Avodah Mailing List
Volume 06 : Number 076
Friday, December 22 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:30:32
From: "" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject: Holding hands at a wedding
About holding hands at the hasuna. This is an ancient minhag, going
back as far as we can trace in the rishonim. See the Roqeah, s. 353:
uk'shehakallo nikhneses... az hehoson holekh shom liqrosoh V'LOQEAH
YODOH..." Note that this is the Roqeah!! A leader of Hasidei Ashkenaz,
a Jewish movement that could scarcely be called liberal by any stretch of
the imagination. And then the Maharil (p. 465): "And when they brought
the kallo to the entrance to the shul courtyard [for the Maien], the
Rov and the elders went and brought the hoson to the kallo, v'hehoson
TOFES OSOH B'YODO, and when they were joined together all the people
would throw what on their heads and say 'p'ru urvu' three times." This
minhag survived in Germany up until the 18th century, when a lot of the
minhagim started to change, and in certain kehillos even later. See
the Minhogim of Vermaisa (17th century), in describing the Maien,
R. Yuzepe Shammes says (v. 2, p. 24): [once they bring the kallo to
the Breithoiz, where the hoson already is] "then the Rov goes to the
place where the hoson is seated, and takes him by the hand, and leads
him to the kallo who is in the entrance to the Breithoiz, and the hoson
'OHEZ HAKALLO B'YODO, while the Rov is still holding his [other] hand,
and he takes them up to the special seat prepared for the hoson and
kallo." This custom then survived 700 years in Ashkenaz, and where do
we find anyone who decried it? Historical background: the Maien was the
name of the ceremony performed in the early morning hours of the day of
the hasuna, before davening. The hasuna took place later on in the day,
usually in the afternoon, after the two sides had reached agreement that
each side had fulfilled the obligations they had taken upon themselves
at the tanoim for providing clothing and jewelry for the hoson and
the kallo. The Maien was still mentioned by the Hasam Sofer and even
in later sources; it was a central part of the day of the hasuna. And
just to show you how things have changed: has anyone ever heard of the
Maien? My zeide, from Lita, never did; nor have any of the Yekkes I have
talked to, but at the beginning of the 1900's there were still Yekkes
around who remembered it from their youth.
But back to the point: this ceremonial holding of hands was done at the
Maien, a few hours BEFORE the huppa, and it was done in the presence of
the rov of Vermaisa, and with him aiding and abbetting. On the other hand,
it was clearly part of the wedding ceremonies; I do not have evidence
of married couples holding hand later, but in a later post I will give
evidence that points that way, b'n.
The most interesting thing about this is how similar this is to the
Sefaradi custom (at all the Sefaradi weddings I have been to): before
the bride reaches the huppa, the hoson leaves the huppa, takes her hand,
and leads her under the huppa. Mrs. Boublil, Mrs. Lutz, Mr. Targum, or
anyone else, can you confirm that this is done in all Sefaradi weddings?
A freilikhen hanukka,
Seth Mandel
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:35:31 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: RE: Halachic History and Halachic Process
Sources on aveilim not receiving gifts?
KT
Joel
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:55:00 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject: Re: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP
I wrote:
> This [Rambam, Mamrim 2:1] only refers to NEW halachahs that are derived from
> Scripture through the 13 exegetical rules.
David Glasner wrote:
> I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean by a "new halachah."
> If you look up the Rambam you will see that he is quite explicit that the
> p'sak of a previous Sanhedrin can be overruled by the current one based on a
> different interpretation of the relevant Scriptual text. The gadol behokhma
> u'v'minyan restriction does not apply here either.
> That restriction is mention in the next halakhah (2:2) about overruling a
> takanah or a gezeirah of a previous Sanhedrin.
According to just about everyone except for the Dor Revi'i, there are
different types of halachos. There are halachos leMoshe miSinai, some
of which were later "found" in the Torah through hermeneutics, others
which remained detached from the text. Then there are halachos which
are DERIVED through hermeneutics, i.e. using the 13 midos to learn from
one place to another. All of the above are de'oraisa. Then there are
dinim derabbanan, such as gezeiros and takanos.
The Rambam in hilchos mamrim 2:1 is referring to halachos that are DERIVED
through hermeneutics. A later beis din can change that. The first type
of halachah, such as the 39 melachos of Shabbos, is unchangeable.
In hilchos mamrim 2:2, that Rambam is discussing dinim derabbanan.
This all seems very clear to me.
This is all stated very eloquently by R. Aryeh Kaplan in his Handbook
of Jewish Thought, which I came very close to plagiarizing in
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/whatis.html.
Gil Student
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:48:58 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject: RE: onen - chanukah
jjbaker@panix.com wrote
> Since the onen is still obligated in the positive
> mitzvot, the rabbinic mitzva of pirsumei nisa is still incumbent on him -
> so he lights with a bracha.
Has anyone on this thread pointed out that pirsumei nissah is a speical case?
E.G.
Arba kossos - afilu ani shebeyisrael
Purim - mevatlin Talmud Torah likrias hamegillah
Omitting the lights would aisi be a problem of pirsumei nissa.
Shalom
Rich
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:24:12 -0500
From: "Ron Bratt" <RBRATT@courts.state.ny.us>
Subject: Onen - Chanukah
R mi wrote:
> First, pirsumei nisa (PN) is a mitzvas asei. It's also chal on people
> who were zocheh to a personal yeshu'a.
If you say that PN is an aseh, how can an Onen light, even without
a bracha. Unless you say that PN is part of lo sasur or you can offer
a chasidic argument.
> The hekesh in the digest where your email appeared made me think about a
> different chakirah. Perhaps the onein isn't motivated by the asei of PN,
> but by the lav of causing chashad. After all, does everyone know he's
> an onein?
I think that the "hekash" to chashad really doesn't work. Numerous
posters have already stated that chashad falls away because a) he may
come home later or b) may have lit already. People aren't training
their binoculars on your home (at least I hope not.
a freilecher,
yerachmiel bratt
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:40:08 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Onen - Chanukah
First, I should note that I was told in private email that the chakirah
between mitzvas hadlakah and pirsumei nisei is an old one. I really showed
off my lack of Brisk-ness. That said, I still don't understand it.
Baruch shekivanta.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 01:24:12PM -0500, Ron Bratt wrote:
:> First, pirsumei nisa (PN) is a mitzvas asei. It's also chal on people
:> who were zocheh to a personal yeshu'a.
: If you say that PN is an aseh, how can an Onen light, even without
: a bracha.
I suggested why - mishum chashad. Chashad seems to me to be a lav.
: chashad really doesn't work. Numerous
: posters have already stated that chashad falls away because a) he may
: come home later or b) may have lit already. People aren't training
: their binoculars on your home (at least I hope not.
No. I too argued that there is no chashad bizman hazeh. However, if there
is a din based on chashad we can't necessarily just uproot it just because
the chashad is gone. I mentioned refu'ah beShabbas in the same sentence
for a reason.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:41:25 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Neir Chanukah
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
> given a Teimani precedent to "hang one's hat on", would that make
> it more acceptable to "switch" to a another tradition as opposed to
> inventing one?
> OR do we still say that even if the Teimani minhag is valid for Teimanim,
> for others it is STILL nisht a hin nisht a her...
It cannot be counted as a Hachra'a which makes the Halacha that way.
Yimei Chanuka Mei'irim, vKol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:16:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Louis H. Feldman" <lfeldman@ymail.yu.edu>
Subject: RE: Ashrei
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
> How definite is the dating? I've seen people say that the Septuagint
> translation of Nevi'im and Kesuvim was composed by Christians but I'm not
> sure if that is just bad scholarship for the sake of counter-missionary
> efforts.
Dear Gil,
We do not know the dating of the translation of the other books
of Tanach into Greek. We know only that by 170 B.C.E., approximately,
to judge from the introduction to the Greek version of Ben Sira, the
other books had been translated. The Greek version of Nevi'im and
Ketubim was not composed by Christians, since it was completed by 170
B.C.E. It is true, of course, that Christians used this version for
their purposes.
Best wishes.
Louis Feldman
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:30:51 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rashi question
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gdubin@loebandtroper.com>
> Rashi in vayeshev explains, during Yosef's interpretation of the sar
> hamashkim's dream, that "yisa Faro es roshecha" means that he will
> count you in the number of servants. Then, when it actually happens,
> Rashi gives what is apparently the same explanation. Why?
Please forgive the Kitzur, See Posuk 40:19 the Yisa..Meiolecha means raise,
hence when it comes to the Posuuk where it says Vayisa Es Rosh..Ves Rosh, he
explains that here they both have the same meaning
Yimei Chanuka Mei'irim, vKol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:38:42 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Davening Daniel
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
>> See Ran Perek Bameh Tomnin, Lechem Mishne Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 5:4.
> That is where they say that a gadol can choose to be moser nefesh even
> when he is not mechuyav to do so, correct? But that requires a time of
> shemad. I don't see that in the text of Daniel. Fahrkert, the gezeira
> was on ALL people, not just Jews...
Please forgive the Kitzur, according to the Lechem Mishne he did not intend
to be Moseir Nefesh, even Lshitas Horan the fact that it was on all people
with the intent of Lhavir Al Hadas qualifies, note the Loshon Horambam that
Nvudchanetzer was Gozeir on all the Jews, when actualy it was on all the
nations, (see Margoliyas Hayam, Sanhedrin 74b # 23.)
Yimei Chanukah Mei'irim, vKol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:02:06 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject: RE: Neir Chanukah
-----Original Message-----
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
> given a Teimani precedent to "hang one's hat on", would that make
> it more acceptable to "switch" to a another tradition as opposed to
> inventing one?
> OR do we still say that even if the Teimani minhag is valid for Teimanim,
> for others it is STILL nisht a hin nisht a her...
It cannot be counted as a Hachra'a which makes the Halacha that way.
Yimei Chanuka Mei'irim, vKol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-----------------
But it could be used as a rayo that there might have been such a nusach amongst even non-Teimanim.
And if that alternate nusach satisfies what would otherwise become a halchic contradiction, it might make sense to exploit that
KT
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:18:08 -0500 (EST)
From: jjbaker@panix.com
Subject: Mixed Dancing
[RJJB didn't realize that the conversation had been moved from Areivim to
Avodah, so there are comments at the top and bottom that don't exactly
work. -mi]
RYGB on mixed dancing:
>RCS quoted the teshuva from our very own R' Herzl Henkin that assurs public
>dancing! What more do you want?! First published in Ha'Ma'ayan Tammuz 1978.
Was it on Avodah? These things aren't archived. Could you send it to
me? Also, 1978 is only a recent thing.
>The other sources that talk about it explicitly are cited by the Kedoshim
>Teheyu p. 50, note 60 and on, including the Aruch Ha'Shulchan OC 529:7 and
>EH 22:3, the Ben Ish Chai Shoftim 18 and Sdei Chemed. See also the Biur
>Halacha 339:3.
OK, I looked in the AhS and the Biur Halacha. I think there's a lot of
extrapolating going on. The AhS is pretty clear that what he's trying
to avoid is *singles* mixed dancing, not married couples. As for the
Biur Halacha, he too is mostly worried about a) singles, b) niddah
couples, c) Yom Tov. He brings one thing that may be a blanket issur
on mixed dancing, but otherwise, it's all meant as fences to prevent
these other things from happening. The business of kissing & hugging
leading inexorably to the sin of Er & Onan bespeaks a rather different
set of public sexual mores than happen today, at least between married
people. I'll certainly stipulate that this is likely between unmarried
people (having been unmarried).
>But I thought it was unnecessary to provide sources, that logic alone could
>win the day here. I apologize for my naivete.
>The logic I proposed is that of none other than Maran R' Yisroel Salanter,
>Or Yisroel Iggeres 35:
>U'l'inyan rikkud im isha ervah ha'regil imo, bechol ofen zu "pesik reisha"
>she'yavo l'negi'as basar, v'af im ragil b'zeh v'kim'at rachok mei'hirhur,
>mekol makom, keivan she'le'fa'amim yachol lee'heyos mee'zeh hiskashrus
>ha'ra'ayon, v'yivaleid mee'zeh kirva yoseir me'ma she'hayah ima me'kodem,
>la'Ramban zeh issur d'Rabbanan v'la'Rambam zehu issur d'orysa.
We can poke holes in this too. I don't see that with contemporary mixed
dancing (as opposed to the formalized flirting that old-style set dances
such as minuets, reels, pavans, galliards, etc. constitute) there is
a psik reisha of negias basar (assuming that he means the basar of some
person other than one's spouse). Listen to this description of the
waltz (which is about what passes for body-contact mixed dancing these
days - dancing to popular music since the 60s has been more of the
"look but don't touch" school):
: The Encyclopedia Britannica's article on dance history quotes the
: description [Goethe, 1774] gives of what it is like to do the
: Viennese Waltz: "Never have I moved so lightly. I was no longer a
: human being. To hold the most adorable creature in one's arms and
: fly around with her like the wind, so that everything around us fades
: away." Everything around you and your partner fades away because the
: rest of the world is whirling relative to you, but your partner is not
In other words, there is no opportunity for negias basar with other than
your spouse. As for the situations decried by the AhS and the MB, sure,
then it's a psik reisha d'nicha leih that there will be negias basar
for singles.
>v'hu ha'din l'nidon didan.
Not necessarily, if the assumptions are different.
>v'tu lo midei.
I could see it being a public policy thing, to say "no mixed dancing"
lechatchilah. But bedieved, there's room to permit, and there's little
convincing evidence that it's forbidden between married couples, so
that mashgiach was likely in the wrong to embarrass the couple.
As for someone else's comment that "the guy knew from the tap on
the shoulder that he was doing the wrong thing", it's not necessarily
true either. He might have known that the *rabbi* disapproved, rather
than that it was *objectively* the wrong thing.
Why is this discussion happening here, rather than on Avodah?
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:19:49 -0500
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject: Administrivia re: R. Henkin
Someone made the following points to me with respect to the two documents
which R YH Henkin sent me and which were posted to Avodah:
> 1. It is not ordinary professional behavior to present one side in a
> published debate + one's response to the other side, without
> letting the other side speak.
> 2. Pre-publishing the response might well be grounds for Tradition
> removing R. Henkin's rejoinder from the forthcoming issue.
> 3. The failure to acknowledge where all this was originally
> printed, and where it will be printed, probably is copyright infringement.
My response:
I believe that I am at fault here and that there was a misunderstanding
between myself and Rabbi Henkin. Rabbi Henkin had intended for me to use
the material to formulate my own response (he wrote "your correspondent
should be made aware of..."). Instead, I (lazily--too much Areivim to deal
with!!) forwarded the articles themselves.
[Li nir'eh is was a logical error. I recieved multiple copies of R'
Henkin's articles. Apparantly he wasn't the only one who made the
ta'us. -mi]
Here is my email exchange with RH:
> From: Rabbi Y. H. Henkin [mailto:henkin@surfree.net.il]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:09 AM
> To: mfeldman@cm-p.com; Feldman, Mark
> Subject: Re: Would you be able to help on this?
> As a start, see attached article which is in the current Tradition magazine
> and my reply to the editor's rebuttal. Your correspondent should be made
> aware of the maxim kabeil et haemet mime sheamro.
> With Torah Blessings,
> Rabbi Y. Henkin
Kol tuv,
Moshe
Micha speaking:
In the future, please do not post material that hasn't been published yet.
I can't afford a copyright lawyer. TIA!
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:53:41 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject: Cholov Yisrael and Chabad
There's folks who hold CY for a chumra and those who hold it me'ikar
hadin. I believe Chabad is in the latter camp. RYZ?
Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:31:48 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisrael and Chabad
> From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> There's folks who hold CY for a chumra and those who
> hold it me'ikar hadin. I believe Chabad is in the latter camp.
Correct! However we don't go around calling people "Chazir Fressers" for
relying on RMF, see mishne end of first Perek of Yevomos.
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:09:38 -0000
From: "Leon Manel" <leonmanel@hotmail.com>
Subject: Chabad and Milk
Many Chabadniks wont drink milk unless the machines were kashered to
212 degrees. That means they wont even eat what others call CY
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:13:54 +0200
From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject: RE: Cholov Yisrael and Chabad
> There's folks who hold CY for a chumra and those who hold it me'ikar hadin.
> I believe Chabad is in the latter camp.
AIUI, *everyone* agrees that Chalav akum is assur. (OK, I'm sure *someone*,
somewhere, says it's muter. :-) )
The question is one of accepting the *heter* of chalav hacompanies counting
as chalav yisroel.
Keep in mind that "heter" is not the same as "mutar for everone at all
times".
Akiva
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:03:18 -0500
From: "Stuart Klagsbrun" <Stuart_Klagsbrun@ccm.agtnet.com>
Subject: Chabad and Cholov Yisroel
I think the real question to ask is if one accidentally cooked in a pot
used for cholov stam and is a ben yomo, can one eat the food? This is
where the tire meets the road.
I can see where one might want to kasher the pot l'chatchillah if one
is makpid to an extreme.
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:31:59 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisroel
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 10:09:28AM -0500, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
: >Keep in mind that "heter" is not the same as "mutar for everone at all
: >times".
: I did not notice a time-limit in the IM.
: I always thought mutar and heter shared a common shoresh. Please enlighten me.
I think [RAA] considers it dechuyah, not hutrah, despite his terminology.
-mi
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:09:28 -0500
From: "Stuart Klagsbrun" <Stuart_Klagsbrun@ccm.agtnet.com>
Subject: Cholov Yisroel
From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
>AIUI, *everyone* agrees that Chalav akum is assur. (OK, I'm sure *someone*,
>somewhere, says it's muter. :-) )
>The question is one of accepting the *heter* of chalav hacompanies >counting as
chalav yisroel.
Not exactly.
>Keep in mind that "heter" is not the same as "mutar for everone at all
>times".
It's Not?
I did not notice a time-limit in the IM.
I always thought mutar and heter shared a common shoresh. Please enlighten me.
BTW, us Yankee Doodle third and forth generation Americaner Chevra are not
relying on RMF ZTK"L. My Great-grandparents did not have a dairy farm in New
London and they didn't write to RM in Russia for a heter. It was accepted as
mutar in America well before his arrival.
I wonder if anyone has any reliable information on how careful the yidden in the
various parts of Europe were about cholov yisroel. Did they ever buy from a
farmer who was known to raise only cows? Or one they trusted? I'm curious as to
why the hamon am took up commercial milk in America so quickly.
Simcha
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:44:09 +0200
From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject: RE: Cholov Yisroel
> I did not notice a time-limit in the IM.
Ther *is* a specific qualifier -- *large companies*. This excludes small
companies.
> I always thought mutar and heter shared a common shoresh.
> Please enlighten me.
If your wife is giving birth on Shabbos, you have a heter (actually a
chiyuv) to use the phone. Somethng which was assur is now mutar for *you* --
*now*.
A pregnant woman gets a heter to eat via shiurim on Yom Kippur.
A heter makes something which should be assur mutar *for the person
receiving the heter, while the circumstances which justified that heter
remain the same*.
> BTW, us Yankee Doodle third and forth generation Americaner Chevra are not
> relying on RMF ZTK"L. My Great-grandparents did not have a dairy farm in New
> London and they didn't write to RM in Russia for a heter. It was accepted as
> mutar in America well before his arrival.
Why? AIUI S.A. prohibits chalav akum.
> I wonder if anyone has any reliable information on how
> careful the yidden in the
> various parts of Europe were about cholov yisroel.
Maybe about as careful as they were about Loshon Hora?
Akiva
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 03:21:48 +1100
From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject: Cholov Yisroel
From: "Stuart Klagsbrun" <Stuart_Klagsbrun@ccm.agtnet.com>
> I wonder if anyone has any reliable information on how careful the yidden in
> the various parts of Europe were about cholov yisroel.
I think it was quite universal. See KSA 38:13.
(I think even after we finish our PMB project, the KSA's psak will not be
changed...)
> Did they ever buy from a farmer who was known to raise only cows?
> Or one they trusted?
The only heter the KSA has is a Jewish farmer may send his non-Jewish
maid to milk the cows - if there is no goyish house in between.
SBA
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:41:22 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisroel
MSB:
> I think he considers it dechuyah, not hutrah, despite his terminology.
Maybe, but the Pri Chadash considers it hutrah.
Gil Student
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 08:28:01 -0500
From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
Subject: Chalav Yisroel
Micha wrote:
> R' Moshe did write that one ought be machmir. One can infer from this that
> R' Moshe would not be happy with people being meikil when the local grocer
> carries a wide variety of chalav yisrael milk products...
I find it very dochek to say Rav Moshe held relying on government regulation
is dechuyah considering that rav Moshe's family isn't makpid and the MTJ
vending machine has non-chalav yisroel candy.
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:05:19 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisrael and Chabad
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: AIUI, *everyone* agrees that Chalav akum is assur.
The question, AIUI, is whether chalav hacompanies has the chalos sheim of
"chalav akum".
One way of viewing chalav akim is as a p'sak halachah, an example of the
normal rules of ne'emanus. The USFDA (or local equivalent) insures that
the nachri would have a hefsed if he cheated, so we believe him. But then
bitul bishishim would apply, and chalav akum never would have made sense.
Also, looking at R' Moshe's lashon, he apparantly saw it as a takkanah.
In which case, how can we be mevateil a takkanah because the reason
evaporated? We say that a takkanah that includes its reason carries an
implicit t'nai -- it holds only if the reason holds. Is that the case
here?
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:25:29 -0500
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject: Re: Tamar and Aishes Potifar
Isn't interesting that all this occurred during the parsha that deals with
Yehuda + Tamar, as well as aishes Potifar + Yosef?
Kt
Moshe
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 07:48:51 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Tamar and Aishes Potifar
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 10:25:29PM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Isn't interesting that all this occurred during the parsha that deals with
: Yehuda + Tamar, as well as aishes Potifar + Yosef?
I've seen a number of divrei Torah comparing Tamar's quest to build malchus
David with aishes Potifar's knowledge that her line would include Yosef's
children. The two moshiach's will ome from these two women.
-mi
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 ]