Volume 29: Number 36
Sun, 11 Mar 2012
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:02:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Dead-Letter Halakhoth
On 9 March 2012 02:15, Jay F Shachter <j...@m5.chicago.il.us> wrote:
> ?One example,
> perhaps not the best but certainly the most timely, is the halakha
> that you should observe Purim on the 15th of Adar in Shushan, and in
> any other city that was walled in ancient times.
Only if it was walled in Yehoshua's time.
> ?But does any Jew
> observe this halakha outside of Israel, or, in fact, outside of the
> Jerusalem area?
Which other cities are known to have been walled then?
> ?It seems to be the case that in every city outside of
> the Jerusalem area that was walled in ancient times, the Jews who live
> there have decided that for some reason or another that particular
> halakha does not apply to them.
They are simply not aware that their city was walled in Yehoshua's time, if
in fact it was.
> ?I am not talking about cities that,
> at some point in their history, were burnt to the ground, and then
> rebuilt, perhaps in not exactly the same place. ?I am talking about
> cities like, e.g., Beijing, that never were.
If you can find evidence that it was walled in Yehoshua's day, then I have
no doubt that Rabbi Freundlich will start keeping Shushan Purim and will
make a big deal out of it!
> Another example -- and perhaps there is a different mechanism at work
> in this case, I haven't thought carefully and done a thorough
> taxonomic classification of all these examples -- is when Jews ignore
> the halakha that you can't live in a city that has no mikveh.
Where is this halacha to be found? I'm unaware of it, so maybe they are too.
> Consider another halakha that has, de facto, been defined out of
> existence, the halakha that you aren't allowed to mourn for a suicide.
> I have never seen anyone behave as if this halakha existed.
AFAIK it doesn't apply if 1) the person was out of his mind and therefore annus,
or 2) if the person had time to regret his action before he died, and
can therefore
be presumed to have done teshuvah.
> as if the Sages
> did not know that every suicide suffers -- and should be treated as an
> "oness", someone who sins under extenuating circumstances. ?(What kind
> of suicide do they think the Sages were taking about? ?The kind that
> doesn't suffer?)
Maybe the category of suicides to whom the halacha applies is in fact empty,
or nearly so. Maybe the point of the halacha's existence is to emphasise the
seriousness of the issue, and to persuade those contemplating it to desist.
But there are at least some suicides that are done with a clear mind; people
who have rationally calculated their future prospects and very reasonably
decided that life holds no more pleasure for them, and the only reason *not*
to kill themselves is that Hashem forbids it. And if they don't believe that,
or they decide that they don't care, *and* they choose a method that gives
them no time afterwards to do teshuvah, then I assume the halacha would
be applied to them.
> And as long as we are talking about funerals, consider the halakha
> that you're not allowed to deliver a eulogy on, e.g., Xol HaMo'ed. ?I
> have never seen anyone behave as if this halakha existed. ?There is a
> slightly different mechanism involved in this case: people admit that
> the halakha applies to them; they deny that they are violating it.
> Practically speaking, this halakha has only a single consequence: the
> sole difference between a funeral conducted on Xol HaMo`ed and a
> funeral conducted on a regular day of the year is that at a funeral
> conducted on Xol HaMo`ed, every speaker begins his remarks by saying,
> "hespedim are forbidden on xol hamo`ed" and there is no other
> perceptible difference.
Really? I only remember going to one chol hamoed funeral, my great-aunt
Shirley's, and there were no hespedim. I can't speak for your experience.
Note, though, that divrei kivushim are not hespedim, even if said at a funeral.
--
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:25:54 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] achashveros
<< Honestly. He wrote an entire book arguing about how Chazal were totally
wrong about the Persian period. The fascinating thing is that his primary
reason for holding this position is that Greek sources say they were. But
then in this article, he suggests numerous times that
Herodotus was wrong about fairly major things. >>
The problem is that Tanach agrees with Herodotus and not with Chazal. In
order for the Talmud to use their chronology they are forced to say that
various different names in Tanach refer to the same king while in fact the
list aligns exactly with various Greek sources.
Furthermore it is highly unlikely that Greek historians made up the
Greco-Persian wars. Cyrus captured some Ionian islands and eventually
Babylonia. Darius of course had major battles against the Greeks including
Marathon in 490 BCE,
The Peloponnesian War*,* is usually given as 431 to 404 BCE. ie it ended
almost 90 years later way more than the entire length of the Persian empire
according to Chazal. It is again highly unlikely that Greek historians
could be that far off on events that most Greeks would know about.
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120310/0cc51465/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:31:10 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: re: Who Is Poor On Purim?
: Someone sent me the following, and for some reason thinks that it reveals
: infomation about which side of the scholarship system he is on, so he
: asked for anonymity.
: R' Ben Waxman quoted an anonymous "Joe", who asked:
:> We send our children to day school almost completely on
:> scholarship. ...
:> ...
:> Let me add one thing: my wife insists that we should keep the
:> money and we do need it as we have many expenses that we ought to
:> pay but cannot. I insist that we are not poor, and halacha thus
:> simply prohibits us from taking this money on Purim, even as what
:> is now close to an extra pay check would help make ends meet.
: Let me begin by asking the chevra to focus on the definition of "who is
: poor" (as the thread title indicates) and let's not get sidetracked into
: discussions about the "Tuition Crisis".
: That said, I do not understand Joe's logic, and I side with his rabbi
: and wife. By his own account, "we have many expenses that we ought to
: pay but cannot." If so, then why does he make an exception for the day
: school scholarship?
: He writes, "I insist that we are not poor, and halacha thus simply
: prohibits us from taking this money on Purim." If so, then how does he
: justify taking communal funds to pay for his day school tuition?
: What do others think? Is paying yeshiva tuition different from paying
: the rent or the electricity or the grocery, that one can accept communal
: funds to help pay for the tuition but not for the others?
Li nir'eh that while the father has primary duty to educate a child, one
might argue that if this is for some reason impossible, there is a chiyuv
of chinukh that falls to the qehillah beyond the chiyuv of tzedaqah. See
Rashi on "veshinantam levanekha" (Dev' 6:7) -- "eilu talmidekha", and
then proofs that "banim" is often used to mean "talmidim". A school has
a chiyuv to educate its talmidim.
Second, money is fungable. Is there a real difference between a
scholarship that frees up tuition money so that the family can pay
for home heating fuel, or tzedaqah that pays for the fuel, freeing up
more money for tuition? This may have been what the emailer meant,
but scholarship /is/ tzedaqah, just like any other; it just happens
to be a more socially acceptable way of receiving it. Willingness to
accept something called a "scholarship rather than "tzedaqah", may
prove that it's more about simple ego than the more positive ideals of
self-sufficiency and freeing up tzedaqah for needier people.
Gut Voch!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:52:49 -0600
Subject: Re: [Avodah] achashveros
On 3/10/2012 2:25 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> << Honestly. He wrote an entire book arguing about how Chazal were
> totally
> wrong about the Persian period. The fascinating thing is that his
> primary reason for holding this position is that Greek sources say
> they were. But then in this article, he suggests numerous times that
> Herodotus was wrong about fairly major things. >>
>
> The problem is that Tanach agrees with Herodotus and not with Chazal.
> In order for the Talmud to use their chronology they are forced to say
> that various different names in Tanach refer to the same king while in
> fact the list aligns exactly with various Greek sources.
It doesn't, really. Nor does the Tanach agree with Herodotus. I mean,
we could just go straight to Darius the Mede, who doesn't exist in Greek
sources at all, let alone Herodotus. That alone disproves your assertion.
But then there are the kohanim gedolim. If Yehotzadak was kohen gadol
during Bayit Rishon, he must have been at least 30, yes? If he was
still alive in the second year of Darius the Persian, he would have been
at least 100 years old. It's unlikely that Yeshua, who was the kohen
gadol at that time, would have been much younger than 80 (although
granted, that's not provable one way or the other).
Nechemiah 13:4-6 says that Yeshua's grandson Elyashiv was kohen gadol in
the 32nd year of Artachshast. According to the Greek chronology,
Artaxerxes I's 32nd year was 87 years after Darius's 2nd year. Never
mind any of the later Artaxerxeses. Even if Elyashiv was 70 at the
time, that still leaves a good century in age between him and his
grandfather, which is fairly unlikely.
But it's Darius the Mede who really kills the idea of Tanach agreeing
with Herodotus.
> Furthermore it is highly unlikely that Greek historians made up the
> Greco-Persian wars. Cyrus captured some Ionian islands and eventually
> Babylonia. Darius of course had major battles against the Greeks
> including Marathon in 490 BCE,
> The Peloponnesian War*,* is usually given as 431 to 404 BCE. ie it
> ended almost 90 years later way more than the entire length of the
> Persian empire according to Chazal. It is again highly unlikely that
> Greek historians could be that far off on events that most Greeks
> would know about.
Who suggests that the Greeks invented the Greco-Persian wars? Does it
make sense to use dates for Marathon that you *know* will be different
under Chazal's chronology? This isn't Artscroll, where they're quite
happy using 421 for the destruction of the First Temple and keeping
Marathon's conventional date.
If you want to see how the Greeks got confused (probably), it's fairly
simple.
Cyrus II Cyrus the Great
Cambyses II Cambyses II
Darius I Darius the Persian
Xerxes I Ahasuerus III
Artaxerxes I Darius the Persian
----------------------------------------
Darius II Darius the Mede
Cyrus III Cyrus the Great
Artaxerxes II Ahasuerus II
Artaxerxes III Darius the Persian
Arses (Xerxes II) Ahasuerus III
Darius III Darius the Persian
On the left we have the ten kings of the Persian Empire accepted by
mainstream scholarship, with the addition of Cyrus the Younger, who has
been added to the list despite the fact that he lost his bid for the
throne and in so doing was declared to be no more than an usurper, after
the fact. On the right we have the names given these same kings
according to the Jewish historical tradition. Finally, we have split the
list after Artaxerxes I and before Darius II.
What we find is two separate lists. The first lists the Persian
succession from the fall of Babylon to the fall of Persia. The second
lists the Medo-Persian succession over the same period. That's of
course according to the idea that there was a rotation agreement between
the Persians and Medes, which is what our sources say was that case.
So that's part of it. Another part of it is that Darius the Mede was
the son of Ahasuerus the Mede, who reigned during the Babylonian Empire,
as did Cyrus I and Cambyses I (who are attested to from the Behistun
Inscription of Darius I). Tanach says that Nebuchadnezzar fought
against the isles of the sea. But he clearly didn't do so according to
any Babylonian inscriptions. On the other hand, since he was Great
King, and other kings (including the king of the Medes) were subordinate
to him, he certainly could have been "credited" with those military
campaigns if they were fought by a Medo-Persian army as his vassals.
Marathon could have happened at that time.
Lisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120310/0a8a8acd/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:10:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Achashverosh
At 09:52 PM 3/10/2012, Lisa Liel wrote:
>On 3/10/2012 2:25 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>><< Honestly. ? He wrote an entire book arguing about how Chazal were totally
>>wrong about the Persian period. ? The
>>fascinating thing is that his? primary reason
>>for holding this position is that Greek sources
>>say they? were. ? But then in this article, he suggests numerous times that
>>Herodotus was wrong about fairly major things.? >>
>>
>>The problem is that Tanach agrees with
>>Herodotus and not with Chazal. In order for the
>>Talmud to use their chronology they are forced
>>to say that various different names in Tanach
>>refer to the same king while in fact the list
>>aligns exactly with various Greek sources.
>
>It doesn't, really.? Nor does the Tanach agree
>with Herodotus.? I mean, we could just go
>straight to Darius the Mede, who doesn't exist
>in Greek sources at all, let alone
>Herodotus.? That alone disproves your assertion.
Is not this discussion tied to the "hidden 168
years" that Rav Shimon Schwab wrote about in
Comparative Jewish Chronology? See http://tinyurl.com/7ltutjb where it says
* In ?Comparative Jewish Chronology?
(Traditions, New York, 1962), Rabbi Shimon Schwab
explained that the 165 years were intentionally
removed from the calendar in order to conceal the
time of the Mashiach. The rabbis were following
a ?Divine command conveyed by an angel to Daniel
to ?seal the words and close the book? at the end
of a long prophesy which begins in Chapter 11:1
and ends at Chapter 12:4 in the Book of
Daniel? Rabbi Schwab links this passage with
another in the Talmud. ?In Pesachim 62b we hear
of a Book of Genealogies, which, according to
Rashi, was Mishnaic commentary on the Book of
Chronicles??The Talmud informs us that this
important book was hidden! No reasons are
given?..Rav (ca. 220-250 CE, Babylon) is quoted
to have observed, ?since the day the Book of
Genealogies was hidden, ?the strength of the wise
had been weakened and the light of their eyes dimmed.?
* Thus, Rabbi Schwab explains why the years
are missing. The Time Tapestry explains how they
were hidden. The rabbis used three systems to accomplish this goal.
I have posted Rav Schwab's essay at
http://tinyurl.com/5u7l3v It deals in detail
with reconciling Jewish dates with secular dates. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120311/010fc1d5/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:50:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] missing years 168 years
At 10:25 AM 3/11/2012, Eli Turkel wrote:
><< Is not this discussion tied to the "hidden
>168 years" that Rav Shimon Schwab wrote about in
>Comparative Jewish
>Chronology??
>See<http://tinyurl.com/7ltutjb>http://tinyurl.com/7ltutjb?
>where it says? ...>
>
>I thought Rav Schwab retracted his explanation
>
>--
>Eli Turkel
See the Epilogue in the essay I posted at
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/comparative_jewish_chrono
logy.pdf
beginning on page 281, specifically pages 284 - 285.
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120311/9f5d1edb/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:51:10 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Achashverosh
On 3/11/2012 9:10 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 09:52 PM 3/10/2012, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 2:25 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>>> << Honestly. ? He wrote an entire book arguing about how Chazal were
>>> totally
>>> wrong about the Persian period. ? The fascinating thing is that his?
>>> primary reason for holding this position is that Greek sources say
>>> they? were. ? But then in this article, he suggests numerous times that
>>> Herodotus was wrong about fairly major things.? >>
>>>
>>> The problem is that Tanach agrees with Herodotus and not with
>>> Chazal. In order for the Talmud to use their chronology they are
>>> forced to say that various different names in Tanach refer to the
>>> same king while in fact the list aligns exactly with various Greek
>>> sources.
>>
>> It doesn't, really.? Nor does the Tanach agree with Herodotus.? I
>> mean, we could just go straight to Darius the Mede, who doesn't exist
>> in Greek sources at all, let alone Herodotus.? That alone disproves
>> your assertion.
>
> Is not this discussion tied to the "hidden 168 years" that Rav Shimon
> Schwab wrote about in Comparative Jewish Chronology? See
> http://tinyurl.com/7ltutjb where it says
>
> * *In "Comparative Jewish Chronology" (/Traditions,/ New York,
> 1962), Rabbi Shimon Schwab explained that the 165 years were
> intentionally removed from the calendar in order to conceal the
> time of the Mashiach. The rabbis were following a "/Divine
> command/ conveyed by an angel to Daniel to "seal the words and
> close the book" at the end of a long prophesy which begins in
> Chapter 11:1 and ends at Chapter 12:4 in the /Book of Daniel"/
> Rabbi Schwab links this passage with another in the Talmud. "In
> Pesachim 62b we hear of a /Book of Genealogies/, which,
> according to Rashi, was Mishnaic commentary on the Book of
> Chronicles......The Talmud informs us that this important book
> was hidden! No reasons are given.....Rav (ca. 220-250 CE,
> Babylon) is quoted to have observed, "since the day the /Book of
> Genealogies was hidden, /"the strength of the wise had been
> weakened and the light of their eyes dimmed." *
> * *Thus, Rabbi Schwab explains /why /the years are missing. The
> Time Tapestry explains /how/ they were hidden. The rabbis used
> three systems to accomplish this goal.*
>
> I have posted Rav Schwab's essay at http://tinyurl.com/5u7l3v It
> deals in detail with reconciling Jewish dates with secular dates. YL
Rav Schwab write an essay in 1962 in which he raised this as a
hypothetical. He didn't "explain that the 165 years were intentionally
removed from the calendar"; he suggested that such an argument could
possibly be made. For those who would like to read what he actually
wrote, it was actually posted to this very list back in 2003:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n018.shtml#03
When Rav Schwab saw that people were misreading his words the way this
"Time Tapestry" person has, he wrote a retraction in his 1991 book of
essays. It's really poor form to suggest that Rav Schwab meant
something he specifically said he did not mean.
Lisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120311/87fd5dce/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:17:49 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Since When Do Ashkenazim Daven Sephard?
The following is from an article titled "Reaching New Heights with
Siddur Avodas Hashem" that appears in the Hamodia Showcase Judaica
Supplement, Adar 5772.
Before the dawn of Chassidus, Yidden davened either Nusach Sephard or
Nusach Ashkenaz, depending on their tradition and place of origin.
The originator of Chassidus, the holy Baal Shem Tov and his talmidim,
zy"a, diverged from the Ashkenazic nusach, davening according to the
Sephardic nusach with the kavanos of the Arizal. In the early years
of the Chassidic movement, only the tzaddikim would daven Nusach
Sephard, while the
chassidim, who lacked a profound understanding of Kabbalah, would
daven Nusach Ashkenaz. However, around the period of the Rebbe,
Harav Elimelech of Lizhensk, zy" a, (1717-1787), chassidim began
davening together with their Rebbes- in the Rebbe's nusach - despite their lack
of understanding of the kavanos. Thus, Nusach Sephard gradually
spread to the Chassidic shtieblach across Eastern Europe - even
without the presence of
a Rebbe who knew the kavanos.
There was opposition to the change in nusach, as it was thought that
simple folk who were not versed in Kabbalah were prohibited from
davening Nusach
Sephard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120311/15a728bd/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:55:31 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Achashverosh
On 3/11/2012 9:57 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 10:51 AM 3/11/2012, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
>> Rav Schwab write an essay in 1962 in which he raised this as a
>> hypothetical. He didn't "explain that the 165 years were
>> intentionally removed from the calendar"; he suggested that such an
>> argument could possibly be made. For those who would like to read
>> what he actually wrote, it was actually posted to this very list back
>> in 2003: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n018.shtml#03
>>
>> When Rav Schwab saw that people were misreading his words the way
>> this "Time Tapestry" person has, he wrote a retraction in his 1991
>> book of essays. It's really poor form to suggest that Rav Schwab
>> meant something he specifically said he did not mean.
>
>>> It is not exactly a retraction. See the Epilogue in the essay I
>>> posted at http://tinyurl.com/5u7l3v
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/5u7l3v%
>>> A0>
>>> which is an updated version of his original 1962 essay. In
>>> particular, pages 284 - 285.
That's definitely a retraction. In the original essay, he goes through
various possibilities, and winds up saying that if no other possibility
presents itself:
There seems to be left, as yet unexplored, only one avenue of
approach to the vexing problem confronting us. It seems possible
that our Sages, for some unknown reason, "covered up" a certain
historic period and purposely eliminated and suppressed all records
and other material pertaining thereto.
His concern was, as he states:
The gravity of the dilemma posed by such enormous discrepancies must
not be underestimated. The unsuspecting students of history are
faced with a puzzle that appears insoluble. How could it have been
that our forebears had no knowledge of a historic period, otherwise
widely known and amply documented, which lasted over a span of at
least 165 years and which was less than 600 years before the days of
the Sages who recorded our traditional chronology in /Seder Olam/?
Is it really possible to assume that some form of historical amnesia
had taken possession of the collective memory of an entire people?
This would be like assuming that some group of recognized historians
of today would publish a textbook on medieval history, ignoring all
the records of, say, the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries of
the Common Era. Would this not seem inconceivable to those who,
unfortunately, do not possess the necessary /emunas Chachamim/ to
accept the word of our Sages?
In other words, Chazal are obviously correct, but how do you talk to
someone who isn't simply willing to accept that, and points to the
accepted secular history? For this purpose and this purpose alone, he
proposes something kind of outrageous. But given the response to his
article, he decided, as he writes in his epilogue, "I would rather leave
a good question open than risk giving a wrong answer."
It's probably inevitable that those who prefer to dismiss everything
Chazal have to say about this period would read Rav Schwab's initial
essay and glom onto it as a kind of "prooftext". But it wasn't meant
that way.
Lisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120311/e6a1519f/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <r...@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:53:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Dead-Letter Halakhoth
RJay Schachter writes:
> Inasmuch as Beijing is an ancient city,
>should not Purim in the Forbidden City be celebrated today (Friday,
>Adar 15) rather than yesterday?
>The question relates to a larger phenomenon, halakhoth that everyone
>knows . . . and yet which are, de facto, dead letters.
He then proceeds to give several examples of what he considers "dead letter halachos." However, every single case he gives is mistaken.
Taking his examples in the order presented: why does Beijing not
celebrate Purim on 15 Adar? For the simple reason that the
requirement for such observance is that the city have been walled at
the time of Yehoshua's conquest of Eretz Yisraeil. At the very
latest, this happened in c. 1270 BCE. According to Wikipedia, the
first walled city where Beijing stands was built between the 11th and
7th centuries BCE. Obviously, then, Purim is observed there on 14
Adar. Indeed, can RJS give even one example of a city known to have
been walled 3300 years ago, in which Purim is celebrated on the 14th?
He then discusses at length the halacha that it is prohibited to live
in a city without a mikve. While it is certainly improper to do so,
where is this issur recorded? The closest to it is the g'mara in
Sanhedrin 17b, discussing what a city must contain in order for a
talmid chacham to live therein, and included in the list is a beis
hamerchatz. Even if we understand this to refer to mikve, the
prohibition is only stated for talmidei chachamin. (The list also
includes a doctor, a blood-letter and a sofeir.) Moreover, while the
Rambam cites this g'mara in Hilchos Deios 4:23, there is no mention of
it in Shulchan Aruch.
Next is the din about not being allowed to mourn for a suicide.
First, it is not defined as a prohibition, but as a non-obligation.
Second, all aspects of mourning which are in honor of the living, such
as the shura, are required. Third, there are are rishonim who pasken
that it is only for others, but that the relatives do tear k'ria
(Ramban and Tur). Finally,the din only applies to a person in obvious
possession of his mental faculties, who announces how he intends to
commit suicide, and immediately proceeds to do it in that manner. Nor
is this ex post facto "defining out of existence," to quote RJS'
description. The basic halacha appears in Masseches S'machos 2:1.
The definition of what constitutes suicide is 2:2.
Finally, he cites eulogizing on Chol Hamoeid. This is not a blanket
prohibition; it is permitted for a chacham b'fanav. But more than
that, it is not "eulogy" which is prohibited, but "hespeid." This
refers to the arousing of sadness and tears. Such eulogies are indeed
prohibited. Not included, however, are remarks designed not to elicit
sorrow, but to call attention to the lessons that can be derived by
the living from the deeds of the departed, and indeed, at every
occasion in which I have attended a funeral on those days when hesped
is prohibited, the first speaker usually points this out, and then
proceeds to list, in that vein, the noteworthy praises of the
departed.
One should be extremely careful of one's facts before accusing the Jewish nation as a whole of ignoring halachos.
EMT
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f5cca879a611da56b2st06vuc
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 36
**************************************
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..."