Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 263

Tue, 22 Jul 2008

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:15:38 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Ethical questions

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:02:17PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Murder is yehareg vaal yaavor based on logic (San 74a - who says your
: blood is redder).
: Question 1 - based on this logic if the 3rd party says he will kill both
: reuvain and shimon if reuvain won't kill shimon, does the result change?

An odd result of Cantor's work on transfinite numbers is that there are
as many even integers as integers altogether (even and odd). Take the
set of integers: 1, 2, 3, 4... and the set of even integers: 2, 4, 6,
8... They can be paired 1-to-1, simply by multiplying each member in the
first set by 2. To wit:
 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 ...
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | ...
 2  4  6  8 10 12 14 16 18 ...
Despite intuition, the sets are of the same size, they are both
infinite! (Alef-null, to be specific as to the kind of infinite.)
2* infinity = infinity.

If we posit that human life has infinite value, wouldn't that mean that
two lives aren't actually more valuable than one? The same 2 * infinity
= infinity.

I don't think the Rambam believed in the possibility of completed
infinities. The notion that the chain of causes can't be infinitely long,
is pretty fundamental to his proof of G-d as Unmoved Mover in Moreh II:1.
So, the Rambam's sevara can't be based on 2*infinity = infinity. You
could never actually have an infinity to multiply.

I just like the math thing personally, and wanted to throw it in.

RARR discusses this topic at length on MP3. Here's what I wrote down,
although I listen to the recordings while commuting, so double-check!

The Y-mi Terumos 47a distinguishes between the case where no particular
victim is singled out, such that it's the Jews' choice who will die,
and one where they name a particular victim (as in RJR's case).

In the first case, it's assur, and this is what we find in the Rambam
Yesodei haTorah 5:5 and the Rama YD 157:1. The Kesef Mishnah (sham)
explains that "mai chazis" makes it assur to pick any Jew out of the set.

Where the victim was named, there is a machloqes R' Yochanan and Reish

R' Yochanan and the Beis Yosef (YD 157) hold that the person may be
turned over to save the group.

The Kesef Mishnah and Rashi (Sanhedrin 74b "yatza rosho") explains R'
Yochanan on the above basis -- the victim set aren't choosing the person,
so mai chazis doesn't apply.

The IM YD 2:60 quotes the Maharam Shick who says the assymetry allows
us to point fo Shim'on as an unwitting rodeif.

Reish Laqish, the Rambam, and the Rama (who brings both shitos in his
hagah, but in his teshuvah 11 takes sides) holds that one may not.

We're still not at RJR's case. Now we have to jump from turning the
person over to be killled to killing him oneself.

The Meiri (Sanhedrin 72b) says that turning him over is allowed, but
not actively killing.

The CI (YD 69) discusses the question of diverting an arrow aimed at
a crowd such that it hits one and only one person, and is left without
a maskanah.

RARR gave the following heart-wrenching question:
During the First Lebanon War some soldiers entered a building, and didn't
find opposition. So, as they made it close to the top of the building,
another 200 or so boys entered the building. The building was blown up.

Those not in the building faced a decision, and this is what they asked
the rav (who I think was RARR himself, although he didn't name himself,
but he was in Beirus during that war) to decide. They had two choices:

1- They could save the 10 boys at the top of the pile, odds were high
that they could nearly all of them. But by the time they got past the
top of the rubble, the chance of saving anyone else is slim.
2- They could bulldoze away those 10, and probably save around 50 or so
from the bulk of the ruins. But you would be actively killing those 10.

The decision was that halachically, one must passively allow those 50
or so die rather than actively murder 10. He didn't say on the MP3 what
was actually done. I presume none of the students in the room had the
chutzpah to press this particular topic.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel Salanter

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:20:27 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Ba'alus (was: No Right to Mezuzot at Condos)

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:43:25PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: I tend to agree with this important distinction, that ba'alus is
: not property ownership, and has more to do with rules of control and
: relationship.

I wrote about qinyan and ba'alus at greater length at

Qinyan creates ba'alus in the same sense that the qinyan sudar in megillas
Rus (or as often used to appoint your shaliach for mechiras chameitz)
creates a hischayvus. It's not a different use of the matbei'ah of qinyan.

Tir'u baTov!

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:31:04 +0200
Re: [Avodah] Geirut curriculum

RJR wrote:
> With all the discussion of geirut of late, I'm sure someone must have
> access to a "curriculum" for geirut.  A friend of mine has been asked by
> a LOR to work with a potential ger, but has not been able to find an
> outline of what is to be covered.

The RCA has published an actual curriculum. Have the LOR call their office, at 
212 807 7888.
Arie Folger

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:03:12 GMT
Re: [Avodah] Geirut curriculum

R' Joel Rich asked:
> ... I'm sure someone must have access to a "curriculum" for
> geirut. A friend of mine has been asked by a LOR to work with
> a potential ger, but has not been able to find an outline of
> what is to be covered.

Beyond "some mitzvos kalos and some mitzvos chamuros" (or is it the other
way around?) I'm not aware that halacha prescribes any particular
curriculum at all. Perhaps the best idea might be for your friend to ask
the LOR what *his* standards are.

Akiva Miller

Need cash? Click to get a cash advance.

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:08:07 GMT
Re: [Avodah] Kohanim in Cars in Cemeteries

R' Joshua Meisner asked:
> Acc. to Ch. 21, Tzamid p'sil (which would be negated by an
> open window) only works by k'lei cheres or, by extension,
> keilim that are not m'kablin tum'a at all.  Hence, this
> would not work for most cars, except perhaps the ones that
> are made of plastic.

I vaguely recall hearing a long time ago, that cars are not mekabel tumah,
because they are not keilim, because they are too large. Despite being
movable, it still counts as a binyan. I think the shiur was 40 seah. Or so
my memory says.

Akiva Miller

Save on Cell Phones. Click Now!

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:12:34 -0700
[Avodah] kohen in war / pinchas & kehuna

Igros Moshe (Y.D. II 158): concening a cohen who is a soldier who killed
during war - he is permitted to duchen>>

ROY also permits a cohen who killed in a war to duchen
However, RYBS disagrees. He feels that the prohibition to duchen is not a
punishment and so the fact the killing was legitimate is irrelevant.
It is a psul in the gavra as killing and duchening are opposites
and so independent of the reason for the killing

Note that Pinchas was not a kohen when he killed zimri.


included in the original establishment of the kohanim just as his
grandfather, father and uncles were

Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:18:01 -0400
[Avodah] Mattos "Human Nature Hasn't Changed Much"

If you look at Ch.32, verse 3, you will notice a very unusual posuk.  
The entire sentence consists of nine words and every word is the name  
of a city.

In Ch.32, verse 16, the tribes of Gad and Reuben approached Moshe and  
said "Pens for the flock shall we build here for our livestock and  
cities for our small children."
It is such an instructive posuk.  The people put their animals before  
their children.  How selfish to favor their property over their own  
flesh and blood!

However, in verse 24, Moshe responds to the tribes: "Build for  
yourselves cities for your small children and pens for your flock. So  
in essence Moses set them straight.

Several years ago a terrorist in Israel attached a bomb to a donkey  
and took the donkey to the main outdoor Jerusalem marketplace.
The bomb killed many innocent people. Shortly thereafter, a protest  
was sent out by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)  
criticizing and
condemning the killing of the donkey. There was no mention of the  
Israelis who were killed. Hard to believe -- enough to make one  
enraged and incensed!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:04:35 -0400
Re: [Avodah] the Shoah [was: TIDE and Austritt]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>   From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
> >>See The Siyyum of Sota in which 2 rabbis in the same city who do NOT
> learn
> from each other [nocheh to learn] one dies and one is exiled. This sounds a
> LOT like the reality of the holocaust, that rabbis who refused to talk
> were either killed or exiled from their homes. How prescient of the Talmud
> to see that Rabbis who cannot get along.....<<
> >>>>>>
> I've heard some pretty far-fetched explanations of what caused the Shoah,
> but this is a new one on me.  Whenever anyone even hints that such and such
> a sin was the "reason" for the Holocaust or that the actions of such and
> such a group (Reform, maskilim, Zionists, anti-Zionists) "led to" the
> Holocaust, or that a particular group somehow "deserved" to die or brought
> their fate on themselves, there are always cries of outraged indignation.
> Let me be the first to express outraged indignation on this occasion.  It is
> outrageous to suggest that the principles of austritt ("rabbis who refused
> to talk to each other") somehow led to or triggered the Holocaust or were
> foreseen by the Talmud as the reason for chachamim being "either killed or
> exiled" in the Shoah.
> *
> *
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*

You misread my post.
I was suggsting taht the two rabbis who did NOT engag inlearning with each
other fulfilled tghe prediction in the Talmud.  I made NO SUCH SUGGESTION
that this was a a CAUSE of the holocaust. There is NO such causal connexion
suggestion, implied, insinuated or otherwise.

The only point was simple, as a RESULT [not as a cause] of the holocaust the
prediction MADE BY THE TALMUD was fulfilled - uncannily while we were inteh
mnidst of a discussion of Austritt came this VERY SAME DAF!  How can we DENY
teh Yad Hashem wWho so graciously has infomred us of the error of our ways

Umipnei hcataineu galinu NOT mipenti Tzadukim, Baissusim etc. Nor Is it fair
to BLAME Reform et.c on the same basis. WE ARE the raders of the Talmud and
it is up to US to introspectively subject OURSELVES to such scrutiny!

It is "Oh jsut so easy" to blame "Yennem" and be a 'sonei tochachos". That
is NOT what mussar or eve nthe Talmud's clear lesson to us states.

Everyone wantsto praise Auustritt as jsut what HKBH wants.  Well maybe the
chacham who is ro;eh es hanolad may see a VERY different pricture.
Certianly the Talmud suggests that if 2 rabbis cannot get alone IN THE SAME
COMMUNITY all is not well.

And it IS A HISTORICAL FACT that many of these same rabbis lost their lives
or their homes. Kind of chilling thought, eh?  I fail to se how one CANNOT
connect the dots when faced with such overwhelming Talmudic Aggadic
statements that unfortunately are so obviously fulfilled.

But then again, 2 Jews 3 opinions.

FWIW, American Reform Judaism during the 19th century accepted the Talmud as
the offical interpretation of the Tanach. [source Professor Grinstein OBM]
which gives pause to how seriously DO we take these Talmudic statements to
heart or are we going to imposse OUR OWN "ism's" upon them and ignore them
at our own peril.

Or to state it another way, people SEEM to be saying we follow the Talmud
WHEN it does not shift any of our preconceived notions or paradigms - Bbut
as soon as it shakes our foundations we glibly look askance and come up with
alternate spins.   And indeed that might be the case when the reality maps
out otehrwise, but whe nteh facts MATCH the text, how can we STILL be so

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:46:39 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Halachic Texts: More Background

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:14:57AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : > 1- The Gra only violated mimetic precedent when he believed it to
> : > be provably wrong.
> : Is this a fact?  have you surveyed all of the GRA's objections to status
> : quo? ...
> It's the product of a perusal of Maaseh Rav. However, if you're convinced
> that the Gra poses a problem to normative halachic process, despite the
> large acceptance of his ruling as a valid eilu va'eilu (if not accepted
> by too many as /their/ "eilu"), the burden of making a survey would fall
> on you.

No eilue v'eilu is about IDEAS not normative procedue
Accordin to YOU the original eilu v'eilu would make beis shammai as
normative as Beis Hillel!
Aderabba, the only point about Eilu v'eilu is that STUDYING beis Shabammi is
legit, DOI Beis Shammai is dvaka ANTI-mormative and is like

   1. R. Elizer Hagadol [tanu achneai
   2. R Yehoshua ere: the Calendar
   3. Beis Shamma in general

I post that when th GRA violates nimnu v'gamru his rulings CANNOT be
accepted. Teh proof is thath th Cheyei Adaim didn't perpeutate the Gra's
practices.  he knew better.  you bring ME proof that the Cheyi Adam was
wrong and I'll listen!

> I'm trying to defend the normal stance, by defining halakhah
> descriptively.

You are equating status quo with halachah. It is by far the msot circular
form of Halachic justifcation I have found.It is OK because we do it. Which
by the way is 180 degrees AGAINST the GRA. so you are taking TWO
diameticcally opposed postions. I posit that if YOU lived at the time of the
GRA and found him to upset the stauts quo so much you would be screming
about 30 times more against HIM than agaisnt me.1 But since 200 years past,
the GRA is grandfathered in and you take my objections to status quo as

> :> It would seem he holds that mimetic precedent really only has enough
> :> weight to stick with existing practice even if the practice seems valid,
> :> but weaker than the one you would otherwise choose.
> : I don't get this. Posqim have uniformly required tallis gadol for all
> : inlcuding Rema and Mishna Brura. how come this status quo is not subject
> to
> : revision as a minahg Ta'us?
> You're arguing that something doesn't fit halachic process by appealing
> to halachic process. You instead need to appeal to the virtues of the
> artgument itself -- not who held it.

Posqim [by and lartge]  DO NOT approve of not wearing a Tallis Gadol. You
accept the minhag even though it has no basis. and You attack me for
attacking a non-Halchic norm

Then you defend the GRA for attacking a non-normative minhag that goes
agianst text. Please take a stance one way or the other!

> : This has nothing to do with a Rishon's level. It has to do with settled
> : law.  Rabbeinu Tam is on a Rishon's level, too  is that mean I may make a
> : bracha on his Tefillin INSTEAD of Rashi's? if not why not?
> A shitah that can be shown to be internally flawed isn't settled law.
> You're just reinvoking what I tried to dismiss in #1.

Yes and the shita to NTO wear a Tallsi Gaddol is so flawed that the Mishna
Brura objected to it!  never mind the Rema and the Ba'eir Heitev!

What is inherently flawed anyway?  How do you define it? how do you defined
the issue of 2-3 matzos? Tanu Achnai? R. Eliezer hagaold CERTAINLY proved
beyond a dobut that his opponents had FLAWS in their opinions. Adn R.
Yeshoshua was quite logical in finding a flaw in the eidus accepted by
Rababn Gamliel.  So what is jsut such a FLAW anyway?

> : Alternatively may I eat hametz after hatzos on erev pesach beusase the
> ba'al
> : hama'or paskens it's a valid form bf bi'ur/? If not why not?
> Let's invoke the same three criteria:
> 1- How is the pesaq not to internally flawed?

According to a Rishon this argumetn is kosherh

> 2- Are you textually equal to a rishon?

Why not? After all  I am QUOTING a rishon!

> 3- 3 you actually have -- there was no formal nimnu vegamru. Which reduces
> the rov who do not allow you to do so to a factor that may be outweighed
> by another. Not a rule that removes the option from the table. (See below)

So then yo uagre Ba'al hama'or was NOT rejected. how can acharonimim say
"kayma lan" e.g. re: Rabbeinu Tam and Ta'am k'ikkar. How can it be kayma Lan
when Rishonim e.g. Rashi argue!?

> : > 3- There isn't really a rule of rov poseqim when no one enters the room
> : > for nimnu vegameru.
> : Who says?
> I should have been more clear. When I said "isn't really a rule",
> I should have better emphasized the word "rule". It's still a factor
> on the poseiq's pro-vs-con sheet. What I meant was that it's not an
> algorithmic rule, making it impossible for other factors to bring it back
> into discussion. When there is a formal head count, such as in Chananya
> ben Chizkiya ben Guryon's attic, azlinan basar ruba is an actual rule
> (given all the details and caveats to the rule in Mes Horios) not a
> factor to consider among others.
> :    1. The Beis Yosef in YD 101 says there IS and tha's how he rejects the
> :    Rif
> And yet the SA violated his own rule of nimnu vegamru in numerous
> places.

and maybe we need NOT to follow him in those exceptions!

> :    2. MB uses Rov acharhoim in MANY places as HIS sources in Sha'ar
> :    Hatziyyun such as BE'tzitzis
> And he also violates it in many places. Such as the tzeirei in
> "Yisgadeil".

Ein hachi name that is why I hold NOT like the MB in this case. even
Artscroll states "we follow MB EXCEPT when most people don't..." or
something to that effect.

IOW the mitzva d'orasisso of acharei rabbim lehattos trumsp again.  The Rosh
would agree on this FWIW.

> Because saying that it carried the day in one din or antoher doesn't
> mean it's the factor that will always carry the day.
> : GRA deviates from settled law and status quo - let's say about 200
> times...
> : BUT he keeps it to himsef and WARNS people NOT fo follow his p'sak
> [witenss
> : chayei Adam]
> : But his talmiddim take HALF of wat he says and uncacnels it. Maybe the
> : would have bee nalaremed if he knew Maa'seh Rav would be published  Read
> : on!
> In which case, when did they turn iut into common practice. As the ghetto
> walls were falling and people no longer could rely on the mimetic lifestle
> of the past now that they were more mobile.
> You held me to the date the emancipation actually hitthe ghetto, as
> opposed to the general air of openness that forced the need for Chassidus.
> Then you delay the actual acceptance of this change in din to the next
> generation. Thereby moving the actual halachic change to after the
> walls fell.
> But that's tangential. If there was enough openness in the Gra's day
> that the Besh"T needed to inspire the masses, there was already enough
> decay of mimeticism to warrant a greater interest in texts.

Aderabba,  It was loyalty to mimeticism taht preserved tradtion. Reform was
VEY adept at adapting texts to mattir organs in shuls. The early Reforms
quoted Talmud to trhow out Tradition so often that it prompted the Chasam
Sofers' retort "Chadash Assur min Hatorah"

FWIW, R. Nosson Adler the Elder was thrown out of Frankfort - ostensibly for
following text and doing daily duchan when the minahg hamakkom siad NOT TO.
And inf Frankfort they did  NOT take kindly to deviation from Minhag

Also Rabbiner Hirsch considered it OK to use German but verbotten to give up
piyyyutim, even though he COULD have used the GRA as a basis to do so. So
mimetics was not dead. It's a nice prsumption, but there is no eveidence to
support it.

> 1- The argument that RER is a throwback can't be supported. Just because
> there is no objective metric doesn't mae the claim any less obviously
> absurd.

IOW throwback is in the eyes of the beholder. So WHO determines WHO is a
valid "throwbacker?"

> One can only select among eilu va'eilu, not invent ideas of whole cloth.

As long as one can justify his opinion withing the text he may ignore
precedent. This is the GRA's shita, Probably Meharshal's and Bach's, too.
ou see mto want ti both ways at times, I stil don't get it

> ...
> : My point is that if the GRA lived today, you would find him to be far
> more
> : distrubing to status quo than Wolpoe.
> Quite likely. But it would still be obvious he had broite pleitzes.

ein hachi nami. The greater the Gaodl IS the more DANGEROUS his deviatoin.
If Rabbi ploni in oshkosh is radical WHO CARES?!  AISI R. Eliezer Berkowitz
was not a big enough Gadol to stir the pot too much. But R. Elizer Hagadol
when HE STIRRED the pot the repsonse was shamta!

But I do not object to the GRA VOICING a dissenting opinion. The IKKAR break
with normative Halchah is FOLLOWING a dissenting opinon as normative. It is
tanamount to replacing Rashi Tefillin with that of Rabbeinu Tam because you
consider Rabbeinu Tam brighter or more correct yada yaday yada.  By allowing
throwbacks to overturn Halachic norms I posit ein ledavar sof. You might as
well question it all

As some have proposed have Zohar Trump BAvli
Or Ari Trump Zohar
Or Rav Kook Trump Ari, etc.
Already a chaver in Teaneck has told me that RYBS trumps Kessef Mishnah.

ROY and others hve been trying to restore Traditional Judaism fomr the
onslaught of non-Traiditional deviations. While he comes from a Sephardic
model I generaly applaud his aporach. The Rema's approach [not every detail
of his p'saqim] was ratified as normative for Ashkenazim.  Just As Maran BY
was for Sephardim. Teimanim have a different Tradition.
And HAssidim started a new one.

> : But The GRA and I have something in common,
> :    1. The GRA wants to throw out some.much of Ashkenaic Rishonic practice
> in
> :    favor of a More Talmudic practice
> :    2. I want to throw out some of Ashekanzic Acharonic practice in favor
> of
> :    a more Ashkenazic Rishonic practice. {KAJ has bee naccused of davening
> :    "minhag Rishonim]
> I have nothing against your #2. I have something against your saying that
> this is the only way to go, when you shift from arguing in favor of the
> Maharil's perspective on precedent to arguing against the correctness
> of other weighting schemes.
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

The scheme of going back to text is slippery-slope dangerous. it is THE
major support for Golinkin and the Masorti, and actaully could justify RER
regardless of thowbackisms.

If you throw precedent to the wind, then you have a text-uber-alles legal
system that really mirrors karaism albeit with a later set of canonical

That does not mean that Halachah cannot evolve here and there. It can and it
does I am talking about:

   1. Radical changes
   2. Ignoring percedent
   3. Taking flawed mimetics over texts [e.g. Taliis Gadol]

All of the above serve to undermine any reliability for the system and makes
EACH poseiq not responsible to ANY RULES. which we see undermines Bies Din
to'e and To'eh bidvar hamishneh.

Micha, your system is really impossible to exclude vitually any decision as
a to'eh bidvar hamishne because you have eschewed any/all objective

I see no reason NOT to accept RER or REB or any other Radical Reconstruction
of Halacha becaus after all their are sniffim involved. RER would turn your
SNIFFIM arguemnt to show that we bend over backwards to be mattir agunos. I
think you have opened up a hole big enough to drive a truck through it.

Re; Ta'anis Tzibbur, Aruch Hshulchan rejects the majority and is mattir
eating after sheqi'a. But by and large he points out in many places that
haalch is like Rov Posqim. Adn he rejects minority opinions left and right.
Furthermore, he eshews any Minhag not based upon Torah. I am not sure how he
views the issue of Tallis Hagadol, but you can snip quotes that would show
it is a minhag ta'us. In fact I would doubt the GRA himself would have held
of this partciular Minhag.

BEH I will post the Darchei Moshe on this. This is NOT simply about d'var
sheker! The darchei Moshe makes MANY more arguments, and so does the MB< if
you read the MB carefully you wil see he suggests NOT making a barcha on a
tallis Katan. The Rema has similar misgivings.

Before I post the Darchei Moshe, looko up the NEW TUR [siman 8 Iirc] re: the
Drachei Moshe's take on Tallis

Micha let's face it.

Waht you are REALLY saying is
"We" accept th GRa but not RER's radical positions
"We" go with the flow, regarldess of the laws in the flow.

I see these arguemnts as merely rationalizations for the status quo w/o
taking a position.

It IS true that the Beth Yoseph took a stand and did not follow his own
rules. But that is the beauty of it. We can OBJECTIVELY point this out!

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 263

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

< Previous Next >