Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 074
Thursday, June 3 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:48:12 EDT
From: MSDratch@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tav l'meysav
Eliyahu Teitz writes: "We were discussing the idea of kidushey ta'us, and I
stated that if a woman walked out of her marriage at the very first instance
of abuse and refused to return, then there might possibly be a small amount
of wiggle room to possibly consider using kidushey ta'us as one of many
mitigating factors against a husband who refuses to give a get. (Have I put
enough qualifications in that sentence, or should I add more to show how
little I think it is a valid possibility?)" and "when she made the choice to
go back to her husband, we can no longer make the claim of ta'us to over turn
the marriage."
Those who work with abused women know that "when she made the choice
to go back" is not the way it works. There is a psychological "oneis" , in
addition to many other factors, that make it difficult, and often impossible,
for an abused woman to leave-- even when her safety and her life are in
danger. Studies show that Jewish women stay in abusive relationships more
than 10 years longer than non-Jewish women. (And that is not good for her or
her children.) My point, halachically, is that regarding kiddushei ta-ut,
just as we we would take physical duress into account when judging how
immediately a woman leaves a marriage, psychological "oneis" should also be a
factor. And, as in all cases, ein l'dayan ella mah she-einav ro-ot might
also mean that he has to open his eyes and understand the metziut.
Mark Dratch
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Lashon Hara (was: Avodah V3 #72)
--- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> ===> The fact that people "reject" a POV does not appear to be an
> acceptable "proof". It was not all that long ago that Mixed
> Dancing was
> "tolerated" even among the "Orthodox". Does that mean that all of
> the
> Poskim who condemned M"D were "rejected" and that the p'sak is not
> normative?
Agreed. However, major rabbanim read newspapers. I can't say who,
because that might be lashon hara! ; )
> Also, I am not at all sure that it is possible to even
> extend
> the matter of "Newspapers" to that of direct telling and relating.
I never said that you should. The only proof I brought from
newspapers is that the CC was overly machmir in that regard.
> Presumably, one can claim that with a Newspaper, one is *receiving*
> necessary info -- even if he does not "Strictly" believe it true
> and the
> publisher is not even necessarily Jewish. That "reduces" the issue
> to
> areas OUTSIDE of L"H issues and hence is not a proof of anything
> here.
>
According to Rav Dovid Weinberger, advisor to the CC Heritage
Foundation on LH issues, the CC was very much against newspapers and
publicly railed against them. I assume that he would have responded
to your argument l'hakel that one may not receive LH even where one
makes sure not to "strictly" believe its veracity. (BTW, I find it
difficult to believe that people reading about the Satmar girl's
school scandal in the New York Times didn't believe the veracity of
the story; if anything, people are more likely to believe a newspaper
than person-to-person gossip). I think (but I have not specifically
researched this) that the identity of the publisher is irrelevant--
one may not hear lashon hara about a Jew from a non-Jew.
>[Moshe, talking about the to'elet of speaking to one's wife about a
>negative experience with one's boss:]
> > while the CC doesn't (to my knowledge)
> specifically
> > prohibit it, he does seem to create that impression (by not
> talking
> > about why it would be muttar); I have quoted some poskim
> permitting
> > it and I agree with Eli Turkel's post on the issue.
>
> ===> From the limited amount that I have read, I never received the
> impression that the CC was "playing that sort of game". On the
> contrary,
> he is quite specific about To'eles and emphasizes that when one IS
> allowed
> to speak about something for To'eles, it is WRONG to avoid such
> speech
> (by claiming that it is L"H).
Undoubtedly the CC permitted to'elet. On the other hand, the CC did
not mention a very common case--speaking to one's spouse about the
boss, and in fact most people (and rabbanim) reading the CC come away
with the impression that he forbade speaking to one's spouse about
the boss.
>For
> example, a
> poster noted that the MB may have been [partially] written by a
> "committee" of B'nei Yeshiva under the CC. Does anyone make a
> similar
> claim about the L"H compendiums.
No. But the poster (who happens to be me) made that point in order
to show that the MB, which seems to have been accepted in most
Charedi circles as the major posek of the 20th century (my Charedi
cousin, who is a rosh kollel in Israel, told me that it was the
accepted wisdom in Benei Beraq circles that all of the MB's psakim
are binding), was not really a sefer psak. Similarly, I posited that
the CC, who was not a posek who answered she'elot, is not a sefer
psak as it was written in a similar style--to inform people of
already existing halachot.
> > I think it is a shame that certain poskim nowadays write seforim
> > claiming to summarize the halacha when in reality they are
> > consciously being machmir because they wish to be strict with
> people
> > who are not Bnei Torah (often, these poskim write their real
> views
> > in the footnotes in terse Hebrew, which they assume will be
> > understood only by B'nei Torah). Do you have any evidence that
> the
> > CC acted in this way?
>
> ===> Not at all. I am simply trying to posit that the CC was not
> "careless" and did not simply write material just because he was at
> a high
> level. He either did so because that is how he understood the
> halacha or
> because the "generation needed it"....
Chas v'shalom to assert that the CC was careless. I am 100% sure
that he meant everything l'tovat klal yisrael. So, for that matter,
did the Satmar Rebbe. But just as I believe that the Satmar Rebbe's
approach is not definitive, so I believe the case to be with the CC.
I believe that there are alternative approaches which may work
better than that of the CC, especially as we approach the 21st
century (and klal yisrael is in a different matzav) and especially
because the approach that the CC took doesn't seem to have been very
effective on a practical level.
> > > > [Moshe:] 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.
> > >
> > >[Zvi:] ===> One can make the same argument concerning Shemirat
Shabbat
> or
> > > Arayot
> > > ow whatever -- dpending upon your sample of klal yisrael. If
> the
> > > halacha
> > > is as the CC formulated it
> > <snip>
> >
> > [Moshe:] But, you're switching the argument here. I was reacting
to your
> > suggestion that the CC was being machmir for non B'nei Torah and
> that
> > the halacha is really l'kulah.
>
> ====> Sorry for the imprecision. OTOH, if people are NOT behaving
> like
> B'nei Torah, the fact that they are not in compliance does not to
> seem to
> be a reason not to be machmir on them (otherwise, how to explain
> all of
> the gemarot where strictures are imposed "because they are not
> b'nei
> Torah".
Sometimes it makes sense to be machmir for the ha'mon 'am. Sometimes
not. In the case at hand, we tried one approach for 100 years and it
was relatively unsuccessful. Why not try the other approach?
> All that we are really saying is that one has to ask a Rov whether
> a
> matter is a case of to'eles rather than try to rationalize for
> one's self
> that communication with a spouse is *automatically* to be
> considered
> to'eles....
I seem to recall quoting various rabbanim I asked this very question.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:05:44 -0400
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Kidushey Ta'us
In Avodah 3:73, Rabbi Eliyahu Teitz wrote:
<<< We were discussing the idea of kidushey ta'us, and I stated that if
a woman walked out of her marriage at the very first instance of abuse
and refused to return, then there might possibly be a small amount of
wiggle room to possibly consider using kidushey ta'us as one of many
mitigating factors against a husband who refuses to give a get. >>>
It appears to me that Rabbi Teitz's main point is that if the wife does
*not* walk out at the very first instance of abuse, then she forfeits all
claims under the principle of "kidushey ta'us". He continued,
<<< ... What the woman responded was, "How can she just walk out? What
will she do about her kids, about finding a place for herself?" To which
I responded, "Thank you for reaffirming the concept of tav l'meysav!"
That is exactly the argument of the g'mara, a woman would rather personal
suffering for whatever reason, than going out alone into the world. >>>
I was under the impression that R. Rackman's "kidushey ta'us" argument is
along the lines of "if she had known he was this kind of guy, then she
would not have married him, even though that means she'd be living alone,
and therefore the kiddushin is *retroactively* null and void."
I do not see how that argument is affected by the fact that NOW there are
children to take care of. Had she known THEN that he was an abusive sort
of person, then she would not have gotten involved with him to begin
with. But she did not know, so she did marry him, and many changes
occurred. She may have children now, who she must support. She may have
left college (or whatever) due to getting married, which means that it
will be more difficult to support herself (and her children) now than if
she had not married him. If she divorces him now, she will be a divorcee,
which will make it much more difficult to remarry. Not to mention how
much *older* she is now!
My point is that there are many reasons which tend to make remaining with
a "mildly" violent spouse more tolerable than divorce. I don't see why
that is an obstacle to RETROACTIVELY anulling the marriage IF the
violence later becomes so severe that separation becomes the more
tolerable option.
There may be many problems with R. Rackman's position. I just don't
understand Rabbi Teitz's explanation of how "What about the kids" is one
of them.
Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Mishna Brurah: Advice or Psak?
--- Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman writes: <<< I agree with you that MB did give
> halachic
> advice. Query whether this is the same as psak (where one chooses
> a
> specific opinion and rejects others, rather than merely say that
> the best
> way to act is the following). Many halachic compendia published
> today
> (e.g. the Chol HaMoed book by R. Francis) merely summarize halachot
> and
> specifically say that they are not sifrei psak. >>>
>
> First, I have not seen any such disclaimer in the Mishna Brurah. On
> the
> contrary, it is chock full of phrases like "efshar l'hakel" ("it is
> possible to be lenient") and "tzarich l'hachmir" ("one needs to be
> strict"). I do not see how anyone could imagine that the MB is any
> less
> of a psak sefer than the Shulchan Aruch itself.
While I did qualify the above statement by stating that I am not sure
as to the CC's intentions (and that my main point is that he was not
a posek even if he believed that he was), I do have the following
point to add to my argument regarding the CC's intentions:
Look in the last few paragraphs of the hakdamah to the MB. The
language implies that the purpose of the sefer is to aid people in
gathering the various sources in a digestible fashion (esp. because
people don't have the time to go through all the sources themselves).
Perhaps, in summarizing the sources, the CC felt it necessary to help
the reader weigh the sources (since the reader would be getting them
second-hand); in fact, this is typically done in Halacha summaries
(such as the Chol HaMoed sefer by Francis, the sefer dealing with
Hilchot Berachot by Forst, Sefer V'Tain Beracha, or R. Cohen's sefer
on halachot involved in raising children) despite the fact that such
works clearly state that they are not intended to pasken halacha but
merely inform the reader of halachic issues.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:03:41 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Ikkarim
C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #72
What is there is talk about after you read the Mishna?
- - - -CB<<
>>>See SA 121:2
MB sk 5
Rich Wolpoe <<<
I looked up the sources and fail to see what is so 'gefrailach'. Can you
enlighten me as to what I should have discovered other then a rehash of the
gemara? <<
Question:
Is an apikoros/min/kofer qualified as a sheliach tzibbur?
Rich wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:10:00 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Tav l'meysav
R ED Teitz>>What the woman responded was, "How can she just walk out? What will
she do about her kids, about finding a place for herself?" To which I
responded, "Thank you for reaffirming the concept of tav l'meysav!" <<
Your points are well made. The current reality apparaetnly re-affirms the
Gemoro's presumption re: the nature of women in relationships.
By showing that women still behave the same does that pre-suppose that if
they did NOT behave that way, we could revise the assumption of the Gemoro?
IOW if Rackman erred, is itst's because he overlooked the reality of the
metzius, rather than lacking the power to overturn it had his premise been
correct?
As a side issue, feminists wmight argue that styaing in an abused situation is
more a function of threat or a preceived threat of retaliation. this could be
verified by asking the woman hypothetically would she prefer her husband to be
dead. If she says yes, then she is probably staying on board in order to avoid
retribution. If she says no, she probably sees a benift to the relationship
despite its dysfunctionality.
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Tav l'meysav
--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> As a side issue, feminists wmight argue that styaing in an abused
> situation is
> more a function of threat or a preceived threat of retaliation.
> this could be
> verified by asking the woman hypothetically would she prefer her
> husband to be
> dead. If she says yes, then she is probably staying on board in
> order to avoid
> retribution. If she says no, she probably sees a benift to the
> relationship
> despite its dysfunctionality.
>
I think that the issue is much more complicated, as it has
psychological dimensions. I agree with Mark Dratch's post on the
matter.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:35:41 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Mishna Brurah: Advice or Psak?
A cute story from R. Dr. MS Feldblum..
Several Roshei Yeshiva were once discussing their colleagues and one was
overheard to remarkr, " Ploni is an am ho'oretz." An eavesdropping baal habyis
responded,"Well what about so-and-so he's a REAL am ho'oretz!"
Point: the Roshei Yeshiva were talking in CONTEXT of Gedloim and Roshei Yeshiva
Taht Ploni was realitvely speaking an ignoramus. Next to a simple baal habayis,
that same Ploni might have been a gaon.
Previously, I attempted to be careful re: the MB in saying that: relative to the
"hard-core" poskim the MB reads a lot like mussar. This is NOT to say that in
absolute terms that the MB was not a poseik. Rather his style as compared to
other classical poskim is different. They seem to focus on some objective
critteraa, (eg the BY/SA and his hypotheticla BD). The MB injects his concern
for proper hanhogo and Yir'as shomayim which is a slightly different agenda than
the average halcohic work.
Psak means to cut, and Psak tended to be decisive. Currently, it seems the
trend is towards a fuzzy "feel-good" chumro mentaliy rather than meticulous
analysis of sources.
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:53:20 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Hypothesis, the Gemoro may err in Metzius
Bothe R ED Teitz re: Tav Lemeisav and Josh Backon's articles re: Sehema yakdim
kone levishet eseem to indicate the validity of the Chazal's original statemetns
by shedding new light on old (mis-?) understandings.
Question: Couldn't the possiblity exist that- legabei maggots and sponteous
re-generation - our aniyus daas does not fathom the gemoro correctly? And that
it is presumptious to assume that the Gemoros statements were merely a
refelction of the science of its era? And that some future Gaon can reconcile
the maggots issue? Pperhaps the fertilized egg issue as well?
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Bnai Noach
--0-846930886-928430412=:1059
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Anyone have any ideas about the following?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--0-846930886-928430412=:1059
Content-Type: message/rfc822
X-Apparently-To: moshe_feldman@yahoo.com via mdd302.yahoomail.com
Received: from mu.egroups.com (207.138.41.151)
by mta106.yahoomail.com with SMTP; 19 May 1999 00:58:20 -0700
Received: from [10.1.1.21] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 May 1999 08:52:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact israworld-announce-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: israworld-announce@egroups.com
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/israworld-announce/
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-israworld-announce@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 19351 invoked by uid 7770); 19 May 1999 07:51:53 -0000
Received: from pol88b.polito.it (130.192.2.16)
by vault.egroups.com with SMTP; 19 May 1999 07:51:53 -0000
Received: from p1504.studenti.to.it (pool15-183.dialup.alpcom.it)
by polito.it (PMDF V5.2-27 #3020) with SMTP id <01JBDLE30PGG8WZHGI@polito.it>
for israworld-announce@egroups.com; Wed, 19 May 1999 09:51:37 GMT+1
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 09:48:32 +0200
From: Franco Piazzese <piazzese@polito.it>
X-Sender: piazzese@pol88b.polito.it (Unverified)
To: list Israworld <israworld-announce@egroups.com>
Cc: Luca Segantini <lstt@iol.it>
Message-id: <3.0.6.32.19990519094832.0079e100@pol88b.polito.it>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Subject: [israworld] Jewish identity/Humanistic Judaism
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3762
Dear List Friends,
It seems to me that some people speak about the Jews as if it was
universally clear what a Jew is. On the contrary, in spite of the desire of
the Orthodox, the definition of a Jew is not unique.
As anybody knows, according to the "halachah" anybody whose mother is
Jewish or anybody who has been converted to judaism is Jewish, and this is
the only definition the Orthodox accept.
As any ancient people, the Jewish one had its religion, and separating the
former from the latter was inconceivable. But with modernity (Illuminism,
American Constitution, French Revolution,...) and even more with the
extraordinary facts of 20th century: evil (the Shoah) and good (the
refoundation of the State of Israel), the pair people-religion went to a
crisis and was eventually broken in many cases.
As a result, new definitions of Jew were proposed, for different purposes.
Of special interest is that hidden in the return law, which assures the
Israeli citizenship to anybody who has at least a Jewish grandfather and to
her/his family. Professing the Jewish religion is not required.
The Central Conference of the American Rabbis ("Reform") declared in 1983
that, when either of the parents is Jewish, the daughter/son is Jewish, if
s/he wants that.
Among the most interesting recent developements, Secular Humanistic Judaism
plays a special role. This movement was founded in the sixties in the U.S.
by the Reform rabbi Sherwin Wine. His approach is non-theistic and close to
agnosticism: God, if even it exists, does not belong to the human
experience, as the Shoah has tragically proved.
What counts are the human values of the Jewish experience. As a result, the
perspective changes: from God to the Man, from the religion to the culture.
In the Conference of Bruxelles (1988), the International Federation of
Secular Humanistic Jews approved the following
>RESOLUTION
>In response to the destructive definition of a Jew now proclaimed by >some
orthodox authorities, and in thea name of the historic experience >of the
Jewish people, we, therefore, affirm that a Jew is a person of >Jewish
descent or any person who declares himself or herself to be a >Jew and who
identifies with the history, ethical values, culture, >civilization,
community, and fate of the Jewish people.
>International Federation of Secular Humanistic Jews
>October 1, 1988. Brussels, Belgium
>Yehuda Bauer, President
The Movement does not hamper conversions (more properly regarded as
adoptions in the Jewish people) or mixted marriages (which may be
considered as a cultural enrichment for the Jewish people). The Movement,
which is especially active in Israel, is now developing a wide program of
secular Jewish education.
Although the number of followers is still limited (about 30.000),
meaningful results can be expected, especially in Israel.
More information can be found on the web site of the Society for
Humanistic Judaism (of which I am a member):
http://www.shj.org/
There is also a Humanistic Judaism mailing list. To subscribe, send blank
E-mail to the following address:
join-hj@telelists.com
You may address comments, concerns and questions about the hj list to
Walter Hellman (hellman@teleport.com).
Shalom to everybody,
Franco Israel Piazzese
Torino, Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Backup - The #1 Online Backup Service
Automatic, Safe, Reliable Backup and Restores. FREE for
30 Days. INSTALL Now and have a chance to win a Palm Pilot V!
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/218
ISRAWORLD was established to provide a debate forum on any and every issue
imaginable and reasonable, and is dedicated to the memory of ANNA RADLAUER
z.l., who passed away on April 26, 1999.
--0-846930886-928430412=:1059--
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Bnai Noach--ignore/delete previous message
I forwarded the wrong message to avodah.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Catholics who helped Jews during the Holocaust
--0-1804289383-928430830=:22850
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Anybody have any ideas about the following?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--0-1804289383-928430830=:22850
Content-Type: message/rfc822
X-Apparently-To: moshe_feldman@yahoo.com via mdd302.yahoomail.com
Received: from ml.egroups.com (207.138.41.146)
by mta101.yahoomail.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 1999 06:55:41 -0700
Received: from [10.1.1.21] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 1999 14:55:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact israworld-announce-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: israworld-announce@egroups.com
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/israworld-announce/
Reply-To: israworld-announce@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-israworld-announce@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 15769 invoked by uid 7770); 3 Jun 1999 13:54:56 -0000
Received: from mta02-acc.tin.it (HELO fep02-svc.tin.it) (212.216.176.33)
by vault.egroups.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 1999 13:54:56 -0000
Received: from fep05-svc.tin.it ([212.216.177.25]) by fep02-svc.tin.it
(InterMail v4.0 201-221-105) with ESMTP
id <19990603135452.PGOL6676.fep02-svc@fep05-svc.tin.it>
for <israworld-announce@egroups.com>;
Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:54:52 +0200
To: <israworld-announce@egroups.com>
From: flafonta@tin.it
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <19990603135452.PGOL6676.fep02-svc@fep05-svc.tin.it>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:54:52 +0200
Subject: [israworld] A cultural question on Jewish theology
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1961
Dear Friends,
further to some suggestion of ISRAWORLD readers, who I am indebted to, I
have read something about the 7 Noachide Laws (7NL) and, more in general,
about the role and duties that the Gentiles (as I am) have in the framework
of the Jewish doctrine.
It is generally quoted -especially by Lubavitch Chassidim- that whoever
respects the 7NL has a part of the future world, even if he is not a Jew.
This implies that Gentiles should avoid idolatry. This is surely a most
noble goal, that I would be happy in seeing Gentiles evolving toward it..
However, I am interested to know how Judaism treat another case: that of a
believer in another (idolatric) religion whose life -apart from this aspect-
is totally devoted to good deeds (ma'asim tovim?). A practical example: I
have read that in Yad Vashem the names of many Christians who helped Jews
are remembered as "Righteous of the Nations" (or something similar). A
Catholic priest who put his life at risk to save persecuted Jews during WWII
is surely an "idolater" in some respect, but it is hard to think that he
will not receive a recognition for his commendable actions. This question
has been debated by other religions as well (for instance, the Italian poet
Dante Alighieri touched it in his most famous work "La Divina Commedia" in
the frame of Christian theology, giving a positive answer).
Summarizing: the 'olam abba' is reserved to Jews + Noachides, or somebody
else can apply?
Toda' rabba' in advance
Flavio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of waiting for your stock quotes and charts to load?
StockMaster is super-fast for quotes, charts, news, and portfolios.
Markets don't wait, why should you? http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/69
ISRAWORLD was established to provide a debate forum on any and every issue
imaginable and reasonable, and is dedicated to the memory of ANNA RADLAUER
z.l., who passed away on April 26, 1999.
--0-1804289383-928430830=:22850--
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:58:59 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Hypothesis, the Gemoro may err in Metzius
In a message dated 6/3/99 1:03:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
<<
Question: Couldn't the possiblity exist that- legabei maggots and sponteous
re-generation - our aniyus daas does not fathom the gemoro correctly? And
that
it is presumptious to assume that the Gemoros statements were merely a
refelction of the science of its era? And that some future Gaon can
reconcile
the maggots issue? Pperhaps the fertilized egg issue as well?
Rich Wolpoe
>>
Would you extend this analysis to medical advice in the gemora? If not, why
not?
Kol Tuv
Joel Rich
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 ]