Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 066

Friday, May 28 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:23:37 -0400
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Removing a Dybbuk


Moshe Feldman wrote:
> 
> ---On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Rabbi Yosef Blau <yblau@idt.net> wrote:
> > There are a number of unusual aspects to the story about the recent
> > removal of a Dybbuk by Rabbi Batsri in Dimona, assuming that the
> > description in the media is accurate.
> <snip>
> >In general, early halakhic sources for
> > this
> > practice do not seem to exist, there being no mention of it in
> > either
> > the Talmud or the Zohar.
> <snip>
> > Only in recent years has the need for psychological help become
> > accepted
> > in the Charedi world. A return to removing Dybbuks instead of
> > therapy or
> > medication can actually cause great harm.
> 
> 1. Are you suggesting that Dybbuks are some kind of schizophrenic
> condition?
> 
> 2.  Do you doubt the veracity of stories regarding the removal of
> Dybbuks by gedolim in the past couple of centuries?  Or, were those
> exorcisms some form of behavioral (or other psychological) therapy?
> 
> 3.  What parallels exist between the removal of Dybbuks and exorcism
> practiced in other religions.  Do advocates of Dybbuk-removal grant
> legitimacy to similar stories in other religions?
> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe

How  can anyone seriously believe in "demonic" possesions in our day and 
age! It seems clear to me that the most recent "Excorsism" is either a 
Hoax, or the woman who was excorsized has a serious mental condition 
whose best resolution was to "Exorcise" the demon.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Removing a Dybbuk


--- Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu> wrote:
> How  can anyone seriously believe in "demonic" possesions in our
> day and 
> age! It seems clear to me that the most recent "Excorsism" is
> either a 
> Hoax, or the woman who was excorsized has a serious mental
> condition 
> whose best resolution was to "Exorcise" the demon.
> 

Conceptually, I have no problem in believing that people's neshamot
(not demons) can enter other people's bodies, since I truly do
believe that neshamot exist separate from bodies.  I'm sure that most
scientists--in this day and age--do not believe that neshamot exist
outside of bodies and believe instead that what people refer to as
the "soul" is just part of the brain.

OTOH, it's not clear to me why Hashem would allow neshamot to possess
other people's bodies, especially since He generally runs the world
b'derech ha'tevah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:02:05 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
You can't paint sound


>> Obviously, in the above story it is unknowable from the narritive what 
the verbal emphasis,vocal inflections and attitude expressed by the 
student was. ...
If a Rebbe would eject a student from class for asking an innocent 
question, than it is the rebbe that should be thrown out of Chinuch.

HM<<

My point of mentioning he story was that R. Dovid's reaction illustrated a 
pre-supposition of a heter in a puk chazei fashion.  

I would venture to say the question was either asked in a chutzpadik fashion or 
possibly in a frivolous, unthinking fashion.  If #1 then R. Dovid threw him out 
for chutzpa, if #2, then he threw him out for wasting the time of the shiur on 
something trivial.  If the question were a sincere inquiry as to the rationale 
of the "heter" to wear a tie on Shabbos, I'm sure R. Dovid would have gladly 
responded.

As far as I am concerned you can treat the story as apocryphal.  The point made 
to me, when I was told the story was:  don't waste time re-hashing the obvious. 
If the rosh Yeshiva wore a tie on Shabbos, it was ipso facto mutar, period. This
did not mean one coudn't request to know the lomdus behind it.

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:11:59 EDT
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: proof-texts


<<
		a. In the Shabbat morning shmone esreh, in the k'dushat 
hayom, it 
says "v'chatuv bahem [i.e., on the tablets] shmirat shabbat, v'chen katuv 
b'toratecha" and then quotes not from the Aseret HaDibrot (either version) 
but "v'shamru."
>>

This is not so problematic, as the intro to the pasuk is v'chen katuv, and 
not kakatuv which would imply a qoute from the source just mentioned.  I 
wrote an article about why this particular quote is used here.  If anyone is 
interested, please e-mail me offlist and I will send out the article.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:12:25 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
You can't paint sound


A while ago someone noted that the Gro was highly desirous of being around 
during the Mikdosh era.

I would speculate that the sum total experience of one ordinary (beinoni) 
observer of the daily avodas beis Hamikdsoh for one year, would outweiegh the 
sum total of knowledge wihtin all the written material about the BhM since the 
Churban, put together.

IOW you cannot substitute for being there.

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:26:01 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: You can't paint sound


In a message dated 5/27/99 12:14:45 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> I would speculate that the sum total experience of one ordinary (beinoni) 
>  observer of the daily avodas beis Hamikdsoh for one year, would outweiegh 
> the 
>  sum total of knowledge wihtin all the written material about the BhM since 
> the 
>  Churban, put together.
>  
While the Maaloh of sight is in the speed and total picture, the Maaloh of 
Havonoh is the underlying that may not be obvious.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:41:55 -0400
From: mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com
Subject:
Please daven & learn for


 Shmuel Yaakov ben Ayalah Hinda - Rosh HaYeshiva Yeshivas Ner Yisroel.

The Rosh HaYeshivah is VERY sick.

Rav Weisbord spoke during Mussar seder about this from the front of the
Bais Medrash.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:28:55 -0400
From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Electricity on Shabbos


A poster quotes and states as follows:

<<What would happen if we re-visited electricity on shabbos and some
Gro-like
gadol "proved" that it was totally not analogous to eish - would we reject
the thousands of teshuvos and piskei halocho that have been based upon that
assumption? >>

Check R. SZ Auerbach's work on this topic.  He already argued this point,
and
if memory serves me correctly concluded that we don't use electricity on
Shabbos because that is what we have accepted upon ourselves.

END OF QUOTE/STATEMENT

I have not seen the work quoted.  However, based on Rambam's definition of
hav'ara, notwithstanding the possible permissibility of electricity, the
flipping or pressing of a switch that ignites an incandescent bulb, which
heats the filament to white-hot, would be prohibited and a chiyuv chatas. (I
can't think of any intellectually honest way to escape that conclusion.)  I
think, similarly, a flourescent bulb is ignited by a charge: if the charge
is actually a spark, the same conclusion should obtain.

Comments are welcome.

Noach Witty


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Electricity on Shabbos


--- Noah Witty <nwitty@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> However, based on Rambam's
> definition of
> hav'ara, notwithstanding the possible permissibility of
> electricity, the
> flipping or pressing of a switch that ignites an incandescent bulb,
> which
> heats the filament to white-hot, would be prohibited and a chiyuv
> chatas. (I
> can't think of any intellectually honest way to escape that
> conclusion.)  I
> think, similarly, a flourescent bulb is ignited by a charge: if the
> charge
> is actually a spark, the same conclusion should obtain.
> 

I seem to recall that the Rambam's halacha with regard to heating
metal is that "bishul" in the case of metal is defined as heating it
until it glows.  (This might be connected to the famous Eglei Tal
dealing with the difference between cooking solids and cooking water;
in the case of cooking solids there is change to the substance while
this is not true of water.  That is why there might be bishul achar
bishul in the case of liquids (certainly in the case of water).  In
the case of metal, after it cools down it may be no different than it
was prior to when it was originally heated.  As a result, you can't
look at the issue of whether the substance is changed by the heating
process and must look instead at the degree  of heat which was
applied to the substance.  Certainly, heating metal until it glows is
much hotter than yad soledet.)

If so, it would seem that one might differentiate between a
light-bulb filament and a spark emitted in order to ignite a
fluorescent bulb.  If, in emitting the spark, a filament is not
heated until it glows (and I am completely ignorant of the m'tzi'ut)
then there should be no melacha of bishul.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Electricity on Shabbos [2]


--- Noah Witty <nwitty@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> A poster quotes and states as follows:
> 
> Check R. SZ Auerbach's work on this topic.  He already argued this
> point,
> and
> if memory serves me correctly concluded that we don't use
> electricity on
> Shabbos because that is what we have accepted upon ourselves.
> 
> END OF QUOTE/STATEMENT
> 
> I have not seen the work quoted.  However, based on Rambam's
> definition of
> hav'ara, notwithstanding the possible permissibility of
> electricity, the
> flipping or pressing of a switch that ignites an incandescent bulb,
> which
> heats the filament to white-hot, would be prohibited and a chiyuv
> chatas. (I
> can't think of any intellectually honest way to escape that
> conclusion.)  I
> think, similarly, a flourescent bulb is ignited by a charge: if the
> charge
> is actually a spark, the same conclusion should obtain.
> 

Again, I do not know the m'tzi'ut as to exactly how electricity
works.  However, it is my impression that wires are used to conduct a
current and that while some heat may be generated, the wire does not
become glowing hot.  So a problem ought to exist only when an
incandescent bulb is used.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:21:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net>
Subject:
Re: Avodah V3 #65


> From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #63

> The question is whether the CC, in his tzidkut, was overly machmir on
> this issue (k'darko bakodesh in the Mishna Brurah).

===> Do any contemporary Poskim consider the CC to be "overly machmir".  I
believe that in his sefarim (in general) he cites source where ever
possible.  If there are no poskim that consider this to be "overly
machmir", then it may very well be that -- as difficult as it is -- the
rule is NOT to "tell all" to the spouse.

> 
> The story of the CC quoted at the beginning of "Guard Your Tongue" is
> telling. 

===> I had anecdotally heard that story regarding the CC and R. Yisrael
Salant -- i.e., that there had been reluctance to publish the material and
R. Yisrael said to go ahead -- even if it only makes one sigh...
BTW, I had also heard that R. Yisrael had AGREED with everything in the CC
except for one specific case that had to do with whether one who wishes to
do teshuva for Lashon Harah had to inform the <unknowing> victim.
Apparently, the CC said one way and R. Yisrael ruled the other way in
that sepcific case.
However, if this information is accurate, then the question is: Is r.
Yisrael *Also* being "overly machmir"?

> I would rather someone read a sefer on lashon hara that elicits
> action,  not only a sigh.

===> There appears to be a problem with that approach.  If this is
"really halacha" as opposed to Chumrot, people can ALWAYS
be found who will only "sigh" rather than take action.  IS Halacha to be
"dumbed down" to that level?  OTOH, if we *are* dealing with Chumrot,
it is not so obvious that they should not be imposed.  What about the
cases in the Gemara where
those who are not B'nei Torah end up getting Chumrot imposed upon them?

--Zvi


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Lashon Hara (Avodah V3 #65)


--- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> > From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #63
> 
> > The question is whether the CC, in his tzidkut, was overly
> machmir on
> > this issue (k'darko bakodesh in the Mishna Brurah).
> 
> ===> Do any contemporary Poskim consider the CC to be "overly
> machmir". 

I have certainly heard this said about the Mishnah Brurah.

> I
> believe that in his sefarim (in general) he cites source where ever
> possible.  

The question is how those sources are weighed and how they are
interpreted.  The CC in the Mishnah Brurah did exactly the same thing
and we find poskim (e.g. Igrot Moshe, Rav Soloveitchik, Rav
Lichtenstein) arguing with the MB.  In addition, I have been told
both by Rav Hershel Schachter and by Rav Dovid Weinberger (who quoted
Rav Moshe Feinstein) that the CC was not a posek and the MB was
written as a helpmate to learning Shulchan Arukh, not as a sefer
psak.

> If there are no poskim that consider this to be "overly
> machmir", then it may very well be that -- as difficult as it is --
> the
> rule is NOT to "tell all" to the spouse.
> 

As I wrote in my earlier posts, both Rav Lichtenstein and Rav
Weinberger (the expert on lashon hara for the CC Heritage Foundation)
are matir in the specific case of venting to one's spouse provided
that the spouse is careful not to necessarily believe the
information.

> > I would rather someone read a sefer on lashon hara that elicits
> > action,  not only a sigh.
> 
> ===> There appears to be a problem with that approach.  If this is
> "really halacha" as opposed to Chumrot, people can ALWAYS
> be found who will only "sigh" rather than take action.  IS Halacha
> to be
> "dumbed down" to that level?  OTOH, if we *are* dealing with
> Chumrot,
> it is not so obvious that they should not be imposed.  What about
> the
> cases in the Gemara where
> those who are not B'nei Torah end up getting Chumrot imposed upon
> them?
> 

I believe that the CC's approach on this issue is chumrah and not
halacha.  However, he considered it to be halacha.  You ask whether
there may be circumstances where, as was sometimes done in the
Gemara, a chumrah should be imposed on non-B'nei Torah.  Perhaps. 
But this should be done consciously, not as a misapplication of the
Halacha.

Considering the general non-compliance of much of klal yisrael with
the halachot of lashon hara, I would think that it would be better to
create rules that people might be willing to abide by rather than
prohibiting newspapers and all speech to spouses and waiting for
people to just sigh at their inability to fulfill the laws of lashon
hara.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 23:09:32 +0300 (GMT+0300)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
[none]


Subject: calendar and coins

1. In Succah 54a Acherim state that there is a fixed number of days in
   a year. This implies that Acherim disagree with the principle that
   only witnesses decide on the new month. According to Acherim the
   bet din would decide on a chodesh "moleh" or "chaser" based on
   calculations.

2. Ramban in a letter (printed at the end of his commentary to Chumash)
   states that he found an ancient coin which he weighed. He states that
   this proves Rashi correct against the Geonim. Note that Rashba, Ran
   and Rivash still pasken like the Geonim. See R. Beinish
   "Midot uShiurei Torah" p388 for more details.
    The coin Ramban saw said "Shekel Yisrael" on one side and
    'Yerusalyaim haKadoshah" on the other side, in ancient Hebrew script
   and was from Second Temple times.

R. Beinish assumes that the Geonim had access to ancient coins. The
question arise why they did not weigh them?

Tashbetz answers (3:226) that the coin Ramban saw was before Chazal
added 1/6. This coin was Cuthites who did not accept takanat chazal.

I have trouble understanding this Tashbetz. It is highly unlikely that
Chazal ever minted coins. It is not clear when the 1/6 was added to the
weight but I assume it was done by secular authorities and not chazal.
Hashmonean kings would not have decided coin weights based on chazal.
It would be strange if the entire extra 1/6 was only in Bar Kochba
times. From the gemara it seems to have been a permament change.
Most likely the Romans changed the weight of their coins (this is known
to have happened because of the financial plights of some Caesers they
played games with the coinage). If so then there is no reason to
assume that Kuthites used differents coins than Chazal!

R. Beinish brings another answer in terms of differences in value between
coins and pure metal of the same weight. It turns out that Rashi
and the Geonim agree. Rashi was talking about coins and the Geonim were
talking about silver bars.
The problem with this shitta is that it implies that all the Rishonim
including those that pasken like the Geonim all misunderstood the
Geonim. Ramban in particular assumes Rashi and the Geonim disagree.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 23:33:55 +0300 (GMT+0300)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
[none]


> 
> I believe the official position of the haredi community (with the
> exception noted below), as expressed in such publications as Yated
> Ne'eman, is that Torah Jews were required to vote for two reasons:
> 
>  1. As a kiyyum of lo tasur min ha-davar asher yagidu lekha, in response
> to the explicit rulings of the Gedolim to vote for a certain candidate
> and party.
> 
> 2.  As a kiyyum of kiddush shem Shammayim, in demonstrating fidelity to
> Torah by voting for a party that represents Torah.
> 
> The implication of this position is that abstaining from voting would
> have violated the first rule and constituted a failure to be mekayyem
> the second.
> 
> I recall that the Hazon Ish is quoted to the effect that one must vote.
> 
> However, the official position of the Edah ha-Haredit is that no one
> should vote in an election for a secular government in Eretz Yisrael.  I
> presume the rationale is that partipation in an election constitutes
> mesaye'a li-yedei ovrei averah, on the assumption that the existence of
> a secular government in EY is sinful and voting somehow facilitates that
> sin.
> 
> If anyone can offer more insight into the position of Gedolim on the
> halakhic issue of voting, I would appreciate hearing it.
> 
The Steipler rav in his letters displays much sympathy for the position
of the Eda haCharedit. He indicates that voting is a necessary evil.
In practice he sometimes publically came out in favor of Agudah and
sometimes refrained. My impression is that it depended on whether he
agreed with the stand of Agudah in that year. In particular the
years they joined with Poale Agudah he would refrain from backing
them and urge voters to abstain.

Given the close relationship between the CI and the Steipler I doubt
that CI said to vote Agudah as a matter of policy.

This issue is even more striking in the problem of women voting.
Numerous Agudah rabbis has paskened that women are not allowed to vote.
Neverthless, they encourage women to vote in practice because it 
would not be fair to have nonobservant women vote and observant women
not vote which would only hurt their cause.

Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 17:09:34 -0400
From: "sweinr1@icarus.cc.uic.edu" <sweinr1@icarus.cc.uic.edu>
Subject:
soap and electricity


We were discussing the status of soap and wether it is nosein taam lifgam.
When I learned Yoreh Deah in Yerushalayim, my rebbi Rav Yaakov Varhaftig told
us in a shiur that Rav Ovadya Yosef holds that it is muttar to use a dishwasher
for both milchig and fleishig because the soap makes the bliah in the dishes a
taam pagum.  I believe that this is based on the mechaber who holds that you
can lechatchila put some efer into a pot to make it a taam pagum.  I can't
quote the mechaber unfotuneately because I am currently on call in the
hospital, but bli neder if someone else doesn't beat me to it I will when I
get home.  Of course the heter lechatchila I believe would only work for
sefardim.  More on this when I could look it up inside.

As far as elecrisity is concerned I was under the impression that many
contemporary poskim hold that it is not analogous to fire but it is assur on
shabbos because of tikkun manah ie. when you make a circuit.  Only when the
electricity is being used for a conventional lightbulb is it considered fire.
I am far from an expert in these matters and I hope someone who is can clear
up this matter for us.

Shaul Weinreb

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been posted from Mail2Web (http://www.mail2web.com/)
Web Hosting for $9.95 per month! Visit: (http://www.yourhosting.com/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 19:08:08 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Littleton


One of the girls shot was reported to have been asked whether she believed in 
god.  She responded affirmatively and was shot to death.

If she had been Jewish and all the other requirements were met, would this 
have been a case of yehareg vall yaavor(ie is this avodat zara)?  Assuming 
yes, what if she could have just remained silent?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Littleton


--- Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> One of the girls shot was reported to have been asked whether she
> believed in 
> god.  She responded affirmatively and was shot to death.
> 
> If she had been Jewish and all the other requirements were met,
> would this 
> have been a case of yehareg vall yaavor(ie is this avodat zara)? 

I assume that you're asking whether answering "no" to the question
would have constituted avodah zara.  Even if atheism constitutes
avodah zara, it is not at all clear to me that saying that one does
not believe in God constitutes a ma'aseh of avodah.  It is true that
in addition to the 4 methods of worshipping Hashem (kittur,
hishtachava'a, etc.) one can be considered to be oved AZ by
worshipping the AZ in its own distinctive manner (e.g. po'er
la'p'or).  Query: if atheism is AZ, can one be "oved" the AZ by
verbally denying the existence of God.  Obviously there is an
internal contradiction here--it's hard to determine a distinctive
manner of being "oved" a non-existent entity which has no distinctive
methods of "worship."  OTOH, perhaps the only act in an atheistic
"religion" may be the denial of the existence of God.

Sounds like a job for a philosopher.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 19:56:04 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Avodah V3 #64


>In Sh'moneh Esrei we list the forms of Divine assistance as "melecho 
>ozeir umoshia umagein". A melech is concerned with ordering society -- 
>hashgachah minis, as the Rambam puts it. An ozeir, moshi'ah or magein is
engaging in hashgachah p'ratis. Perhaps that's why we single out Yisrael
in this b'rachah.
	Ozeir (help,  with an ayin) Ozeir (gird,  with an aleph) ligezeira
shava?

Gershon


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 20:10:50 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Ikkarim


>>>Are you categorically stating that the Rambam - and those who follow him - 
would not create a chiyuv to believe in those listed  Ikkarim?  IOW, they are 
only 
suggestions or outlines instead of chovos mammosh?<<<

No.  As I wrote, they are **chovos** halevavos - obligatory personal beliefs. 
 

As Y. Zirkind pointed out, there are hosts of nafka minos to being 
categorized as a min.  I do not, however, think that in any way diminishes 
the import of my point - since devarim shebe-lev ainam devarim, we do not 
know the level of any person's belief, barring a statement of kefirah made 
before 2 kosher eidim I do not see how anyone can be classified as a kofer 
for denying the ikarim.  (Of course, there are other ways to become a min 
through actions - avodah zarah, chillul Shabbos, etc. avoiding the problem of 
probing people's hearts).  

Therefore, the whole discussion of the Ikarei HaEmunah is academic to 
halacha; i.e. you will not find any literature on it in Shut sefarim that 
deal with real cases.

-CB


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 05:52:21 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: kiddush in shul friday night


From a historical viewpoint, does anyone know when this minhag(or takkana) 
began?

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 10:21:16 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Loshon Horo


>>===> I seem to recall seeing in the Chafetz Chaim's material that he
strongly argued AGAINST "telling spouses all" and -- apparently -- did not
accept the "therapeutic value" of such discussions.

- --Zvi<<

Indeed, the Maase Miriam involved only close siblings, Yet we are still warned 
about Loshon horo even amongst a very close family.  Lich'ora wives, too.

Rich Wolpooe


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Lashon Hara


--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> Indeed, the Maase Miriam involved only close siblings, Yet we are
> still warned 
> about Loshon horo even amongst a very close family.  Lich'ora
> wives, too.
> 

First, I think we should distinguish between cases which are
l'to'elet and those which are not.  Second, there is a great chiluk
between sisters and wives; only the latter are considered "basar
echad" with their husbands (cf. "ishto k'gufo" in Hilchot Chanukah);
lich'ora there is an inyan for husbands to share their thoughts--not
only their flesh--with their wives (think of all the sheva b'rachot
divrei torah you've heard).  Third, the case of Miriam involved
r'chilut--purposeful spreading, since the pasuk states "va'tidaber
miriam v'aharon b'moshe...."  In the case where one talks over the
events of the day with one's wife without the intent to spread the
news (cf. the Rambam dealing with apei t'lat, which I mentioned in my
first posting on this matter), there should be no r'chilut.  At most,
one could argue that there is nezek caused to the subject of the
lashon hara; query whether a husband telling his wife constitutes
increasing the damage provided that the wife understands that the
issue is confidential.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

Status: RO

< Previous Next >