Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 30

Fri, 06 Feb 2009

• 1. Re: ancient minhagim (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (I. Balbin)
• 6. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Early morning minyan (Micha Berger)
• 9. Darchei Limud (Micha Berger)
• 10. Geneivat Da'at/Onaat Devarim for a Ben Noa'h (Arie Folger)
• 11. Fight or Flight? (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: Fight or Flight? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: child abuse and moser (MSDra...@aol.com)

David Riceman wrote:
  
> Don't forget the Talmudic practice "la'asukei Shama'tsa aliba 
> d'hilchasa", which I would translate as "to construe a text so that it 
> will harmonize with normative halacha".  Normally that implies that the 
> text is not being read kipshuto.

I have understood that to mean that one merits to hit on the correct
interpretation.  Not to already know the halacha and deliberately force
the source text to match it, but to interpret the source as best one can,
and then to find that it matches the halacha, and therefore that one got
it right.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Liron Kopinsky wrote:
>     WADR, barring any specific sources on this question (which no one
>     has introduced) it would seem more likely to me that we must go back
>     to the original takanah, which (at least in part) was related to the
>     possibility of using yayin for AZ.  It would seem to me that if we
>     add enough mevushal to make the yayin pasul for nesicha, then the
>     takannah shouldn't apply.  
> 
> 
> Why would the shiur that would pasul wine for use in the Beit Hamikdash 
> affect its usability for AZ? The goyim don't follow our halachot.

That is a long-standing puzzle.  Since they don't follow our halachot, why
do we assume that cooking wine -- even boiling the life out of it -- would
prevent them from using it for nisuch.  And yet that is exactly what we do
assume.  I can only conclude that if it's pasul for our nisuch, then
whatever they do with it doesn't count halachically as nisuch laA"Z, so
we don't care. They can call whatever they do whatever they like, but we
don't call it nisuch, so the wine remains permitted.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha Berger wrote:

> KSA 46:4, "Tavshil sheyayin me'areiv bo ve'eino nikar ... eino
> ne'e'sar..."

That's min beshe'eno mino.  Different rules.  If the wine was nikar on
its own, then it could still become nesech, perhaps.

 
> 46:5 Talks about 1/6 in terms of mizug, not bitul.
> 
> 46:9 speaks of the aku"m sheshafakh mayim lesokh hayahin ... unless
> we are sure he indended limzago -- mutar.
> 
> Sounds like mizug is 1/6 wine-to-water, and otherwise water could patur
> it with even less. How much less, I don't see him discuss. Just shafakh.

That's water, which *belongs* in wine.  How about cooked wine, which is
(we assume) pasul lenisuch; how much of it passels uncooked wine?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 06:07:29PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: >KSA 46:4, "Tavshil sheyayin me'areiv bo ve'eino nikar ... eino
: >ne'e'sar..."

: That's min beshe'eno mino.  Different rules.  If the wine was nikar on
: its own, then it could still become nesech, perhaps.

: >46:5 Talks about 1/6 in terms of mizug, not bitul.
: >46:9 speaks of the aku"m sheshafakh mayim lesokh hayahin ... unless
: >we are sure he indended limzago -- mutar.
...
: That's water, which *belongs* in wine.  How about cooked wine, which is
: (we assume) pasul lenisuch; how much of it passels uncooked wine?

I wasn't sufficiently clear. I was looking for other ways to make the
wine usable. I don't know the shiur for shofeich lesokh hayayin, but
what if you could do it by pouring in more water than is normally used
for mezigah (which for today's wines is 0, no?) but not enough to ruin
the wine (for us non-connisors)? Or what if Rn Wolpoe used the wine for
cooking, instead?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

>
>
> KSA 46:4, "Tavshil sheyayin me'areiv bo ve'eino nikar ... eino
> ne'e'sar..."
>
> 46:5 Talks about 1/6 in terms of mizug, not bitul.
>
> 46:9 speaks of the aku"m sheshafakh mayim lesokh hayahin ... unless
> we are sure he indended limzago -- mutar.
>
> Sounds like mizug is 1/6 wine-to-water, and otherwise water could  
> patur it with even less. How much less, I don't see him discuss.  
> Just shafakh.

I think this is clearly a case of Zil Bosar Taymeh (sic)

Sugar added to wine also pasuls the wine for nisuch hamizbeach. I  
believe that this is provided that there is a Shinuy Mehoos as  
exemplified by the change in taste (the question of sulfite additives  
would perhaps be different as they aren't designed to change the  
taste, but yes, I know, the better wines don't have them and my own  
stomache prefers wine without)

Let's assume X spoons of sugar changed the taste and that less than X  
would not be noticed on the palate and hence would be considered yayin  
and therefore something which is fit for Nisuch HaMizbeach.

What if I took liquid sweetner and poured it into the Wine such that  
the "sweetness" level was the same as that contributed by X. Clearly  
even if there was less than 1/6 it ought to be a shinuy hateva of the  
wine (yes, I know that 1/6 is dilution specific to water).

Accordingly, in my uneducated opinion, unless the yayin mevushal is  
going to cause a level of shinuy in the wine to take it out of the  
category of "regular" wine then it would be of no assistance in  
mitigating a future issur.

Having said that, taste obviously isn't the only criteria to change  
the mehus of of yayin. Yayin which is cooked may in fact not taste  
very different at all to yayin which is not cooked. We have two ways  
of looking at this. One way is to say, that at the time of the Gemora  
the taste was different, and perhaps today this doesn't apply, but  
since chazal were already magdir, we don't extend issurim. The other  
way is to say that the taste was not very different back then either,  
but there was a change in the mehus of the yayin vis a vis the process  
(see also the issue of  reconstituted grape juice in Minchas Shlomo).  
In the case at hand, there isn't any change in the process, nor would  
I argue would there be a change in the taste or the mehus, and I would  
tend to say that it is of no value to add some yayin mevushal to yayin  
that is not mevushal in order to remove the possibility of stam yeynom. 

Micha Berger wrote:

> I wasn't sufficiently clear. I was looking for other ways to make the
> wine usable. I don't know the shiur for shofeich lesokh hayayin, but
> what if you could do it by pouring in more water than is normally used
> for mezigah (which for today's wines is 0, no?) but not enough to ruin
> the wine (for us non-connisors)? Or what if Rn Wolpoe used the wine for
> cooking, instead?

Except that mezigah is 1 part wine to 6 parts water, which would
certanly ruin it for everyone.  As wine, anyway.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 10:18:10PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: Except that mezigah is 1 part wine to 6 parts water, which would
: certanly ruin it for everyone.  As wine, anyway.

And except that the Qitzur says that adding water not for mezigah also
destroys its wine-ness. And thus one doesn't need to add that much
water. It might mean asing the nachriyah to do it, though, since 46:9
says "aku"m sheshafakh".

I'm comparing 46:9 to 46:5 (more water than mizug).

On a different discussion, I wonder about mezigah's definition today.
Today's wine is naturally thinner (perhaps we store it in more evaporation
proof keilim?) and bred to be better tasting than wine was in the gemara's
day. No need to spice, add honey, or water it down. And in fact, people
don't.

Why is mezigah still defined as up to 1:6 wine for today's wines?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:32:56AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
:> Yes, for each chazan as an individual, it's a berakhah
:> haseumchah lecheverta, but what preserves that nature
:> for the minyan? Or -- I'll add, starting to think of
:> answers to my own question -- does the minyan not
:> really count for pesuqei dezimra?

: Yes, I too suspect that your closing line answers the question.

: We need a minyan for kaddish. We need a minyan and a chazan for
: barchu....

<Tangent>
    Is it "Borkhu" or "Barekhu"? (Qamatz qatan, sheva nach, or qamatz
    gadol sheva na?) Ashirah Lashem <http://www.aishdas.org/siddur.shtml>
    has "Barekhu", but what do I know? A personal observation about
    my own journey: I invested a lot of effort trying to recreate the
    nusach of RYBS for it. Happens to be IMHO an endless effort, since
    his own nusach evolved over time and therefore you get conflicting
    eidus. Still, I don't think if I were putting it together today,
    I would have chosen his nusach in particular.
</Tangent>

: Switching chazanim between Baruch She'amar and Yishtabach doesn't retain
: unity. They don't have any unity to retain. (Tzibur-wise, I mean. Each
: chazan must be sure to say both. It's just that each chazan says one
: aloud and the other quietly.)

Then how can we say the Qaddish after it?

Let me step back a second. Say I went to a beris and got held up in
traffic. Now I'm davening during everyone else's breakfast. When I
finish Barekhu, do I say Qaddish because a minyan is there?

Let's say a group of people were learning different things in the same
beis medrash. Someone gets up, and without the usual "R' Chanania ben
Aqashia omeir" starts Qaddish deRabbanan. Was he correct? (And is
the need for unity part of why we have the minhag of learning RCbAO?)

I based this conversation on the assumption is that the answer is "no"
-- that the positioning of this Qaddish is based on the tzibur finishing
the unit of Pesuqei deZimra or the tzibur learning. And therefore the
whole question of whether the minyan had a semuchah lechaverta or not
became relevent.

But the truth is that the two concepts of "chavita" -- that for Qaddish
and that for berakhos -- needn't be the same.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

More along the lines of RYGB's "An Analysis of Darchei HaLimud
(Methodologies of Talmud Study) Centering on a Cup of Tea",
I found the following on the WikiPedia page on RCBrisker
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Soloveitchik>:
> He had six main students; his sons Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik and Rabbi
> Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik, Rabbi Baruch Ber Lebowitz, Rabbi Isser
> Zalman Meltzer, Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman, and Rabbi Shimon Shkop.

> A witty anecdote is used to illustrate how the three of them differed in
> their studies and related to their teacher: it is said that had Reb
> Chaim said, "This table is a cow," Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik would
> say that the table had the same Talmudic laws as a cow, Rabbi Shimon
> Shkop would say the molecules in a table could be rearranged into a cow,
> but Rabbi Boruch Ber Leibowitz would go milk the table.

My apologies if I am the only person to whom this is new.

(BTW, I found it when I was looking for a collection of anecdotes about
RCB's chessed. If you have a good URL, kindly send it to me (offlist).)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Rabaussaj,

On my blog (http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/ ) I posted a video
comparing two news broadcasts of the same incident in a refugee camp
in YeSH, where it is blatantly noticeable that, through omission of a
crucial fact by France3, it strongly implied that the Israeli military
was responsible for the death of a six year old Arab child. In the
same video, you can see the report of the same incident by another
French TV station, TF1, which report one additional minor, but somehow
crucial fact: the bullet came from a Palestinian Arab terrorist.

This issue got me thinking about the following. First of all, is
withholding such information assur for a Jew (we'll ignore for a
moment that such blood libels incite others to violence, because once
we start mentioning piqua'h nefesh and eyva, we'll no longer be able
to analyze the finer points)?

The Tzitz Eli'ezer quotes a Yad Rema, who extends the assey
prohibition of midevar sheqer tir'haq to written material, as well,
which would include multimedia, his point being that sheqer is sheqer
even if you use alternate communication channels, and didn't actually
say anything. So, it would seem that this is sheqer by omission. That,
in turn, may be a form of motzi shem ra' and onaat devarim.

But is that so? Is omission sheqer deOraita?

In the case of broadcasts by subscribers, we may add that there is
commercial wrongdoing of the geneivat da'at type, as the clients
assume that they are buying factually correct news, while it isn't.
Likewise, in cases where the news is syndicated by other channels and
payment is passed from local channels to news provider, there may be a
case of geneivat da'at. However, what about advertising supported
networks (which most are), are the advertisers clients of the entire
offering, as they peg their reputation on the channels where they
recruit customers?

Finally, since the networks aren't Jewish, does any of this apply to
non Jews? The prohibition of Sheqer seems disconnected from any of the
7 mitzvot BN, so that seems inapplicable.

Onaah mentions ish et a'hiv and 'amito, which both seem to be
regarding fellow Jews. But is it? The exception to the prohibition of
onaat devarim regarding a rasha is explained by either RSZA or the
Shevet haLevi (don't recall, sorry) as being a particular aspect of
tokhe'ha, and hence, when the mitzvah of tokhe'ha cannot be fulfilled,
either because one won't be successful, doesn't have the influence, or
because there is no such obligation regarding a nokhri, then the issur
of onaat devarim returns in full force. Is that obligation two sidede,
or are only Jews prevented from onaat devarim, while benei Noa'h are
free to do as they please?

How about motzi shem ra'?

Your thoughts will be much appreciated,
Good Shabbos,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

The Torah that God gave us is all inclusive, all-embracing, all
pervading. It has the answers to all problems, even though we cannot
always decode its language. The Torah is not afraid. We do not have to
retreat into isolation or solitude because the street is "contaminated".
To retreat means to lose. "Tehillat nefilah nisa, the beginning of
defeat is flight," the Talmud says (Sotah 44b). The enemy will conquer
when the army begins to withdraw, to retreat, to flee.
 
From R'YBS as quoted in The Seder Night
 
KT

Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090206/7e2c5fad/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 09:30:01AM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: The Torah that God gave us is all inclusive, all-embracing, all
: pervading. It has the answers to all problems, even though we cannot
: always decode its language....
: From R'YBS as quoted in The Seder Night

This, from the man who says that the Jewish question about evil isn't
"Why?" but "How does G-d call on me to respond?" In Qol Dodi Dofeiq
(where I also got the above idea), he bedavka rejects the whole effort
of trying to answer tzadiq vera lo, saying all such efforts would either
be emotionally cold or intellectually dishonest, and likely both.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

The gedolei ha-poskim have already weighed in on this:  (excerpt from  my 
article on this issue: The 411 on 911: Reporting Jewish Abusers to the Civil  
Authorities" available at _http://jsafe.org/pdfs/mesirah.pdf_ 
(http://jsafe.org/pdfs/mesirah.pdf) .)
 
 
Rambam notes that  the prohibition of mesirah restricts a private individual 
who is  being harassed from making a report to the civil authorities. However, 
when  there is a meitzar ha-tzibbur (public menace), informing is  
permissible.48 While this would  seem to restrict an abused wife from calling the 
authorities on her husband, or  a concerned party from reporting an abusive parent, 
this is not the case. First,  the rate of recidivism in child abuse cases is 
high and therefore a child  molester can be considered a ?public menace.?49 
Second, Shakh records that where a person is a repeat abuser (?ragil  le-hakot?
strikes on a continuing basis?), one is permitted to report him to  the 
non-Jewish authorities in order to prevent him from abusing  again.50 And third,  
Geresh Yerahim limits Rambam?s reading of the Talmudic statement above  (Gittin 
7a) to situations in which the abused faces no real personal  harm. He points 
to Rashi?s explanation of Mar ?Ukba?s complaint that ?Certain  men are 
annoying me,? explaining that they were merely insulting  him.51 But, if Mar ?Ukba 
 would have been subjected to greater injury, i.e., physical or financial 
harm,  it would have been permissible for him to complain to the non-Jewish  
authorities, even though he is just an individual. Similarly, Me?irat Einayim adds 
that the distress of the private individual that is forbidden to report  is 
tza?ar be-alma (general distress). However, if one is the subject of  assault 
or attacks, reporting is permitted.  
In  addition, there are situations in which a rabbinic court is ineffective,  
incapable of adjudicating and powerless to protect victims. This can be for 
any  number of reasons: perhaps one of the parties will not appear before it, 
perhaps  a party will not feel bound by its decision, or perhaps the bet din 
will  be unable to protect one of the litigants from physical or financial harm. 
 Rabbeinu Gershom Ma?or ha-Golah understood that even if someone agrees to  
come to the rabbinic court, he may be doing so only because he thinks he can  
delay or obfuscate the proceedings, or because he feels that he will be able to 
 avoid certain punishment or fines if he avoids the civil courts. Rabbeinu  
Gershom enacted that in such cases the bet din should give the other  party 
permission to go to the general court.52 Radbaz confirms that ?this is the  
practice of all rabbinic courts in every generation in order not to give the  upper 
hand to aggressors and intimidators who do not respect the judgment [of  the 
bet din].?53  
In a  ruling of great significance for victims of abuse, Rema writes, ?A 
person who  attacks others should be punished. If the Jewish authorities do not 
have the  power to punish him, he must be punished by the civil  authorities.?54 
According to  Rema, the victim has the right to go to the civil authorities 
not just to  prevent an attack, but to seek punishment and justice for an 
attack that has  already taken place.55 
Rabbi Shalom  Yosef Elyahiv ruled that one may report a child abuser to the 
civil authorities  in America, but only if he is certain about the abuse; a 
false report that can  destroy a person?s reputation and life.60 And Rabbi Shmuel 
 HaLevi Wosner, author of Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, applies this reading of  
the Talmud to the case of a tax agent who must report tax fraud to the  
government for prosecution. Rabbi Wosner obligates this Jew to do so, arguing  that 
1) this is the law of the country and 2) the report will not cause the  
imposition of a dangerous sentence on a Jew.61  
Furthermore, a  child abuser is worse than a meitzar and is in the category 
of rodef concerning whom one is permitted to do anything to stop the  attack.62 
  
Others maintain  the prohibitions of mesirah and arka?ot do not apply to 
these  situations altogether. R. Yitzchak Weiss avers that the state has an 
interest in  the safety and welfare of its citizens and one may report those who are 
 endangering that safety.63 Rabbi Herschel  Schachter stated that the 
prohibition of mesirah applies only when  testimony assists civil authorities in 
illegally obtaining the money of, or  excessively punishing, another Jew. It does 
not obtain when it aids a non-Jewish  government in fulfilling such rightful 
duties as collecting appropriate taxes or  punishing criminals. When the 
information concerns the criminal activities of a  fellow Jew?as long as the Jewish 
criminal has also violated a Torah law and even  if the punishment will be 
more severe than the Torah prescribes64?the ban of  mesirah does not apply.65  
Arokh ha-Shulhan maintains that  mesirah was prohibited because of the nature 
of the autocratic  governments under which Jews lived throughout much of 
history. Such informing  often led to dangerous persecution of the entire Jewish 
community. He maintains  that this injunction does not apply to those societies 
in which the government  is generally fair and nondiscriminatory.66  
We  are not concerned that the procedures of a civil court differ from those 
of a  bet din or that the testimony that the former accepts may be invalid in  
the latter or even that the punishment may be more severe than that imposed 
by  Jewish law (Sanhedrin 46a). 
Jewish law grants  the ability to impose unauthorized punishment, to accept 
otherwise unacceptable  witnesses, all at the discretion of the judges, 
according to what they deem  proper and fitting.67 
48 Hoshen  Mishpat 388:12, according to the text  quoted by Shakh, no. 59, 
and Gra, no. 71.  
49 Rabbi Eliezer  Waldenberg, quoted in Nishmat Avraham, IV, p. 209, 
maintains that for  this reason, child molesters must be reported to civil 
authorities. See R. Asher  Zelig Weiss, ?Mesirah la-shiltonot be-hashud be-hit?olelut 
be-yeladim? in  Yeshurun, 5765, p. 659; R. Yehudah Silman, ?Teshuvah le-shei?
lah  be-inyan divu-ah al pegiyot be-yeladim? in Yeshurun, 5765, p. 661.  
50 Shakh,  Hoshen Mishpat 388, no. 45 and 60.  
51 Rashi, s.v. ha?omdim ?alai.  
52  Manuscript Frankfurt 123, see Rabbi H. Shlomo  Sha?anan, Hafna?at tove?a 
le-bet Mishpat, Tehumin XII, p. 252. See  Piskei Ri MiKorbeil in Sha?anan, 
Ner LiShmaya, pesak 69.  
53 Radbaz to  Rambam, Hovel u-Mazik 8.  
54 Hoshen  Mishpat 388:7 and Shakh, no.  45; See also gloss of Rema to Hoshen 
Mishpat 388:9; Ba?i Hayei and  Maharam miRiszburg cited in Pahad Yitzhak, Ma?
arekhet Hovel  be-Haveiro.  
55 See Darkei Moshe, Hoshen Mishpat 388 and Teshuvot Maharam MiRizbork cited 
by Shakh.   
56 See Rashba quoted  in Bet Yosef, Hoshen Mishpat 388.  
57 See R. Moshe  Halberstam, Mesirah le-shiltonot be-mi she-mitolel 
be-yeladav in  Yeshurun 5765, pp. 643-651.  
58 Ritva to Baba  Mezi?a 83b.  
59 Teshuvot  Rashba, III:393;  Bet Yosef, Hoshen Mishpat 388.  
?She-eilah  be-inyan hoda?ah la-memshalah al hit?olelut be-yeled ?o  
be-yaldah?  in Yeshurun, p. 641. 60  
61 Teshuvot Shevet  ha-Levi II:58. See also  Teshuvot Iggerot Moshe, Hoshen 
Mishpat I:92, which, in a similar  situation allows the tax agent to report 
because even if he did not reports,  others would, thus relieving the Jew of sole 
responsibility..   
62 R. Moshe  Halberstam, Mesirah le-shiltonot be-mi she-mit?olel be-yeladav 
in  Yeshurun 5765, p. 646.  
63 Teshuvot Minhat  Yitzhak VIII:148  
64 Ran to  Sanhedrin 46a. See, however, Teshuvot Rema, no 88, who maintains  
that according to Tosafot, Baba Kama 114a, s.v. ve-lo, if  the punishment 
exceeds that prescribed by the Torah, the mesirah prohibition maintains.  
65 Rabbi Herschel  Schachter, ?Dina De-Malchuta Dina,? Journal of Halachah 
and Contemporary  Society, I:1, 1981, p. 118.  
66 Arukh  haShulhan, Hoshen Mishpat 388:7. This  source is authoritatively 
cited by R. Gedalia Dov Schwartz in ?The Abused Child:  Halakhic Insights,? Ten 
Da?at, Sivan 5748, p. 12.  
67 Hoshen Mishpat 2:1; Teshuvot ha-Rashba III:393;  Teshuvot Panim Me?irot 
II:155.   
**************Great Deals on Dell Laptops. Starting at $499. 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1217883258x1201191827/aol?
redir=http://ad.doubleclick.
net/clk;211531132;33070124;e)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090206/7e521fac/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 30
**************************************

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..."