Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 011

Tuesday, April 11 2000

• Re: Eating less than a k'zayis of matzah
• Re: RSL
• Re: Eating less than a k'zayis of matzah
• Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
• Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
• Re: Avodah V5 #8Chiyuv of Mah Nishtana
• Re: RSL
• Re: Truth
• Rogatchover/Rambam on Koreich
• Religious Secular Relations (was Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership)
• Re: Rogatchover/Rambam on Koreich
• Psik Reishei, v'Lo Yomus?
• Nishma INSIGHT 5760 - 27

The Mishneh Lamelech discusses this in Hilchos Chametz Umatzah specifically 
about this case.  He says that there is a kiyum in a chatzi shiur of a mitzvah. 
The Rambam in his peirush to Avos says that Moshe Rabeinu had a kiyyum for 
establishing some but not all of the arei miklat even though he did not complete
the mitzvah (I think it is on the mishnah "hevei zahir bemitzvah kalah 
kevachamurah").

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com


RC Brown wrote:

>>Around a week ago the possibility was raised of a kiyum for eating even less 
than a kzayis of matzah, similar
to the concept of chatzi shiyur for issurim.>>

But not in my HO.

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: RSL


> IMHO that is a distinction without a difference.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
> <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 8:24 PM
> Subject: RSL
>
>
> > He was never the intellectual head of the CM. If he was, they would have
> > looked different. He was the classic hired gun.
> >
> > Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> > http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> > To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But this is the same Prof. Lieberman who was at the intellectual head
of
> > the
> > > Conservative movement, the very sam movement ROY, the Rabbanut, the
Eida
> > > Chareidis is batling now in Israel.  It is the same Conservative
> movement
> > > that the was compared to amalek not too long ago.  The Conservatives
> have
> > > not really changed their appproach in over 35 years.  ROY felt
justified
> > in
> > > sneaking into JTS in the 1960's and 70's to talk in learning with
Prof.
> > > Lieberman, a man who trained those who now seek to ireversibly alter
of
> > not
> > > destroy the status quo in Israeli religious life.  That seems rather
> > > inconsistent with his current pronouncements.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

I knew this made sense to me :-) .

Kezayis is when you can *stop* doing the mitzva - anything up to and beyond
the kezayis is still a mitzva!

See the Rogatchover who makes similar comments.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <Gil.Student@citicorp.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <charlesf.brown@gs.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Eating less than a k'zayis of matzah


> The Mishneh Lamelech discusses this in Hilchos Chametz Umatzah
specifically
> about this case.  He says that there is a kiyum in a chatzi shiur of a
mitzvah.
> The Rambam in his peirush to Avos says that Moshe Rabeinu had a kiyyum for
> establishing some but not all of the arei miklat even though he did not
complete
> the mitzvah (I think it is on the mishnah "hevei zahir bemitzvah kalah
> kevachamurah").
>
> Gil Student
> gil.student@citicorp.com
>
>
> RC Brown wrote:
>
> >>Around a week ago the possibility was raised of a kiyum for eating even
less
> than a kzayis of matzah, similar
> to the concept of chatzi shiyur for issurim.>>
>
>

Try as one might, there is no way to totally disasociate RSL from the
Comservative Movement, and there no way to discount his influence upon it.
Indeed, I like many, am sure he would be profoundly disappointed with what
JTS has become, but he was part of that system.  He did influence it.  what
is of great importance to thie discussion however is ROY's relationship with
RSL.  It seems that ROY was machshiv RSL to a great degree and actively
sought out dialogue with him.  I reject that ROY wasn unaware of JTS's "true
nature" (as someone has suggested) due to his sephardic pedigree.  ROY
clearly must have been well aware of all the polemic against Conservative
Judaism, and yet went to JTS to meet with RSL.  The question is what has
precipitated his move to the right?

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Katz <katzco@sprintmail.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership


> Seems to me that it is not the talmidim of Prof. L. who are the most
active in
> the CM but mostly those who were not closely associatied with him.
> steve
>
> "Daniel B. Schwartz" wrote:
>
> >  Prof. Lieberman, a man who trained those who now seek to ireversibly
alter of
> > not
> > destroy the status quo in Israeli religious life.  That seems rather
> > inconsistent with his current pronouncements.
> >
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
To: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>; <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership


> On 11 Apr 00, at 10:33, Daniel B. Schwartz wrote:
>
>
> >
> >     That attitude will never ever solve the problems.  I respectfully
break
> > company with organized Orthodoxy on this issue.  If one of our leader
makes
> > a mistake, and no one, not even ROY is infallible, he should admit it
and go
> > on.  This siege mentality is counter-productive
>
> That attitude and the siege mentality are facts of life in Israel. They
> have been facts of life to some degree since the State was
> founded,

    That does not justify it's existence nor it's proliferation and
intensification.

and they have only intensified in the last twenty-five years
> or so.
    When left untreated any disease proliferates.

 While quoting pithy statements of Oliver Wendell Holmes
> works wonders in academic arguments in American law schools, it
> is totally detached from Israeli reality.

    Great.  Anyone doing anything proactive to change that reality?  Part of
me really suspects that Chareidi leadership as well as the Sarids of the
world really enjoy this battle; that it serves their personal interests and
it not a Machloket leshem shamayim, but rather leshem Kesef, Politca
veProteczia.  That part of me thinks the two deserve one another.

 I may be late with this, but I believe that Rav Kook discusses  this idea in 
his " Halakha Berura V'Biur Halakha" on Pesachim. Time hallowed Liturgic 
texts aside, there ARE opinions that the Mah Nishtanah is extraneous when 
questions have already been posed. See Rav Kook on Pesachim 115b.



B'chavod,
J. Rubenstein

Then we agree to disagree and I am left with a question about ROY's conduct
in this regard

DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
----- Original Message -----
From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: RSL


> But not in my HO.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 8:54 AM
> Subject: Re: RSL
>
>
> > IMHO that is a distinction without a difference.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
> > <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> > To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 8:24 PM
> > Subject: RSL
> >
> >
> > > He was never the intellectual head of the CM. If he was, they would
have
> > > looked different. He was the classic hired gun.
> > >
> > > Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> > > http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> > > To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:46 AM
> > > Subject: Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But this is the same Prof. Lieberman who was at the intellectual
head
> of
> > > the
> > > > Conservative movement, the very sam movement ROY, the Rabbanut, the
> Eida
> > > > Chareidis is batling now in Israel.  It is the same Conservative
> > movement
> > > > that the was compared to amalek not too long ago.  The Conservatives
> > have
> > > > not really changed their appproach in over 35 years.  ROY felt
> justified
> > > in
> > > > sneaking into JTS in the 1960's and 70's to talk in learning with
> Prof.
> > > > Lieberman, a man who trained those who now seek to ireversibly alter
> of
> > > not
> > > > destroy the status quo in Israeli religious life.  That seems rather
> > > > inconsistent with his current pronouncements.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <DFinchPC@aol.com>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 2:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef,
> shlita
> 
> 
> > No sage is superior to the truth.
> > 
> > David Finch
> > 
> 
> Who defines "truth"?
> 
> YGB

Can Truth ever realy be known by mere mortals?...
short of Nevuah, that is.

Truth = Torah

Neither are we free to desist from seeking it, and
trying to understand it.  

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

I don't have a Rogatchover, but the shitas haRambam he
is working with b'pashtus contadicts the whole sugya in
Pesachim (which is why I avoided it : ).  The Rambam
starts by saying to do koreich with matzah and maror,
and then adds that if you only ate matzah and maror
independently you are still yotzei - m'mah nafshach:
if the halacha is like Hillel you are *not* yotzei by
eating matzah and maror independently, and acc. to
Chachamim eating them seperately is the preference and
you shouldn't need to do koreich at all.  Also, the
Rambam writes that the korban Pesach was eaten
seperately - why acc. to Hillel was that not included
in the kericha?

Just for the record, the Yerushalmi also has a 
completely different approach to the machlokes Hillel
and Chachamim: the Yerushalmi in Challah 2b asks how R'
Yochanan could eat koreich if he holds that the
Chachamim disagree with Hillel.  The Yerushalmi gives 2
answers: 1)when two miztvos are d'oraysa the Chachamim 
say mevatlin, but if one is d'oraysa and one derabbanan
even the Chachamim would say ain miztvos mevatlos zu es
zu - exactly the reverse of the Bavli; 2) Even b'zman
hamikdash it is only on kericha of three things
together that the chachamim would say bittul (chad 
b'trei?), but not on a kreicha of two things alone.
Aruch haShulchan tries to fit the Rambam into this
approach, ayen sham for the details.

In any case, the Rambam (and Rogotchover, I imagine)
introduces a complexity that you avoid if learning
with Tos, RiF, Ramban, or RZ"H, which I think is the
simpler approach to the sugya.  

So I guess you have till Friday to work out a yishuv in
time for Shabbos HaGadol : ).

-Chaim B.

On 11 Apr 00, at 12:46, Daniel B. Schwartz wrote:

>  While quoting pithy statements of Oliver Wendell Holmes
> > works wonders in academic arguments in American law schools, it
> > is totally detached from Israeli reality.
> 
>     Great.  Anyone doing anything proactive to change that reality?  

What do you propose anyone do about it? Did you read RYB's 
article in Friday's Post? R. Yonasson was trained at Yale Law 
School, and has a similar academic background to you and me. 
This is some of what he wrote in Friday's Post:

"The staging of news events that discredit or delegitimize
               certain segments of Israeli society is symptomatic of a
               much broader problem. The free marketplace of ideas has
               broken down in Israel, and those calling for its repair are
               scarcely to be found, at least not among elite opinion
               makers. As a consequence, we are experiencing a poor
               man's 1984. 

               "On the one hand, the media manufacture or distort 
news.
               On the other, certain groups cannot even gain a hearing 
for
               their views. Last week, for instance, both Ha'aretz and
               Ma'ariv refused to accept a full-page advertisement
               showing a group of Meretz members stomping a haredi
               man at a Ramat Aviv protest, with an accompanying text
               of quotes from prominent left-wing figures calling for
               violence against haredim. 

               "For money, Ha'aretz did not hesitate to publish a recent
               insert by a Christian missionary group, and Ma'ariv has
               been only too happy to serve as the country's pimp in
               advertising massage parlors and escort services. 

               "But, hey, these people have principles! Even for tens of
               thousands of shekels, they would not allow certain
               uncomfortable facts to reach the Israeli public."

Given that state of affairs (and his description is painfully accurate), 
is it any small wonder that the religious public reacts the way it 
does? 

Did you see the advertising that Shinui put on in the last election? 
Goebbels could not have done better himself. If a political party had 
advertised that way in the US, it would have been treated like the 
KKK or Louis Farrakhan. But in Israel, that party got six Knesset 
seats, which means that 5% of the voters agreed with that party's 
platform. If you add Meretz's ten seats to that total, you have a 
pretty significant number of dati haters, although thankfully it is still 
a minority of the secular population.

Thanks to the good auspices of someone in the US, I got to see 
the Nightline interview with Ted Koppel that was broadcast back to 
the States shortly after Rabin's assasination. Have you ever seen 
that show? Have you ever seen the interview with Chaim Ramon? 
Chaim Ramon is a "mainstream" Labor party politician, and in that 
interview he came off like a facist worthy of Mussolini. Words to the 
effect of, "if we have one vote more than the opposition, we can do 
whatever we want to, and we have the right to crush anyone who 
gets in our way." Is that democracy? Minority rights? 

You see the problem here is that most Israelis have no concept of 
how a democracy is *supposed* to work. No concept of privacy. No 
concept of "innocent until proven guilty." No concept of minority 
protections, except when it is politically expedient to their "side." 
That's why making pithy statements about freedom of speech and 
democracy are so irrelevant here. The power elites here are mostly 
to the left, the media here is controlled almost entirely by the left 
(witness the persecution of Arutz Sheva and the Arutzei 
HaKodesh), and most of the money in the country is controlled by 
the left. Until you can appreciate that basic reality, you cannot 
begin to comment intelligently on the reality of life here.

It takes two or three years living here before you can really begin to 
understand how "the system" works. I cannot begin to tell you how 
naive I was about Israeli government and politics when I came here, 
and I was a lawyer in New York for seven years before we came 
and a political science major in college. Nothing short of day to day 
living here (and not just sound bites on CNN and an occasional 
Post over the net) introduces you to the reality of Israeli 
government and society.

That's what I'm trying to tell you - that you don't get it because you 
cannot get it because you do not and (AFAIK) have not lived here. I 
think RYGB (who did live here for an extensive period) was saying 
the same thing when he posted Rav Nebenzahl's shmooze the 
week before last. Commenting intelligently on Israeli politics and 
society is virtually impossible for one who does not and has not 
lived here. And that's why for the most part, most of the list 
members who live in Israel avoid these discussions on the list.

Part of
> me really suspects that Chareidi leadership 

For the most part, I don't believe that about the Charedi leadership. 
Many of the foot soldiers do enjoy it, but most of the Gdolim are 
sickened by it. They don't need it to establish their positions in the 
community.

as well as the Sarids of the
> world 

The Sarids of the world have pure motives - pure hatred of anything 
smacking of religion. Ever read the Israeli declaration of 
independence? Go ask a historian why Hashem's name isn't 
mentioned except through a vague reference to "Tzur Yisrael." I'll 
give you a hint - it wasn't just poetic.

really enjoy this battle; that it serves their personal interests and
> it not a Machloket leshem shamayim, but rather leshem Kesef, Politca
> veProteczia.  That part of me thinks the two deserve one another.

I personally would be happier if they would both take less money 
and they would lower my taxes. I would happily give away 20% of 
my tax savings to tzedaka. But as long as the government is going 
to continue to spend billions on things that are anathema to me 
anyway, I may as well fight so that the things that are dear to me 
get their fair share.

Off the soapbox....

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

On 11 Apr 00, at 13:09, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

The Rambam
> starts by saying to do koreich with matzah and maror,
> and then adds that if you only ate matzah and maror
> independently you are still yotzei - m'mah nafshach:
> if the halacha is like Hillel you are *not* yotzei by
> eating matzah and maror independently, and acc. to
> Chachamim eating them seperately is the preference and
> you shouldn't need to do koreich at all.  

Huh? Are you saying that according to the Rambam one is or is 
not yotzei l'shitas Hillel by eating matza and maror separately?

BTW - there are signs up all over my neighborhood for soft Sfardi 
matzos, and one of them has a picture of a Sfardi Koreich. Looks 
much different from an Ashkenazi one - sort of like a pita except 
the pita is made out of matza rather than bread. I hate to admit it, 
but it looks a lot more appetizing than what we eat on the seder 
night....

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

Some one jsut emailes this to me:

>>I found this on CNN so it's probably true!<<

http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/about_mike.htm

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

Dear List,
     I find this article quite thought provoking 
Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
--------------------------------------------------

INSIGHT
5760 - #27

ETHICAL CHANGE

        Rambam, Shemona Perakim, chapter 6 presents a classical distinction
in mitzvot between those commands which are understandable to the human 
being and those commands which are deemed to be beyond human understanding. 
In the performance of the former, defined as mitzvot sichliyot, one is 
called upon not only to abide by the command but also to incorporate the 
ethical perspective into one's being. For example, in regard to the 
prohibition of murder, one is not only not suppose to commit murder but one 
is also suppose to develop an ethical repugnance to murder and not even 
desire to commit this act. In the performance of the latter category of 
mitzvot, defined as chukkot, the focus is solely to be on the action. In the 
absence of an ethical perspective, an inherent desire for that which is 
forbidden is deemed not to be problematic; the sole reason to abide by the 
law is that it represents the Will of God. For example, one is simply not 
supposed to eat pork; there is nothing wrong, however, with a desire to eat 
pork. In fact it is praiseworthy if one states that he/she would like to eat 
pork but refrains because God has prohibited it.
        There are many methods of categorizing the mitzvot. For example, we
distinguish between mitzvot bein adam l'chaveiro, commands affecting our 
relationships with others, and mitzvot bein adam l'Makom, commands 
affecting our relationship with God. We may question, however, the 
practical significance of such distinctions. A mitzvah is a mitzvah; how 
does its categorization practically effect its necessary performance?1 
Rambam's response in regard to the distinction between mitzvah sichliyah 
and chok is that knowledge of the category in which we place a mitzvah 
effects our mental focus in regard to this mitzvah. In regard to a mitzvah 
sichliyah, our personal ethical perspective is to mirror the command of the 
Torah; notwithstanding the law, we are to be repulsed by the prohibited act 
itself. We are to know that murder is wrong. In regard to a chok, our 
personal ethical perspective is not called upon to mirror the Torah law. It 
is the violation of the law per se that is to disturb us, not necessarily 
the act. We are not to know that eating pork is inherently wrong; it is 
that this act violates the Torah law that is to concern us. This 
distinction in mitzvot is to affect us educationally and intellectually. By 
presenting this distinction in mitzvot, we are defining how we are to 
present the mitzvot in our classrooms and how we are to think, generally 
and specifically, as we observe a Torah lifestyle.2
        As our thoughts effect our overall outlook and goals within Torah,
this distinction will also, clearly, effect our actions. In determining 
behaviour, we may be more willing to apply the strict letter of the law to 
chukkot while considering the spirit of the law in regard to mitzvot 
sichliyot. Maharal3 actually states that the Rabbis specifically made more 
edicts in regard to chukkot because commands for which we understand the 
reason are less likely to be violated; thus the need for greater fences 
around the chukkot. How we understand a mitzvah effects us and, according 
to Rambam, so it should.
        We are thus called upon to categorize the mitzvot pursuant to this
distinction. On the surface this would seem not to be that difficult a 
task: the prohibition against murder is clearly a mitzvah sichliyah,  the 
prohibition against eating port is clearly a chok. Yet in many cases, this 
determination is not simple. For example, there is much discussion and 
debate as to within which category we are to place the arayot, the major 
sexual transgressions.4  The task is even more difficult when we consider 
various mitzvot which at times were considered to be comprehensible and at 
other times considered to be the opposite.
        Circumcision is perhaps the most powerful example of such a
mitzvah. We presently live within a period of time when circumcision is 
understood to be a positive act which stands on its own merits.5 This 
acceptance by the general populace has clearly made the observance of 
circumcision easier. It also must be deemed a factor in why the vast 
majority of Jews, who have rejected other parts of the Tradition, have 
still insisted upon a bris for their sons. For most of history, though, 
circumcision was clearly perceived to be a chok that was furthermore 
challenged and ridiculed by the general world population. How do we respond 
to such a mitzvah which at times is seen as a chok and at times is seen as 
a mitzvah sichliyah? Are we to place one category over another, to accept 
the designation as a chok, for example, when all else fails? Should we 
first strive to see circumcision as a mitzvah sichliyah and thus attempt to 
promote the positive medical appraisals of this act over those who 
challenge its effectiveness? Furthermore, how can we describe effects by 
such categorizations when we know that such categorizations may only be 
temporal? How can we define a command as a mitzvah sichliyah or a chok and 
structure our overall perspective and relevance within our lifestyles 
because of this command's categorization when tomorrow it may be different?
        Ein l'dayan elah mah she'einav ro'ot. A judge only has the facts
that are before him.6 We can only make decisions based upon the facts that 
we have before us. Yet we must also always recognize that we are still 
perpetually bound by the parameters of our human understanding and, as we 
make decisions, must maintain a humility.

Rabbi Benjamin Hecht

FOOTNOTES

1)  Oftentimes, distinctions are in fact offered in order to defend the 
observance of one set of commands and the non-observance of another set. 
For example, historically, the Reform movement has used the distinction 
between mitzvot bein adam l'chaveiro  and mitzvot bein adam l'Makom to 
distinguish between commands they argue are still binding (the former) and 
those they argue are not binding (the latter). This has led to some 
reluctance to categorize mitzvot within Orthodox thought which wishes to 
stress the common attribute that applies to all mitzvot, i.e. that they are 
eternally binding.
2)  In regard to the distinction between mitzvot bein adam l'chaveiro and 
mitzvot bein adam l'Makom, one practical distinction concerns the laws of 
repentance whereby, in connection to the former, one must also request 
forgiveness from the individual that was offended.
3)  See Derech Chaim, Avot 1:2.
4)  See, further, Rabbi B. Hecht, Inquiry: The March for Israel Parade and 
Halachic Decision Making, NISHMA Update, June 1993. See, also, Ibid.
5)  There are, though, many within modern society who are challenging this 
perspective and this should be a matter of concern. It clearly makes this 
discussion timely. See, further, Jon D. Levenson, The New Enemies of 
Circumcision, Commentary, March 2000. While we may express the positive 
medical perspective in such debates, is there also a pure religious 
motivation for supporting such a perspective?
6)  T.B. Baba Batra 131a.

NISHMA
3772 Bathurst Street
North York, Ontario
M3H 3M6
416-630-0588
416- 630-7702
mail@nishma.org

Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, Director
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
People can check out Nishma at www.nishma.org and join the mailing list through 
the subscription form at the website.

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


[ 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         ]