Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 026

Monday, April 19 1999

• traffic
• Update
• RE: Avodah V3 #20
• Avoidng not Evading Taxes
• re: manuscripts
• Changing nosach of a shul
• chillul Hashem

> Would Dina D'malchusa dina apply  equally to laws which are not 
> criminal in nature, but more like codes or regulations like traffic laws, or 
> zoning laws, et al. as they would to misdemeanors and felonies. 
> Perhaps that is a distinction one could make with regard to speeding and dina 
> D'malchusa dina.
> 
There is a story that years ago someone drove Rav Lichtenstein to speak
to the troops in Sinai (before it was given back). When the driver began
to speed on a deseted road in the middle of the desert R. Lichtenstein
made him slow down to the legal limit.

Eli Turkel

Hi All,

Baruch Hashem, I have very good news to report about Tzipporah Leah bas
Chaya - today she was taken off the respirator and although very weak,
seems to be doing very well.  She is able to sit in a regular chair and
talk for breif periods of time with her family.  Please keep davening
and learning for her so that she will achieve a refuah shleimah.

Thanks for all of your tefilos!

Take care,

Joel
-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com   
W-212-761-1404

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joelirich@aol.com [mailto:Joelirich@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 11:02 AM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #20
> 
> 
> In a message dated 4/16/99 10:25:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> APechman@mwellp.com writes:
> 
> << 
>  If I see a Jew committing certain aveiros, I am either 
> permitted or required
>  to hate him (gemara I think Pesachim on an amud beis). If I 
> know he did
>  teshuva, I am no longer allowed/required to hate him. (This 
> is irregardless
>  of any punishment outstanding from beis din (or shamayim).) 
> I don't know
>  that the same applies to a non-Jew who committed a crime and 
> then repented.
>  
>  Avi Pechman
>   >>
> Any sources on the permitted versus required issue?
> 
> Shabbat Shalom
> Joel Rich
> 

See Pesachim 113b. It's a difference of opinion between Rav Shmuel bar Rav
Yitzchak in the name of Rav and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.

AP

>>From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net><

Let's concede that 1 may legitimately declate themselves to be a NOT-TAXPAYER 
and be considered exempte legabie dino de'malchuos...

Question:  Would this still be considered a Chillul Hashem issue in that it 
would reflect badly upon Frum Jews avoiding tax?  Or since 1 is complying with 
the letter of the law, it's ok, and we need not consider that it might relect 
"badly" upon frum Jews?

Rich Wolpoe

R' Eli Turkel writes in the name of R' Moshe Bleich
>
>III. KI 3:2
>     There is a divine plan that decided which manuscripts were handed
>     down through the generations.
>     (why doesn't the same plan say we now discovered them for a reason?)


The Chazon Ish in Kovetz Igros III:2 says that some texts of the gemara have
been corrupted through the ages, but HKB"H, because of His bris with klal
Yisrael that the Torah Shebe'al Peh not be forgotten, ensured that even the
corrupt girsa reflects a facet of the Torah which may be relied upon
lehalachah. He describes this corruption of the texts as due to a dearth of
sefarim, whose texts naturally become smudged, etc., and are corrected by
chachamim in different ways. The Chazon Ish thus refers to a process by
which the text is altered unintentionally in an effort to restore the
original girsa which has been lost. We don't see him legitimating a
conscious effort to reject an accepted girsa. Nor does he deal in III:2 with
manuscripts that have been lost for centuries and recently discovered, or
with texts other than Shas itself.

>
>Note: KI I:32 uses manuscripts to change girsa in a Gemara so that it
>conforms with SA.

The Chazon Ish does not do this in Kovetz Igros I:32. He mentions the
Shulchan Aruch there only once, to say that the Gra argued on him hundreds
of times.

Yisrael Herczeg

Response to Reb JJ Baker...

I recommend seeing the Chabad Haggodo in the hakdomo, wherein R. MM Shneersohn 
OH cites a Maharil re: changing minhoggim. From what I understand re: the rebbe,
he was NOT in favor of uprooting existing minhoggim, and only changed those who 
were "orphaned" from minhog avosom.

R. S. Schwab OH was adamant against changing (personal) minhogim in general.  
While, KAJ DID make some adjustments to minhog, it has always been a very 
serious matter.  

Speaking for myself, I am highly reluctant to tamper with the nusach of my shul.
When I have done so, I sought precedents from the shul's own history.

Example 1:  We USED to have only one person saying Kaddish (similar to KAJ). 
Later on we had a conflict, so I went back to an older minhog of our own 
congregation and we re-instituted multiple kaddieshim.  I davka modeled it 
after another German style kehillo...

Example 2:  We USED to say the Krovos (i.e. the piyuttim in Chazoros Hashatz) 
during Sholosh Regolim.  I noticed that most of the (remaining) people did not 
say them.  So I discussed this with the board and we dropped them, but kept the 
yotzros BEFORE CH.  This is because we already had that very same minhog legabei
the piyyutim on the 4 Pasrhaiyios, i.e. to say ONLY the ones from Yotzeir until 
Amido. Therefore, I extended an existing shortcut to apply to Sholosh Regolim, 
again based upon an internal precedent.

Rich Wolpoe

Friday's CNN report exemplifies the current  thread.



http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/16/PM-RabbiSchoolScheme.ap/

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


[ 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         ]