requirement. Aside from what the textual sources say, the practical
impossibility of it in non-technological circumstances guarantees IMO,
AFAIK that it could never have been a chiyuv.

I recall an article which stated the fear that if the animal were
upright, the weight of its neck would press down on the knife.
However, the article said, the exact opposite is true: the animal
tries to lift its neck away from the knife, just as a person does if a
knife is put to his neck; ever seen the hostage scenes in movies? The
guy with the knife to his neck is craning his neck backwards, with his
adam's apple jutting out.

So given all the suffering it puts the animal through, given it has no
source, and given that it is no more effective than right-side up,
what on earth is the reason for it?

Mikha'el Makovi



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:40:50 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] schechtworthy


>  R' Saul.Z.Newman <at> kp.org wrote:
> 
>  > seen on a  newsletter---  A /shochet/ that watches television is
>  > violating Biblical prohibitions. While this casts aspersions on his
>  > trustworthiness, he should not be removed. He must be first warned to
>  > cease from such behaviour (Shevet Halevi YD 2).
> 
>  >> q-is this a generally accepted disqualifier?  does the OU use this
>  >> criteria?  are there people that wouldn't eat from tv-shchita?
>  >> what other professions does tv disqualify?
>  >> wouldnt this be an edah related issur  [ like  matza shruya], since
>  >> many jews would not hold that this is true?

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> It's a question of poretz geder.  In a community where TV-watching is
> not accepted, someone who does raises questions about his yiras shomayim,
> and a shochet's yiras shomayim must be beyond question.  The same applies
> to shaving or trimming, and in an earlier era even to wearing galoshes!
> Someone whose community regards these things as normal is just behaving
> normally, and no question need be raised.
> 
> R' Elchonon Loebenstein was a shochet in Melbourne for many decades.
> He was one of the Dunera Boys, and when he started shechting for the
> L community in Melbourne some were concerned because he trimmed his
> beard.  They wrote to the LR, who replied that since he came from
> Germany where this was normal, it did not cause any problem at all
> with his shechita.

I was curious whether it is fair to apply the standards of yesteryear to 
the modern day Shoheit. The role of a Shoheit today has (in most cases) 
been drastically reduced, given that he is usually part of a larger 
operation that has a league of Kosher overseers who decide matters of 
policy, procedure, and more particularly, decide the Kashrus of any 
specific animal in question.

This is not to suggest that current Shohetim are human machines whose 
exclusive task is to perform holakha vehava'ah. It is still imperative 
for him to apply his training and knowledge on the spot. The 
prerequisites of qualification still need to apply.

To compare him to an old-school Shoheit (e.g. one-man operation), whose 
ne'emanus and often whose pesaq about the meat was enough for the 
community, is unfair. Clearly, the need for such a Shoheit to maintain a 
very high standard of religious observance is a given.

Why should we force a specific ideology (e.g. no TV) on modern day 
Shohetim, finding a technicality in Halakhah as a stick? Shouldn't it 
make more sense, given the reality on the ground (defining the Shoheit's 
current position) to relax the standards on modern day Shohetim?

I am merely raising the question...

--Jacob Farkas





Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:58:02 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Dogma and kavana vs the objective deed


From [Areivim] heresy-hunting and "poetry"

>  > Whatever happened to a statement like, "Judaism is short on dogma and long
>  > on doing the right thing." Was it never true?
>  > R' YL

>  Actually, yes, it was never true.
> MYG
> All subsequent quotes from MYG

I'd beg to differ, and guess what, no one will accuse me of heresy for
disagreeing! ;)

> Hmm... The Aseres Hadibros: The first two
>  - dogma! The Ani Maamins: dogma! The Sheish Mitzvos Temidios: the first
>  three - dogma! Shema twice each day: dogma! (Yes, I know there's an overlap
>  - my point is that even those "doing the right thing[s]" are still long on
>  dogma.)

But Sefer haIkkarim requires only 3, not the 13. The 13 may be
universally accepted, but if someone held by R' Albo, could we really
call him a heretic?

In any case, notice how many issues are NOT included in this list of
yours. The thread on Avodah about G-d's attributes, where I claimed
that He actually does feel anger etc. - I violated no issurim by going
against the status quo, because belief in certain dogmas is not so
important as deed.

Similarly, anyone can agree or disagree with Chazalic aggadot as he
sees fit, as too many Rishonim say. Rav Hirsch to Avimelech cites a
long midrash, and then selectively chooses which parts to select and
reject. On Avraham coming from Beer Sheba to Hebron for Sarah's
burial, he rejects Chazal that Sarah was sent to Hebron before the
Akeida and died immediately after the Akeida.

Oh, and in reply to the popular notion that aggadot are m'Sinai, Rav
Hirsch says that this is an incredibly dangerous idea and will do
untold damage to students. Is Rav Hirsch a heretic for disagreeing
with Ramchal, or vice versa?

True, Judaism has dogmas. But compared to almost everything except
Hinduism, it has far far far far fewer dogmas than anyone else,
especially Christianity. In (classical) Christianity, one dogma is the
ENTIRE religion. In Judaism, a few dogmas are the foundations of the
religion, not their core and body.

> In fact, every "doing the right thing" in the Torah stems from these
>  dogmaticisms (did I just make that up, R'n TK?). If you help someone mow his
>  lawn because you want to do the right thing, you have not fulfilled the
>  Torah's dictates (according to many). Of course, it's a nice thing to do,
>  but not a Mitzvah.

I think you mean, "because you want to do the NICE thing" or "because
you want to be NICE" - i.e., because according to some nebulous
undefined standard of morality, it's good, stam. But to do the RIGHT
thing (which is what you said) means to do what G-d said, because
that's what makes it right!

I> f you do the same thing because Hashem said "V'ahavta
>  L'reiacha Kamocha" - boom! You got a Mitzvah. Why do you love your neighbor?
>  Because Hashem is, and because He gave us the Torah, and because the Torah
>  is true, and because the Torah says to. So the reason for doing it is not
>  because it is the right thing, but because of good ol' Jewish dogma. Or, to
>  put it a bit more palatably, the reason why it is the right thing is because
>  of good ol' Jewish dogma.

First, I wouldn't call this dogma - this isn't something someone has
to believe in or else be damned; rather, it's simply a necessary
condition for the mitzvah, for the deed. Similarly, on Shabbat, to be
chayav, I don't have to "believe in" melechet machshevet; rather, I
have to DO with melechet machshevet.

In any case though, one could argue against this notion that one needs
active kavana to be yotze. Rambam and those like him say that while
you should do chukim solely because He said so, rational mitzvot
should eventually become part of your character, and you should do
them lishma. If I help my neighbor enough times, even though I hate
him or even though I'm lazy, eventually I'll come to love helping him.
If I give tzedaka, I'll eventually become charitable.

Chazal said that you should abstain from pork not because you hate it,
but only because G-d said so. But can you imagine Chazal saying, "Do
not say, 'I love to murder, steal, rape, pillage, but what can I do,
for Avinu she'ba'shamayim has forbade it?'" I don't know about you,
but I won't want to be on the shul committee with this guy!

Rather, a person will start out with this position (he loves to, say,
speak lashon hara, but abstains only because G-d said so), but
eventually he'll realize how evil the vice is and how good the mitzvah
is, and it will achieve its own independent drive within him.

Now, b'vadai, because G-d said so will still be a motive. I do not
mean to suggest otherwise. For example, yirat shamayim will ensure the
mitzvah even when the ta'am seems to not apply (for example, certain
kinds of lashon hara that we all know wouldn't seem to be so harmful)
or when no one is looking, etc.

But even if because G-d said so is a necessary precondition, I'd say
that you shouldn't need to have active thought of it at the time.
Chofetz Chaim says that if you pay a taxi driver without the active,
conscious, explicit kavana of paying a worker on time, you've done no
mitzvah. But I'd rejoin, what if you asked the guy, "Why did you just
pay him on time?"
He'd reply, "Because it's the right thing".
"Why is it the right thing?"
"Because G-d said so".
In other words, even lacking an active conscious kavana, you always
have a subconscious kavana. Similarly, if I wash and eat in one place,
but intend to bentsch somewhere else, I need to have this kavana while
I wash. But what if my mind suddenly goes blank during washing, and I
forget to have this kavana? Answer: I'm still okay, because we assume
that had someone asked me during washing, "Where are you bentsching?",
I'd answer, "In such-and-such a place, not where I'm eating". The
kavana was subconscious all along, and so it is still yotze.

And guess what: For disagreeing with the Chofetz Chaim, I don't think
anyone will brand me a heretic. ;)

Mikha'el Makovi


P. S. On this topic, Rabbi Benjamin Blech (Talmud at YU) has a
FANTASTIC book, "Understanding Judaism: The Basis of Deed and Creed"
(or maybe it was "Basics"?). It is not a scholarly book, but it is
very captivating, and a wonderful basic primer on Judaism: besides his
basic thesis that Judaism focuses on deed not creed, he touches on
numerous other aspects of Judaism, including the best synthesis of the
agricultural and historical meanings of the regalim that I've seen
yet. It recently won an award for best popular book on Judaism.



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:30:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Dogma and kavana vs the objective deed


On Wed, March 12, 2008 8:58 am, R Michael Makovi wrote:
: But Sefer haIkkarim requires only 3, not the 13. The 13 may be
: universally accepted, but if someone held by R' Albo, could we really
: call him a heretic?

Not quite. The Ikkarim assumes a different definition of "ikkar",
meaning something more like postulate. If you also include his
"shorashim", you 12 of the Rambam's 13. (Mashiach is missing, although
techiyas hameisim is included.) There might be a significant
difference between the Rambam's #5 (that Hashem alone is worthy of
worship) and the Ikkarim's ikkar 1, shoresh 2 (Hashem's absolute
perfection). Or perhaps not.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/ikkarei-emunah.shtml> where I
work out the correspondences and note the Tif'eres Yisrael's very
different list of mandatory beliefs.

: In any case, notice how many issues are NOT included in this list of
: yours. The thread on Avodah about G-d's attributes, where I claimed
: that He actually does feel anger etc. - I violated no issurim by going
: against the status quo, because belief in certain dogmas is not so
: important as deed.

If someone believes that assignment of emotions does not imply
plurality  or imperfection, then it wouldn't violate the standard list
of ikkarim to believe it.

(Of course R' Marc Shapiro would say I'm making too big of a deal
about the list, but we've argued that one far too many times already.
I just want to acknowledge the dissenting viewpoint.)

...
: I think you mean, "because you want to do the NICE thing" or "because
: you want to be NICE" - i.e., because according to some nebulous
: undefined standard of morality, it's good, stam. But to do the RIGHT
: thing (which is what you said) means to do what G-d said, because
: that's what makes it right!

Euthphro's Dilemma?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

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




Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:29:06 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Shechting animals upside down


Michael Makovi wrote:
>>  I am absolutely stunned by this. This practice of only shechting when
>>  the animal is on it's back has become very widespread and has led to
>>  many problems. To find out that it has no halachic basis is very
>>  disturbing.
> 
> Did anyone ever claim that it DID have halachic basis? I thought it
> was universally understood that there was no basis for this, and it
> was all a senseless chumra?

What have you been reading.  That is certainly *NOT* universally
"understood".  And the Israeli Rabbanut will not allow the import of
meat that is not shechita munachat.

 
> Think about it: in Biblical times, did they have giant steel conveyor
> belts that could be used to hoist a cow upside down? And what do you
> think they did in Yemen? Obviously, they had no way AFAIK to feasibly
> hoist it upside down, and therefore, it cannot be a halachic
> requirement. Aside from what the textual sources say, the practical
> impossibility of it in non-technological circumstances guarantees IMO,
> AFAIK that it could never have been a chiyuv.

No technology is needed to lie an animal down on the ground and roll
it over, which is what was done.  Shechita munachat is *not* some
recent invention.

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



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:28:23 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] O attend R wedding = kosher eidim?


> We don't hold like Tosafos, though. We presume very little to define
>  the eidim as a separate appointed kat. Even those who want, lechumrah,
>  to be chosheish for their shitah and make an explicit appointment of
>  the eidim would not invalidate the qidushin le'achar ma'aseh. It's not
>  ikar hadin.
>
>  We can't revive a rejected shitah for the sake of permitting agunos,
>  as it would also destroy numerous (the overwhelming majority) of
>  marriages.
>
>  SheTir'u baTov!
>  -micha

Hold up a second - I'm confused. EMT said Tosafot holds that all the
potential witnesses in the vicinity count, while the contrary
(majority) opinion says only the specifically designated witnesses
count.

Therefore, I said that according to Tosafot, an O at an R wedding is
no problem, because all the Rs in the vicinity will pasul him. And
according to the other opinion, since the designated eidim are R, the
Os in the vicinity don't matter.

My solution to agunot, viz. grill the designated witnesses, would thus
seem to fit with the non-Tosafot opinion of designated witnesses.

But now you *imply* that the positions are switched - Tosafot holds
only the designated witnesses count, while everyone else says that
anyone in the vicinity counts. According to this, my aguna solution
only works with minority Tosafot but not majority (but at least O at
an R wedding is still no problem, since both shitot have no problem
with it, it doesn't matter who said what). But if EMT switched the
positions, I'd have expected an explicit declaration of this fact from
you, rather than an implication. So could you please clarify?

Mikha'el Makovi



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:00:26 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] dalei dalim


     Regarding the requirement for a chatas k'vuah rather than a korban
     oleh v'yoreid,  R. Jacob Farkas wrote, "Whether this is fair to people
     who have no means, yes and no. So long as the punishment for the crime
     is known beforehand, it might actually be a greater deterrent for the
     person without means, knowing that in order to 
receive Kaparah, he would have to spend outside of his means."

     The reason of deterrent would seem not to be applicable, since in virtually all cases, the korban is only for shogeg.

EMT
_____________________________________________________________
Click now and invest wisely with these mutual fund resources!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3nobGWswKIMA8JZrJ1NIy8QwXUTEiwdEItOXnTQyiNKhVj8O/





Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:35:37 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] schechtworthy


Jacob Farkas wrote:

> I was curious whether it is fair to apply the standards of yesteryear to 
> the modern day Shoheit. The role of a Shoheit today has (in most cases) 
> been drastically reduced, given that he is usually part of a larger 
> operation that has a league of Kosher overseers who decide matters of 
> policy, procedure, and more particularly, decide the Kashrus of any 
> specific animal in question.

There has been no change.  Only the shochet himself knows how well he
checked the smoothness of the chalef, or whether anything went wrong
during the shechita.  No larger operation can check these things.  It
relies entirely on his ne'emanut and yirat shamayim.  Just as nobody
but the sofer himself knows whether a mezuzah or a set of tefilin
parshiyot was written in order.

(They do have a chalef-checker, but he doesn't check as often as the
shochet himself does; even in the old days the shochet had to have the
rov check his chalef regularly, but the primary responsibility was on
the shochet himself.)

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



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:55:33 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] dalei dalim


>      Regarding the requirement for a chatas k'vuah rather than a korban 
> oleh v'yoreid,  R. Jacob Farkas wrote,
> "Whether this is fair to people who have no means, yes and no. So long 
> as the punishment for the crime is known
> beforehand, it might actually be a greater deterrent for the person 
> without means, knowing that in order
> to
> receive Kaparah, he would have to spend outside of his means."

R' Elazar M. Teitz:
>      The reason of deterrent would seem not to be applicable, since in 
> virtually all cases, the korban is only for shogeg.

Shogeig is not Oneis. The later would not be required to bring a Qorban 
Hatas either. Shogeig implies that there was avoidable error. Had the 
person been more meticulous, he could have avoided the situation 
altogether. That is why he needs (or is capable of receiving) Kaparah in 
the first place.

In any event, the price for Kaparah is the same numerically for all, 
rich or poor. Effectively, it is at a greater cost to the poor person. 
This would appear unfair. It can be balanced if the price serves as a 
detterent. Those who stand to lose more, have more incentive to be 
meticulous.

--Jacob Farkas



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:24:31 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] schechtworthy


> Jacob Farkas wrote:
> 
>  > I was curious whether it is fair to apply the standards of yesteryear to
>  > the modern day Shoheit. The role of a Shoheit today has (in most cases)
>  > been drastically reduced, given that he is usually part of a larger
>  > operation that has a league of Kosher overseers who decide matters of
>  > policy, procedure, and more particularly, decide the Kashrus of any
>  > specific animal in question.

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> There has been no change.  Only the shochet himself knows how well he
> checked the smoothness of the chalef, or whether anything went wrong
> during the shechita.  No larger operation can check these things.  It
> relies entirely on his ne'emanut and yirat shamayim.  Just as nobody
> but the sofer himself knows whether a mezuzah or a set of tefilin
> parshiyot was written in order.
> 
> (They do have a chalef-checker, but he doesn't check as often as the
> shochet himself does; even in the old days the shochet had to have the
> rov check his chalef regularly, but the primary responsibility was on
> the shochet himself.)

I agree that nothing changed with Safrus. The amount of time it takes to
check/or write a Mezuzah is the same now as it always was. The person
you trust is the Sofer alone.

I can't disagree more with Shehitah though. The number of chickens that
are slaughtered per minute does not afford the Shoheit the opportunity
to treat each individual Shehitah as thoroughly as in the past. Fewer
tasks and responsibilities are performed by the modern Shoheit, and his
ne'emanus alone does not suffice for the community to eat from his
Shehitah. (He is most often anonymous). Rather it is the reputation of
the certifying agency that is trusted.

I didn't say the Shoheit can be an avaryan, but I did suggest that it is
fair to consider that his role is diminished and perhaps so should his
prerequisites. His job is at stake if he doesn't follow guidelines, and
his actions on the floor are not without other supervision, he is no
longer 100% bein adam lamaqom.

In "di heim," the Rav checking the Halaf of the Shoheit was done quite
infrequently, AFAIK.

--Jacob Farkas






Go to top.

Message: 13
From: "Daniel Israel" <dmi1@hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:48:29 -0600
Subject:
[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Re: [Areivim] rabbi org)


On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:05:46 -0600 Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org wrote:
>http://www.forward.com/articles/12864/  if  RCA  doesnt recognize 
>YCT, liberal O sees need for new org... the beginning of a new 
judaism 
>branch?

I posted something about this to Areivim, but the article, which 
mentions RMAngel and the possibility of creating a new network of 
batei din, got me thinking.  Slightly tangential to the original 
post, so I am renaming the thread and moving it to Avodah.

The SA (IIRC, I don't have it here in front of me) describes the 
chinuch associated with geirus in a way that sounds pretty minimal, 
which is the basis for R' Angel's shita.  However, it seems to me 
that there is no independent requirement for a person to learn for 
geirus: the requirement is a consequence of two other issues.  
First, a person can't be m'kabel ol mitzvos without a basic 
understanding of what the mitzvos are.  Second, as a matter of lo 
siten michshol, we shouldn't be m'gayir a person before he knows 
enough to be shomer mitzvos.

The simple version of my question is whether the objection that has 
been raised against RMA is regarding the first or the second.  I 
definitely hear the second, but as far as the first, the suggestion 
that that is exactly p'shat in the SA seems pretty compelling.  
(That is, the SA is indeed describing a process much less stringent 
than what we do today, as RMA suggests, but he is simply telling us 
the minimum chinuch before we can rely on the person to be m'kabel 
ol mitzvos; he isn't teaching us policy as far as what the person 
needs to be taught.)  If that analysis is right, then the argument 
is a policy one, which shouldn't have any effect to pasul a geirus 
b'deivad.

After all, the reason why this is not simply one more area where 
the RW and LW just hold by different shitos is because of the long 
term implications.

If this is not the issue, that is, if there are those who are 
suggesting that a geirus in the format suggested by RMA is actually 
posul, what is the basis?  Are they suggesting that we can't rely 
on a beis din that takes such an approach?  That seems untenable, 
as we are undeniably taking about talmidei chachamim and shomrei 
mitzvos.  Or are they objecting that there is no real kabbalas ol 
mitzvos without a much more stringent learning program?

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 96
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


< Previous Next >