Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 23

Thu, 10 Feb 2011

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:43:38 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Must A Women Subject Herself To A Caesarean


On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 05:17:09PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> 1. The pikuach nefesh of one person can't be used to force another
> person to put himself in even a little bit of danger.
Etc...

My point wasn't the conclusion, it's that the question wasn't even raised
in order to get answered.

You raise valid answers, and I presume a teshuvah would likely provide
them. But here the question isn't asked, which to me suggests the
possibility it doesn't exist. There are sevaros behind the issur of
abortion other than retzichah. If knows what RSZA and RYSE mention in
their discussions of abortion, we could resolve if that's why the topic
is absent here.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:47:34 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Must A Women Subject Herself To A Caesarean


On 8/02/2011 5:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 05:17:09PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> 1. The pikuach nefesh of one person can't be used to force another
>> person to put himself in even a little bit of danger.
> Etc...

> My point wasn't the conclusion, it's that the question wasn't even raised
> in order to get answered.
>
> You raise valid answers, and I presume a teshuvah would likely provide
> them. But here the question isn't asked, which to me suggests the
> possibility it doesn't exist. There are sevaros behind the issur of
> abortion other than retzichah. If knows what RSZA and RYSE mention in
> their discussions of abortion, we could resolve if that's why the topic
> is absent here.

I assume it's not asked because the actual topic is the woman choosing
not to get pregnant in the first place, so it's not relevant.  You're
focusing on what in this context is an afterthought by the Nishmas
Avrohom, about what RSZA would hold in a different case; since that
isn't the case under discussion he has no need to go into a full
discourse about it.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 18:02:35 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Must A Women Subject Herself To A Caesarean


On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 05:47:34PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> I assume it's not asked because the actual topic is the woman choosing
> not to get pregnant in the first place, so it's not relevant...

Whether her decision to not have a C Section would risk the hypothetical
child whose creation is under discussion isn't relevent? It's part of
the pro vs con that goes into the decision.

In any case, RSZA holds that abortion is theft, not murder. See Nishmas
Avraham CM 425 A:1. Source Tosafos, BB 142a d"h "Ben". So, regardless
he wouldn't discuss whether we are setting up a situation where we would
be asking her to avoid piquach nefesh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:11:22 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Must A Women Subject Herself To A Caesarean


On 8/02/2011 6:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 05:47:34PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I assume it's not asked because the actual topic is the woman choosing
>> not to get pregnant in the first place, so it's not relevant...
>
> Whether her decision to not have a C Section would risk the hypothetical
> child whose creation is under discussion isn't relevent? It's part of
> the pro vs con that goes into the decision.

It's not relevant, since what (I assume) she's saying is that she
refuses to conceive in the first place because if she should conceive
she'll need a caesarean or risk losing the child.  RSZA says she's right,
and her husband can't expect her to take that risk; RYSE says that's the
deal she agreed to when she got married, just as she accepted the risk
of death in childbirth.   But the third choice, getting pregnant and
then risking the child by delivering naturally, isn't even on the table.

The case where she's already pregnant is a different case, which the NA
throws in as an afterthought, or a sort of footnote, lehodiacha kocho
shel RSZA.  But he doesn't say what RYSE would hold in that case, and
it seems possible to me that he may actually agree.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Yitzchak Schaffer <yitzchak.schaf...@gmx.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 21:48:48 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] The Vilna Gaon and Secular Wisdom


After a quick consultation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrivium

So music = the acoustical properties of intervals; but then not so much
relating to applied music, and thus music appreciation as commonly taught
today, or even theory, which in my conservatory education dealt with
abstractions of intervalic ratios (minor third, etc.) and how to resolve
them in relation and motion, not the ratios and proportions themselves ? la
Pythagoros (if I understood Donald in Mathemagic Land correctly).

Maybe it would be more apt to study organbuilding :^} there at least they do deal with the math directly. Also, what "universal truths" are we talking about?

--
Yitzchak Schaffer

On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:06, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Note the quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. Music was
> seen as applied arithemetic -- the simpler the ratio between two notes,
> the more they fit together in the same chord. Although sometimes you want
> that tension. Similarly, astronomy was handled as applied geometry.
> 
> Anyway, I think we're talking about music theory, which has certain
> universal truths whether speaking of a shiras haLeviim, klezmer, a minuet,
> jazz or today's top 40.



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 01:23:22 EST
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] IDF Conversions



 
From: Hankman _salman@videotron.ca_ (mailto:sal...@videotron.ca) 



While the concept of "zera Yisrael," of partial Jewish parentage  is
not new to me.... I know, some in kiruv find a special imperative to  be
"mekarev" such "zera Yisrael" to geirus. But I know of no such  halachic
notion for consideration in geirus. I would appreciate any  broadening of
my horizons in this regard that anyone can offer from sifrei  rishonim,
achronim or tshuvot. Did you ask your Rav the source for this point  of
view? If he could clarify the basis of the idea that would be great.  Is
this another demographic, social etc. reason to follow the meikil as  we
have heard before? Or is there some hidden mystical notion at play  here
of retrieving some sort of "hidden kedusha" in the "zera  Yisrael"?

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

 
>>>>>
 
My father told me that the rule about initially discouraging would-be  
converts does not apply to the children of Jewish fathers.  If the latter  
express any interest in converting, they are to be encouraged and  mekareved.  I 
regret that it did not occur to me at the time to ask for  sources or 
reasons.  But there is not a doubt in my mind that if he said  it, he had sources 
and reasons.
 
BTW I must add that even though gerus is encouraged and welcomed in  such a 
case, my father still did not approve of Mickey Mouse  conversions.  A real 
gerus requires the acceptance of Torah  observance.  I don't consider my 
father's position -- encourage gerus,  but insist that it be genuine -- to be 
"meikil."
 
 

--Toby Katz
==========



-------------------- 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110209/434b5510/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Daniel Bukingolts <buki...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 15:20:19 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is it Loshon Hora?


and even if result driven it's likely yes if the person has an online
identity, it ruins his online reputation.
---------
Is an online reputation of an anonymous person the same thing as the
reputation of a regular person?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110209/92831b91/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:57:03 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] NishmaBlog: Pardon my French! "Bon Matin" and


Blog entry by RRW (CC-ed):

    Pardon my French! "Bon Matin" and "Franglais"
    http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2011/02/pardon-my-french-bon-
    matin-and.html

    It seems no matter from whence my French-speaking friends come -
    be it France, Belgium, Canada or Switzerland - they universally
    correct me when I wish them "Bon Matin!"

    Unlike most French-Speakers who are often curt - one kind Belgian
    fellow gently advised me at a Hotel in the Mountains - "Matin is
    indeed French for Morning, but we do NOT say 'Bon Matin'".

    Well, why not? How does the universe of French Speakers intuitively
    know that this is "Bad French"? AFAICT, they agree that there is
    no specific RULE that prohibits greeting "Bon Matin, yet it's KNOWN
    that this "Franglais-ism" will NOT pass for French. Jamais! "Ils ne
    passeront pas!"

    Yet, we have Halachic "Progressives" who push the Franglais envelope
    daily, they insist that absent any specific rule, it is permitted
    to speak as one wishes in the field of Halachah. Strange - n'est-ce
    pas? - to incorporate foreign idioms into French simply because there
    is no contrary rule. They seem to say that - without a definite rule
    to the contrary, why- "C'est un moreceau de gateau!"

    As my Choveir R Micha Berger has stated [really: paraphrased besheim
    R' Dr Moshe Koppel, Metahalakhah, pg 39 and elsewhere -mb], Halachah
    has its own language - or technical jargon - and we CAN intuitively
    know Franglais from authentic Francais even "sans" a contrary rule.

Here is how I summarized RMK's position here in the past:

There are two ways to learn a language: The native speaker doesn't learn
rules of grammar before using them, he just knows what "sounds right". In
contrast, an immigrant builds his sentences by using formalized rules,
learning such terms as "past imperfect" and memorizing the forms that fit
each category. R' Koppel notes that the rules can never perfectly capture
the full right vs wrong. A poet has to know when one can take license.

He argues that halakhah is similarly best transmitted by creating
"native speakers". It is only due to loss of our progressive loss of the
Sinai culture with each generation that we need to rely on transmitting
codified rules. (RMK notes in a footnote the connection between this
idea and some ideas in R' Dr Haym Soloveitchik's essay "Rupture and
Reconstruction", Tradition, Summer 1994.) Earlier cited cases are the
loss of culture that occurred with Moshe Rabbeinu's death, when 300
halakhos were forgotten, and Osniel ben Kenaz reestablished them --
chazar veyasdum. Similarly the reestablishment of numerous dinim by
Anshei Keneses haGedolah after the return from the Babylonian exile --
shakhechum vechazar veyasdum. Leyaseid, he suggests, is this codification.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:08:51 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] NishmaBlog: Pardon my French! "Bon Matin" and


 


Here is how I summarized RMK's position here in the past:

There are two ways to learn a language: The native speaker doesn't learn
rules of grammar before using them, he just knows what "sounds right". In
contrast, an immigrant builds his sentences by using formalized rules,
learning such terms as "past imperfect" and memorizing the forms that fit
each category. R' Koppel notes that the rules can never perfectly capture
the full right vs wrong. A poet has to know when one can take license.

He argues that halakhah is similarly best transmitted by creating "native
speakers". It is only due to loss of our progressive loss of the Sinai
culture with each generation that we need to rely on transmitting codified
rules. (RMK notes in a footnote the connection between this idea and some
ideas in R' Dr Haym Soloveitchik's essay "Rupture and Reconstruction",
Tradition, Summer 1994.) Earlier cited cases are the loss of culture that
occurred with Moshe Rabbeinu's death, when 300 halakhos were forgotten, and
Osniel ben Kenaz reestablished them -- chazar veyasdum. Similarly the
reestablishment of numerous dinim by Anshei Keneses haGedolah after the
return from the Babylonian exile -- shakhechum vechazar veyasdum. Leyaseid,
he suggests, is this codification.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-----------------------------------------------------------


KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.




Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:10:29 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is it Loshon Hora?




and even if result driven it's likely yes if the person has an online identity, it ruins his online reputation.
---------
Is an online reputation of an anonymous person the same thing as the reputation of a regular person?
===================================
I would assume so - if I have an online relationship with a person who goes
by the name mycraft on line and someone online says  "Mycraft is a xxxxxxx"
, is the fact that I have never seen Mycraft make a difference. If yes, why
is it any different than someone sending an email  lashon hara to me about
Rabbi X who I have never met.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110209/4ac88ae9/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 15:13:31 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] God of Love, vs. Just God


On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 08:33:45PM -0500, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: I had this discussion with someone recently and I wonder what the Chevra
: think: Is Hashem a Loving God? Or is he a Just God? 

I see this thread going in two directions -- the general question of
theodicy (tzadiq vera lo, rasha vetov lo) and the more specific issue of
"Loving G-d".

RET is correct that many rabbanim today are willing to not only
invoke hashgachah peratis in explaining someone else's suffering, but
to say that it's specifically related to onesh. I am not sure this is
mesoretic. What we find in Chazal is a grasping for a lesson to take from
the tragic. Which is neither the same as asserting cause and effect, nor
to we EVER find them happy with a single answer. Think of the machloqes
about Nadav and Avihu's sins, about churbenos bayis rishon vesheini,
etc... Each produce several suggested answers. It truly is grasping.

To assert a causal connection must exist denies so much: the entirety
of sefer Iyov, or the notion of yisurin shel ahavah, as well as (less
importantly compared to neglecting an entire sefer of Nakh written to
disabuse you of this very point!) those rishonim who say hashgachah
peratis is earned, not guaranteed for all people and at all times.

RYBS says the Jewish question in the face of suffering is not "Why?"
but "How should I respond?" This orientation underlies our entire focus
on halakhah. I can't think of a better [non-]answer.

On the main topic, is G-d a Loving G-d?

Much of the discussion revolves around the notion of negative theology,
the idea that all we can know about HQBH is ruling out what He
isn't. Hashem isn't Omnipotent in the sense of limitless power, but in
the sense that He doesn't even need power for things to happen. Just as
Hashem isn't everywhere as much as location being an irrelevent concept;
He is lemaalah min haZman, not within time, but across an entire infinite
duration. Etc...

More relevent to nidon didan is the two girasos of mah Hu... af atah.
The version you find in our shasen (Shabbos 133b) is:
    "Zeh Keili ve'anvehu" -- Abba Shaul omeir: hevei domeh Lo. Mah Hu
    Rachum veChanun, af atah hayei rachum vechanun...

However, here's the version in the Sifrei (49):
    Vekhi heiach ifshar lo le'adam liqro bishmo shel Maqom?
    Ela, nigra haMaqom "Rachum", af atah heyei rachum. HQBH niqra
    "Chanun", af atah hei chanun... Niqra haMaqom "Tzadiq"... af atah
    heyei tzadiq. Niqra haMaqom "Chasid"... af atah heyei chasid.
    Lekakh ne'emar "Vehayah kol asher yiqra besheim Hashem yemaleit"
    (Yoel 3:5)...

In this version, Chazal aren't saying Hashem is actually Rachum, Chanun
or Qadosh -- he is NIQRA "Chanun". Unsurprisingly, the Rambam favors
this version (Dei'os 1:6):
    Kakh limedu befeirush mitzvah zu: Mah hu niqra Chanun, af atah
    heyei chanun. Mah Hu niqra Rachum, af atah heyei rachum. Mah hu
    niqra Qadosh, af atah heyei Qadosh.

This is not to say that Abba Shaul is necessarily saying something
different than the Sifrei. I would think that the gemara is simply
using standard anthropomorpic shorthand to convey the same intent.

Less problematic (Sotah 14a):
    Ve'amar Rabbi Chama beRabbi Chanin... lehaleikh achar Middosav
    shel HQBH. Mah Hu malbish arumim ... af atah halveish arumum. HQBH
    biqei cholim... af atah...
as here we're talking about actions. Although "mah hu biqeir Cholim"
takes a little thought, since HQBH doesn't actually approach or leave
people. Still, He can make His presence more obvious to a choleh, and
thus be mevaqeir.

I do not fully agree with RHM's chiluq when he wrote:
> I think you're right. Love is an emotion. Emotions are entirely human --
> not Divine. The Midas HaDin -- Justice -- is not an emotion but an ethic
> reflecting the concept of of right versus wrong.

I'm not sure that attributes such as Dayan or saying that HQBH's actions
reflect a pre-existing ethic or even any human-comprehensible one is
significantly simpler than describing Hashem using an emotion. Attributes
come in two or three classes:
1- What Hashem isn't
2- How His actions, or the effects of His Will, look to us

and while the Rambam stops there, R' Saadia Gaon also has
3- Attributes of our relationship with HQBH, rather than HQBH Himself. (I
think the Rambam would include this in #2.)

This is akin to RDR's comment:
> The classification of an event as mercy or justice is not an objective
> one, but a subjective one.

These are descriptions not of Hashem's Will, which is inherently
unknowable, but of how His actions appear to us. And I may add, which
He explicitly models for us to emulate.

Then there is also the Euthyphro Dillemma. Plato has Socrates ask a
young student named Euthyphro, "Is what is righteous righteous because
the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is righteous?" The
Jewish spin would be to ask: Is an act good because HQBH chose to make
it a mitzvah, or did Hashem command us to do it because it is good? What
is the Source of morality? The problem is that if you say that an act
is good solely because Hashem commanded it, then He had no moral reason
to tell us to do one set of things and not another. Can mitzvos be the
product of Divine whim, the decision between "Thou shalt murder" and
"Thou shalt not" entirely without any reason on His part? On the other
hand, if there is an overarching definition of good and evil that Hashem
conformed to, then we placed something "over" Him, something that even
He is subject to.

I would apply the second horn of that dilemma to RHM's "Justice is ... an
ethic reflecting the concept of right vs. wrong."

And besides, we do describe Hashem as expressing ahavah. Okay, to the
Notzerim love plays an entirely different and more central role. But
"ahavah rabba ahavtanu" "ahavas olam", "oheiv amo yisrael", etc... We
don't rule out emotional metaphors for HQBH, or (as per R' Saadia)
at least how He conducts his relationship to us.

RDR continues:
> The classification of an event as mercy or justice is not an objective
> one, but a subjective one. As you correctly note, it can change
> depending on how wide your perspective is. My experience is that wider
> perspective makes events seem more like mercy.

RAM apparently agrees:
> But I prefer to take it as a real question: How can a Loving God do
> such things? And my answer is: We are too short-sighted.

And RMK explains how:
> When you punish your son or send him back to his room after bedtime, are you
> doing it as a loving father or as a just father? Your son, from his limited
> experience, sees this as a dichotomy; we, who have the breadth of
> understanding and experience to know that setting and enforcing clear limits
> is the greatest chesed a parent can perform for a child, do not see the
> conflict.

Although Hashem allowing Nazis to kill an infant is unlikely to seem
like midas haRachamim by any perspective I would consider positive,
constructive, or one HQBH is modeling for us to emulate.

Some meisim are just so great, they will always be munachim lefaneinu,
and we will always be incapable of finding resolution.


So much for responding to what was written. My own opinion:

HQBH is entirely incomprehensible. But He had a "Thought", which in turn
thought a thought, and so on down a chain of logical progression until
you get to this world of chomer. You can phrase that as the Rambam does
(Yesodei haTorah 2:5) as a chain of tzuros beli chomer / sichliim nivdalim
we call "mal'akhim". Or, as the mequbalim do using the terminology of
Or Ein Sof and a progression of olamos. But LAD, they are metaphors and
only somewhat different perspectives on the same basic truth.

One of the earliest in the chain, if not the first, was Tov. "HaTov
shimkhah". IOW, while saying that "Hashem is Good" is only meaningful in
terms of ruling out His being evil and in describing His actions and how
he relates to the beri'ah, it is a closer approximation to the Ultimate
Truth than anything else a human can grasp..

Why does the world exist? R' Saadia Gaon, an Aristotilian rationalist,
and a mequbal like the Ramchal agree: Because it is the "nature"
of Tov to have someone upon whom to bestow that tov. As the Ramchal
points out: He is Shaleim beyond the concept of Sheleimus -- it's not
like beri'ah could possibly be for /His/ benefit. (Derekh Hashem 2:1:1
<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/mekorot/1b-2.htm>)

A child -- again, direct or indirect, I'm not firm on the point --
of Tov is Chesed. Olam Chesed yibaneh.

And Din and Gevurah are logical consequences of Chesed. Returning to
RMK's perplexed child... Gevurah is the self-restraint of letting my 2
year old fall over her own feet because doing what comes naturally would
never allow her to learn how to walk. Din is the only way a person can be
a free willed, deciding, being. Actions have to have consequences. When I
make a choice, I need to be able to forcast how my actions will change the
odds of various outcomes. Without Din and Gevurah, the ultimate chesed --
being biTzelem Elokim -- is impossible.

If Chesed is the dropping of the barriers between myself and the other (as
R' Shimon Shkop explains it), then ahavah is the emotion that underlies a
relationship of mutual chesed. This is why "oheiv amo Yisrael", because
Yisrael alone has a unique duty back toward HQBH. There is a specter of
mutuality that isn't part of Beris Noach.

So, is G-d a G-d of Love? Yes... with all the above caveats. That the Love
is a consequence of prior concepts, none of which so much as apply to G-d
as rule out their opposites and describe how we experience His Act.

So, then what about the tragedy MYG was asked about, and what about the
Holocaust? We can't explain it. But if there were no Gevurah, no allowing
of evil, then

- we would never have the growth of needing to respond and overcome evil
- people who can't choose evil aren't beTzelem E-lokim when they choose good
- and so on
- and so on...

But these aren't explanations. There is no complete explanation. There
is only response.

I am reminded of the Or Sameiach's comment on haKol Tzafui vehaReshus
Nesunah. (After his commentary on Teshuvah 4:4, our bit is on
pg 28, bottom of amudah 1, par. "Sof davar ein lekha teirutz..."
<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19982&;st=&pgnum=28>.) There
are answers, but they are each like a blanket that isn't large enough to
cover your whole body. As you pull in one direction to keep your shoulder
warm, your foot is left uncovered. It's not that we don't posess parts
of the answer -- it's that we can't ever capture the full answer. And
the remaining pieces -- is an elephant like a fan, a wall, a tree,
a rope or a hose?

Tir'u baTov
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:42:57 -0800
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is it Loshon Hora?


On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:

>  and even if result driven it's likely yes if the person has an online
> identity, it ruins his online reputation.
> ---------
> Is an online reputation of an anonymous person the same thing as the
> reputation of a regular person?
> ===================================
> I would assume so - if I have an online relationship with a person who goes
> by the name mycraft on line and someone online says  "Mycraft is a
> xxxxxxx" , is the fact that I have never seen Mycraft make a difference. If
> yes, why is it any different than someone sending an email  lashon hara to
> me about Rabbi X who I have never met.
>
>
1) Do we have to say that LH has anything necessarily to do with whether the
person's reputation was ruined? If person A speaks LH to person B, but
person B doesn't believe the LH, it still is LH even if the person's
reputation was not harmed in any way.
2) I don't believe there is anything as 100% anonymous online, so this is
all theoretical anyway.

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110209/9dee810a/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Michael Kopinsky <mkopin...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:29:17 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is it Loshon Hora?


On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com>wrote:

> 1) Do we have to say that LH has anything necessarily to do with whether
> the person's reputation was ruined? If person A speaks LH to person B, but
> person B doesn't believe the LH, it still is LH even if the person's
> reputation was not harmed in any way.
>

According to the Rambam, LH is damaging speech. This is different from the
Chofetz Chaim's definition of derogatory speech.


KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110209/135fc071/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:56:00 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Geirut for marriage


Yes, that again...

RDE put on his blog a letter by R' Amar with agreement by ROY, which talks
about the requirement of qabbalas ol mitzvos le'iquva. Including attributing
this position to the Rambam.

See the image at
<http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2011/02/army-geirus-psak-of-rav-a
mar-with_10.html>

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

CC-ing RnCL, because I haven't seen her around lately.

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 23
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

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


< Previous Next >