Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 363

Sunday, February 13 2000

• shuttaf
• halacha lemoshe misinai
• RE: Video cameras
• Re: Seridei Esh
• Re: Posthumous letters
• Re: SE and Other Gedolim
• [none]
• Re: v'anu v'amru
• Why does loshon ha'kodesh have final letters?
• Re: Posthumous letters
• SE
• Re: Seridai Eish
• Re: Posthumous letters
• Midat HaDin & Midat HaRahamim
• Talmudic Shabbat afternoon Shi'urim
• Fw: my response regarding video cameras. pass it on as you see fit.

<<<<<Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 13:12:35 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: gezel akum - Shituf

I've heard of this, where is this cited?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: gezel akum
<snip>

As the problem with Christianity is shittuf, and shittuf is muttar to a
ben noach (rama), the Christian is not over any lav by worshipping, so
we have no issur in helping him worship, even though that worship is
assur to us.

<snip>
Meir Shinnar>>>>>>





See R' Kaplan's book "Handbook of Jewish Thought" Part I   1:14-1:16 with 
his extensive footnotes.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

> 
> > two types of halachah leMoshe misinai. 
> 
> See Tosfos Yom Tov end of Eduyois, and his refrences (There is much written 
> on this subject).
> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> 
Can you please give some more references.

Eli Turkel

> Notice also that their rav 
> confirms my assumption
> that changing the state of a transistor could qualify as 
> boneh. 

Where in the post do you see this?

> However, after
> his comment about microphones, I'm not sure his decision is 
> based on accurate technical knowledge.

Unfortunatly, this is a common problem with technological questions.

Akiva

A reality check a day keeps 
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274  

On 11 Feb 00, at 10:25, David Eisenman wrote:

> 2. "Yedid nafshi HaRav HaGaon [HaChasid HaShalem?? (I didn't recognize
> these rashei teivos)] 

If it's heh heh, that usually means, "HaChaver HaNichbad" here, 
and it's not much of an honorific (it's very commonly used and 
nowhere near the honorific that HaRav HaGaon would be).

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 11 Feb 00, at 9:38, meir shinnar wrote:

> my understanding in hilchot lashon hara is that once something (true)is
> known to a certain number, it is no longer lashon hara to tell it.  

Only if it's a davar sheainenu gnai gamur (Chafetz Chaim Clal 2 S'if 
2). See the Be'er Mayim Chaim s"k 2 there who limits the heter 
even further.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In a message dated 2/11/00 4:07:07 PM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< RYGB already has such an appelation... He's "The
 Bigdei Shesh." (based on his sefer on Bava Basra of
 the same name) >>

I don't like it. The words "The Bigdei Shesh" remind me too much of "The 
Bignacht Unzatown," whose works list dangerously toward Wissenschaft.

David Finch

In Avodah 4#362, Rabbi EMTeitz replied (possibly to MBerger, in which case
I hope Micha doesn't mind my commenting):
> Why can't the words be understood as follows?
"Zeh keli," anu v'umru, "Hashem yimloch . . ." <
My point, in far less concise a fashion (as I tried to explain my thought
process), when I privately replied to Micha last Friday (yes, Micha, you're
welcome to post that message on this forum if you wish...it does suggest
more of a stop after "v'o'm'ru" than after "Kaili," as I was still
basically thinking in terms of grouping "onu v'o'm'ru" with "zeh Kaili,"
but that part of the message was ancillary to defending the togetherness of
"onu v'o'm'ru").  Essentially, I would not characterize Rav Henkin z'tz'l's
'pause before "v'o'm'ru"' opinion re this phrase (or other, similar phrases
in the davening) as the only plausible possibility, and I repeat that the
alternate "zeh Tzur yish'ainu potzu feh v'o'm'ru" girsa (in which I'd like
to hear someone argue that there should be a pause between "potzu feh" and
"v'o'm'ru") implies that there should also not be a pause before "v'o'm'ru"
here.

> ...Likewise (albeit without examples), we can combine the "onim v'omrim"
of
k'dushas yotzer by understanding it to mean "(this) k'dusha they all onim
v'omrim simultaneously with trembling: kadosh. ." <
Precisely (and even better than my "K'dushah!  All of them did/are
simultaneously Onim V'o'rim in/with Yir'ah....").

> Parenthetically, on the question of whether to say "bin'ima; k'dusha
kulam" or "bin'ima k'dosha," Rashi on the posuk in Y'shayahu clearly says
the former. <
However, Baer notes that a k'sav yoshon of pairush RaShY doesn't have that
comment.  In any case, no one was questioning that we have the girsa that
we have -- AEStein [correctly, as per Rabbi YHHenkin] quoted Rav Henkin as
writing that the SHaTZ [and all of us, presumably] should pause between
"onim" and "v'o'm'rim," and I tried to explain why that needn't be the
case, expanding the point to theorize that all "onim v'o'm'rim"s in the
davening should not be split w/ an intervening pause.

On a separate but related matter: Rabbi YHHenkin quoted (his message's ref:
"Eidut Leyisrael no. 65 [Kitvei haGri"a Henkin vol 1, p. 161]") other
examples that his father wrote about -- one was "...l'u'masam m'shab'chim
<pause> v'o'm'rim...."  In my reply (to him and those he had cc:ed), I
questioned this example, too, as I seemed to remember (in a half-baked
fashion) that "l'u'masam" had a ta'am mafsik -- checking, this indeed is
the case (see Y'chezkail 3:13), and I would add now (it's motzoai Shabbos)
what I should have added then: the alternate form of the phrase is
"l'u'masam 'Boruch' yomairu," which clearly implies that the pause should
be directly after "l'u'masam."

All the best (including wishes for a Gut Chodesh and week) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Reposted with a "Subject:" line -- sorry about that!  --Michael
--------------
In Avodah 4#362, Rabbi EMTeitz replied (possibly to MBerger, in which case
I hope Micha doesn't mind my commenting):
> Why can't the words be understood as follows?
"Zeh keli," anu v'umru, "Hashem yimloch . . ." <
My point, in far less concise a fashion (as I tried to explain my thought
process), when I privately replied to Micha last Friday (yes, Micha, you're
welcome to post that message on this forum if you wish...it does suggest
more of a stop after "v'o'm'ru" than after "Kaili," as I was still
basically thinking in terms of grouping "onu v'o'm'ru" with "zeh Kaili,"
but that part of the message was ancillary to defending the togetherness of
"onu v'o'm'ru").  Essentially, I would not characterize Rav Henkin z'tz'l's
'pause before "v'o'm'ru"' opinion re this phrase (or other, similar phrases
in the davening) as the only plausible possibility, and I repeat that the
alternate "zeh Tzur yish'ainu potzu feh v'o'm'ru" girsa (in which I'd like
to hear someone argue that there should be a pause between "potzu feh" and
"v'o'm'ru") implies that there should also not be a pause before "v'o'm'ru"
here.

> ...Likewise (albeit without examples), we can combine the "onim v'omrim"
of
k'dushas yotzer by understanding it to mean "(this) k'dusha they all onim
v'omrim simultaneously with trembling: kadosh. ." <
Precisely (and even better than my "K'dushah!  All of them did/are
simultaneously Onim V'o'rim in/with Yir'ah....").

> Parenthetically, on the question of whether to say "bin'ima; k'dusha
kulam" or "bin'ima k'dosha," Rashi on the posuk in Y'shayahu clearly says
the former. <
However, Baer notes that a k'sav yoshon of pairush RaShY doesn't have that
comment.  In any case, no one was questioning that we have the girsa that
we have -- AEStein [correctly, as per Rabbi YHHenkin] quoted Rav Henkin as
writing that the SHaTZ [and all of us, presumably] should pause between
"onim" and "v'o'm'rim," and I tried to explain why that needn't be the
case, expanding the point to theorize that all "onim v'o'm'rim"s in the
davening should not be split w/ an intervening pause.

On a separate but related matter: Rabbi YHHenkin quoted (his message's ref:
"Eidut Leyisrael no. 65 [Kitvei haGri"a Henkin vol 1, p. 161]") other
examples that his father wrote about -- one was "...l'u'masam m'shab'chim
<pause> v'o'm'rim...."  In my reply (to him and those he had cc:ed), I
questioned this example, too, as I seemed to remember (in a half-baked
fashion) that "l'u'masam" had a ta'am mafsik -- checking, this indeed is
the case (see Y'chezkail 3:13), and I would add now (it's motzoai Shabbos)
what I should have added then: the alternate form of the phrase is
"l'u'masam 'Boruch' yomairu," which clearly implies that the pause should
be directly after "l'u'masam."

All the best (including wishes for a Gut Chodesh and week) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

My 6 year old daughter asked  me a dauntingly easy question today:

Why does loshon ha'kodesh have final letters?

I have no answer.  Any tries?

And so, why the letters kof, num, mem, tzadi?

/af

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

I looked again at the letters over Shabbos. They are, in reality, worse than
I had remembered, out of context and selectively excerpted. They are,
without doubt, gnai gammur.

I would like to note where my basic perspective on this matter originated:
When I was in Sha'alvim, the Rosh Yeshiva once gave a shiur in which he
mentioned precisly this topic of posthumous abuse (I do not remember if that
was the actual topic of the shiur). In the course of the shiur he mentioned
that someone had published the private letters of the Chida, while on his
journey, to his wife. The RY said that it was manifestly evident that the
Chida would never have wanted these letters published, and that to do so had
been a grave injustice, and, possibly a violation of CDRG.

After looking at the letters I was reminded of another story heard from the
RY of Sha'alvim, that after R' Herzog went to meet the Pope in Rome in 1946
(in a vain effort to redeem Jewish children placed in monasteries during the
war) he rushed to a mikva. When asked why, he said he could feel the tumah
when he met with the Pope. Similary, after the voyeuristic experience of
reading private material such as this, you come out feeling, not tainted c"v
by the SE, bu by having done something naughty.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il>
To: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>; <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Posthumous letters


> On 11 Feb 00, at 9:38, meir shinnar wrote:
>
> > my understanding in hilchot lashon hara is that once something (true)is
> > known to a certain number, it is no longer lashon hara to tell it.
>
> Only if it's a davar sheainenu gnai gamur (Chafetz Chaim Clal 2 S'if
> 2). See the Be'er Mayim Chaim s"k 2 there who limits the heter
> even further.
>
> -- Carl
>
>
> Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
> Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
> Thank you very much.
>
> Carl and Adina Sherer
> mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
>

> BTW, I just bought the new version of the Shut SE (I did not own one till
> now). I note with dismay that his essays on historical figures, mussar,
> etc., are no longer there. Is this, too, revisionism?
>

Whoops! In the Introduction they say they will put out the fourth volume
separately.

Soryy for impugning the publishers!

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

But the SE  was niftar before the Six Day War.

Perhaps the issue was where on Har HaMenuchot he should be buried?

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Yosef Blau <yblau@idt.net>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 1:41 PM
Subject: Seridai Eish


> The debate about the Seridai Eish Z.T.L. echoes the dispute after his
> petira about where he should be buried.  I lived in Brookline at the
> time and came to the home of Rav Soloveitchik Z.T.L. to attend a shiur.
> He was visibly upset and explained that he had just heard about the lack
> of kavod hames shown for the Sereidai Eish as a struggle had taken place
> over whether to bury him on Har Hazeisim or Har Menuchos.  The choice of
> location of burial place was somehow going to establish to which group
> he truly belonged.
> Clearly Rav Weinberg was not easily characterized.  Gedolim often are
> not reducible to followers of one camp.
> Sincerely,
> Yosef Blau
> 
> 

Something that I forgot before:

As I note, I looked again at the letters over Shabbos. They were not -
ever - in the public domain. They were in a special restricted collection at
JTS, which required special permission (in this case, from Prof. Atlas's
widow) to access.

A couple of additional ruminations on post-mortem CDRG.

First of all, if I remember correctly, RCD Halevi in Asei Lecha Rav
discusses reading letters placed in a geniza after the death of the author.
Someone with a set, could you please check.

Secondly, I can countenance the idea that someone might be delegated to read
letters to determine content with the express caveat that he not convey
inofrmation that is even the least bit questionable. If there is a minhag
ha'olam, that is may be its standard.

Furthermore: If a person leaves, on his own, an archive, without any caveats
on it, there may be an umdena that it is his will to see the archived
materials preserved, perhaps even published. This is not the case with
letters sent to others and preserved by those others.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


----- Original Message -----
From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il>
To: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>; <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Posthumous letters


> On 11 Feb 00, at 9:38, meir shinnar wrote:
>
> > my understanding in hilchot lashon hara is that once something (true)is
> > known to a certain number, it is no longer lashon hara to tell it.
>
> Only if it's a davar sheainenu gnai gamur (Chafetz Chaim Clal 2 S'if
> 2). See the Be'er Mayim Chaim s"k 2 there who limits the heter
> even further.
>
> -- Carl
>
>
> Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
> Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
> Thank you very much.
>
> Carl and Adina Sherer
> mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
>

In a recent lecture, the rabbi told us that most people (i.e. jews)
connect to Hashem via Midat HaDin (many times this is actually
unconcously).

He also said that it is possible to connect via Midat HaRahamim, and
that women especially should do so as it is more suited for them.

I would love to hear some comments, explanations and sources for the
above information.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Rabbi Hess ZT"L (Israel) in a lecture describing the various
categories of Midrashim in the G'mara stated that one category were
Shabbat afternoon D'rashot, which many women would come to hear.

Is there any book that has actually "marked" which D'rashot are
relevant to the category (besides the ones about Rav Meir and the
candles, etc.)?

Shoshana L. Boublil

From the original poster on MJ. He is not a member of Avodah, and prefers
anonymity on this forum:

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 11:50 PM
Subject: my response regarding video cameras. pass it on as you see fit.


> Dear Rav Bechhoffer:
>
> My apologies for the delay in responding, I was unable to access my e-mail
> for several days.
>
> Frankly, I would have appreciated knowing that my response was going to be
> broadcast. While the halachos would not have changed, but the tone of the
> note would have been a bit more formal and the descriptions may have been
> more technical.
>
> Be that as it may, I would like to address some of this issues that were
> raised by yourself and Rabbis Atwood and Berger:
>
>     1. You wrote that "I do not understand [the position] you attribute to
> R' Moshe."
>     I did not endeavor to explicate R' Moshe's shittah, nor did I claim
that
> to fully understand all the "lomdus" that was behind his psak. I merely
> stated his clearly stated halachic position. From what I've seen, you
> haven't checked the citations in Igros, so that may be a good place to
> start. In addition, I do not consider myself Rav Moshe's equal, colleague,
> or "bar plugta," --maybe not even a talmid -- thus I am clearly incapable
of
> speaking on his behalf.
>
>     2. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my description, but there's no
> difference between black-and-white and color l'halachah. It's only that
the
> TV-type screens have one "gun" if they're black-and-white, three (red,
> green, blue) if they're color.
>
>     3. Rabbi Berger questions whether the Chazon Ish's shittah on
> electricity would "apply to activity within chips, where everything is
going
> on microscopically".
>     Since the issue here is not one of "nireh l'einayim" but of a
technical
> reality, I don't see why there should be and difference.
>     I must confess that in my discussion with Rav Moshe I directly asked
him
> about effecting fluctuations in current that are so small and so short
that
> they can only be measured by an oscilloscope or other, more sensitive
> device, rather than a standard volt-meter. He responded that there was no
> difference -- its assur either way. Before Rabbi Atwood jumps on me about
> the static caused by walking across a carpet, I would venture to say that
> that is a "misaseik" with a "psik reisha d'lo nicha lei klal." See also my
> following note.
>
>     4. Rabbi Atwood writes that based on "that logic (WADR) it would be
> assur to move your arm or leg on shabbos, since those activities require
> changes in electronic impulse (the nerves and the brain)."
>     Firstly, I don't know what WADR stands for.
>     Next, keeping in mind what I wrote above (#1), there are two basic
> responses:
>         (a) "Lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis." Hashem has allowed us
to
> proceed with our natural lives on Shabbos, so long as we do not do
anything
> beyond the natural that violates halachah -- e.g., we can walk, wearing
> clothes, but we may not carry or walk beyond the techum.
>         (b) Related to the above, I heard the following analogy many years
> ago from Rav Moshe's son, Rav Reuven, but I don't recall if he said it in
> his father's name: It is muttar to be "mevasheil bechamah" on Shabbos, but
> if one were to mix the elements that make up the sun, one would not be
> allowed to cook in it. the same phenomenon that may be used when it is
found
> in nature is prohibited when it is copied by man. Indeed, "hamevasheil
> b'Chamei Tverya [toldos hachamah] is pattur aval assur, but one who cooks
in
> other heated water is chayav.
>
>     5. With regard to the contention that "the circuits already exist" and
> that "the *flow* of electricity (which is *not* similar to water flowing
> through a pipe) can be redirected via transistors from one point to
> another":
>     It seems to me -- and I've spoken to electrical engineers about this
in
> the past -- that the "redirection" of the electricity is essentially an
> automated form of connection. What proof is there -- and one should have
to
> prove this before being mattir a potential de'oraisa -- that this is not
> boneh/makeh b'patish.
>
>     6. I believe that the distinction between LEDs and LCDs is a technical
> issue that I believe has no halachic import. The point is that, depending
on
> the image, different areas receive power; or at least different amounts of
> power. I readily concede that I'm not positive that there is the
completion
> of new circuits [not so much in the sense of and on-and-off switch, but in
> the sense I mentioned in #5), but that would require establishing the
exact
> "metzius."
>
>     7. Rabbi Atwood understood that "Up to this point, he [I] wouldn't
seem
> to have any objections to a camera without a viewfinder (or one with the
> viewfinder turned off)."
>     According to the opinion of Rav Moshe, I believe that there would
still
> be a problem, since there is still power modulation. I am simply unsure of
> how Rav Shlomo Zalman and the Chazon Ish would pasken if there was no
> viewfinder or monitor attached.
>
>     8. With regard to the recording head, according to Rav Moshe it should
> make no difference, but according to others it may depends on whether
> there's always an electrical current flowing to every "circuit" (for lack
of
> a better word) in the head.
>
>     9. Rabbi Atwood posed what seemed to be a rhetorical question: "If a
> non-Jew wanted to video you on shabbos while you were walking down the
> street, would you be over on any issurim? If not, then setting up a camera
> with a timer shouldn't be any worse."
>     Firstly, Rav Moshe told us at the time that he felt there is a real
> problem for a person who has a security camera pointing at  his door to
walk
> past the camera on Shabbos. He also advised us to avoid such cameras if we
> know about them , because it isn't "lo nicha lei klal." For others it is
> "misaseik."
>     This brings us to the next question: Can a Jew cause another to cause
> something to happen as a "misaseik." I'll leave it Rabbi Bechhoffer to
> discuss this -- after all, he sidestepped it in his booklet on eiruvin.
>
>     10. On principle, I feel compelled to respond to the following
> statements that had been made: "I had a long discussion with a few
rabbanim
> regarding computers and voice recognition a few months ago:
>     I had asked what the problems would be with dictating chidushim into a
> computer on shabbos, assuming the computer was turned on before shabbos
with
> the software running. Their consensus was that there was probably no issur
> involved, but that they wouldn't give a psak that it was mutar either,
> because of it's non-shabbosdic/uvdei d'chol nature....
>     Like many other areas involving electricity or technology (and many
> other areas of life), the first issur or heter continues to this day, even
> if the reasoning doesn't always make sense from a scientific viewpoint."
>
>     While the epistle which follows may be considered e-mail heresy, a
> message from the dark ages, and decidedly undemocratic, I believe the
> following to be true: I don't know the Rabbanim who were consulted, so
> please do not accuse me of seeking to impute their credibility. But I
found
> the tone of the rest of the statement troubling -- and unfair.
>     The fact is, I know many Rabbanim, and, as a "musmach," I too am a
> "Rav." Not everyone who passes the bar is Yaakov Weinrot or Ben Brafman.
> When someone's child suffers from leukemia, r"l, we don't send the parents
> to the GP down the block. And there are few poskim in the league of the
> Chazon Ish, Rav Moshe, or Rav Shlomo Zalman, zt"l. Yes, even the three I
> mentioned had many disagreements, and yes, a true "higiah l'hora'ah" may
> certainly disagree with them. But it behooves us -- and the Rabbanim
> themselves -- to understand with whom they have chosen to disagree.
Learning
> Mishnah Berurah and knowing Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa is one thing.
Having
> all of Shas and Poskim at your fingertips is quite another.
>     The gedolei haposkim did not pasken sheilos lightly, and they gave
> careful consideration to both the halachah and the metzius -- and they
fully
> understood the interplay of the two. And is the reasoning doesn't make
sense
> to our small minds, so be it -- I'd rather throw my lot with their psak
than
> with the well-researched scholarly e-mail from the local shtibel-Rav.
>     I am reminded of an incident: when we were in yeshiva, the Sheila
arose
> about what brachah to make on Goldenberg's Peanut Chews. Several fellows
> went over to Rav Moshe, pulled apart some Peanut Chews [he asked them if
> they're going to eat them afterwards, I recall], and he said it's Rov
> Shehakol, so it's a shehakol. Some bachurim disagreed, and they began
> pulling apart Peanut Chews, separating the peanuts from the chocolate
> coating and the other stuff, and taking surveys as to which was "rov." It
> certainly seemed like the peanuts were "rov," but few people would go
> against the Rosh Hayeshiva. We soon got a letter from Goldenberg's,
however,
> that the peanuts were only 17%.
>     As for the understanding of electricity in general, I am reminded of a
> famous saying of Rav Baruch Ber Liebowitz of Kamenitz: "A 'nireh li' of
the
> Rosh is stronger than when the Rosh brings a ray'ah. When he brings a
> ray'ah, I can disagree with his understanding of the gemara, but when the
> Rosh says 'nireh li' it means that he made this statement based on his
> knowledge and understanding of kol haTorah kulah."
>     I think that this is something worth all of us considering.
>     In addition, one may want to review hilchos Hora'ah in Yoreh De'ah
242,
> especially the Rema in # 31 and the Schach in Kitzur Hilchos Hora'ah
(which
> follows the siman) #s 1-2. If the actual scenario isn't apropos, the theme
> certainly is.
>
> Bivirkas kol tuv and a gut voch

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


[ 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         ]