Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 157

Fri, 12 Aug 2011

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
[Avodah] moshe's reasoning


moshe's reasoning and anger at the 2 tribes who did not want to go into the
land, was that it was not fair that some people risk their lives, homes and
properties, while others stay behind in lush lands and graze their cattle.
why does this reasoning not apply to today's army exemptions? which, the
groisa rabbonim, are fully aware of????? many of them are baki b'shas, and
if not baki b'shas, they are fuly aware of this pasuk(im) and their import
and meanings. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110811/a1351939/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:44:07 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Characterizing our era


At 12:38 PM 8/11/2011, REMT wrote:

>     In sum, RMYG is right: we are now in the era of the roshei 
> yeshiva.  But RMB, too, is correct: the dividing  line at which 
> this new era was ushered in is the shoa.

I would like to add what I consider an important footnote to 
this.   Due to the Chassidization of Yiddishkeit that has occured 
after WWII,  the roshei yeshiva have come to assume more and more the 
role of rebbes and non-chassidic Jews now behave more and more like Chassidim.

I believe that this is one of the points that R. N. Kamenetsky made 
in his interview at http://tinyurl.com/3rkxr62  In response to the question

Is there a halachic source for blindly following a rabbi in matters 
that are not related to Jewish law, such as politics or other matters?

he replied:

"The Mitnagdim (non-Chassidic Jews) always thought for themselves. If 
they had a specific question they could not decide, they would come 
to get advice from a wise and knowledgeable man who had the Torah 
behind him, but things a person can figure out on his own, it is 
forbidden to depend on others' judgment. In his commentary to the 
Mishna, Rambam describes the great power of the human mind to make 
decisions, a man must use his own mind, do not denigrate your own 
intelligence. If you have a doubt about something, go ask someone 
wiser, after you hear what they say, you do not have to follow their 
advice like a blind man, you have to digest it and decide if it was 
good or bad. The Mishna asks, 'Upon whom should one rely?' And it 
answers, 'On God.' It does not say 'On Rav Elyashiv,' or 'On Rav 
Shteinman.' It is obvious that we talk of individual issues, but in 
issues concerning the entire community, great Torah scholars are the 
leaders of the community and guides of all of Israel."

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110811/d71ee14b/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:15:46 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Characterizing our era


On 8/11/2011 12:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I was actually thinking in entirely different terms.
>
> Speaking historically, we can speak of Anshei Kenesses haGedolah, the
> Zugos, the tannaim, amoraim, savora'im, ge'onim, rishonim, acharonim,
> and...?
>
> But I was thinking halachically. (And I just paused to approve a post
> by RnCL who appears to be thinking along the same lines.) A world in
> which the zugos are a subclass of tannaim, because tannaim felt free
> to consider them baalei pelugta. Similarly, rishonim didn't feel a
> particular requirement to justify differing with geonim, as long as
> they were consistent with their understanding of Chazal. We can argue
> whether the lines are mandatory, convention, mandatory only in the case
> of tannaim vs amora'im, etc.. but in practice, we do find these eras of
> halachic authority.
>
> And I'll note but not dwell on the question of whether savoraim should
> be considered amoraim or geonim (ie very very early rishonim).

I think a lot depends on what the criteria are that we're using to 
define the categories.  For example, the dividing line between Tannaim 
and Amoraim is pretty clear.  It's the finalization of the Mishnah, no? 
  Anyone whose career ended before that is a Tanna, and anyone whose 
career began after that is an Amora, and those who straddled it have 
ambiguous status.

What similar demarcation is there to divide between Zugot and Tannaim? 
None that I can really think of.  What would be the demarcation line 
between Amoraim and Geonim?  Presumably the finalization of the Gemara, 
no?  Which, since the Savoraim did the post-hora'ah editing of the 
Gemara, would have them straddling the eras as well.

My question is, what is the demarcation between Rishonim and Achronim? 
When is the earliest known instance of a rabbi treating earlier rabbis 
as "Rishonim" and excluding himself?  And has there been anything 
comparable since that division that could justify declaring the era of 
the Achronim to be over?  Are we going to use the publication of the 
Shulchan Aruch + Mappah as one and... the Shoah (?) as the other?  And 
can either of those really be justified in light of the hugeness of the 
earlier demarcations?

Lisa



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:17:59 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Characterizing our era


On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 01:15:46PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> My question is, what is the demarcation between Rishonim and Achronim?  
> When is the earliest known instance of a rabbi treating earlier rabbis  
> as "Rishonim" and excluding himself? ...

In the past I suggested two different lines -- the SA for Seph, and
the Mappah for Ashk. The SA (speaking inclusively) recentered halachic
discussion around a new book, such that acharonim measure the size
of their burden of proof by their distance from it. This shift in how
halakhah is done turned rishonim from near-contemporaries to being part
of that proof system.

This potential post-acharonic period lacks a similar book. While the MB
is rising to that role, it's only one of 4 Turim. The 4 Turim include most
of the 6 sedarim applicable bizman hazeh, so that's not a real drop-off.
    OC = Berakhos + Mo'eid + parts of Menachos
    YD = Taharos + Chullin
    EH = Nashim
    CM = Neziqim

But in terms of agreed-upon eras, I think each does have a cut-off. About
a decade back, I wrote the bulk of what ended up at the SCJ(M) FAQ at
http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/04-03.html
Thanks to Avodah, my current opinion is more refined and nuanced, but that
bit about the SA ending the rishonim I didn't change my mind on.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: David Riceman <drice...@optimum.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:41:37 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] God who knows the future


RAM:

<<I have total free will to go right or to go left, and when I make that 
choice, that's when Hashem's foreknowledge will be determined. Until 
then, the contents of the newspaper will be indeterminate.
<snip>
While it is true that Hashem *does* know what gender the child will end 
up being, He has not yet - so to speak - made this decision. There is 
still time to pray and influence this future choice of His. At some 
point in the pregnancy (40 days, IIRC) He will make that decision>>

You have left me more confused than before.  I had thought you agreed 
with RMB, who holds that one cannot predicate time of God, that all the 
details of history form a deterministic process, and God knows them 
"outside" of time.

The problem for RMB is why a prayer before pregnancy is different from a 
prayer after pregnancy.

You, however, are introducing a distinction between God's "knowledge" 
and God's "foreknowledge".  This is hard to harmonize with God's 
simplicity.  If I understand you correctly God makes his decree at some 
particular point, and it can't be changed by any event after that time, 
even though it won't be known for quite some time after that time 
(remember the gemara is before ultrasound or DNA testing).

Can you motivate why this would be? It seems arbitrary.  Can you cite a 
source? I have seen something like this with respect to actual 
prophecies (H.Yesodei HaTorah 10:4), but never with respect to natural 
phenomena like pregnancy.

David Riceman


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110811/b8af4111/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:08:06 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Ladies not making Havdallah


On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:47:42PM -0400, Aryeh Herzig wrote:
: Yerushalmi Berachot says we say Havdallah in Chonen Hadaat because : Im Ein
: Daath Havdallah Minayin".  Since Nashim Daatan Kaloth they can not make
: havdallah. ( Maariv is reshus so ladies don't daven Maariv anyway so it is
: only relevant on Havdallah al HaKos.)

Women are mechuyavos in havdallah, the question is only Havdallah al
haKos. But saying or being yotzeit at least "barukh hamavdil bein qodesh
lechol" is mandatory (Rama OC 299:10).

So it would seem their daas qalah is sufficient for havdalah to be an
applicable concept. For that matter, the concept you're arguing would
imply that women would be outside halachic distinctions, non-capital-H
havdalah altogether -- look at the body of the berakhah. And yet they
are mechuyavos in Shabbos, qodshim, most of the extra mitzvos encumbant
upon Yisrael over those of the amim...

About the Y-mi, it's a machloqes in Shabbos 5:2 (39a vilna). Chakhamim
put Havdalah in Chonein haDaas. Then there are two other shitos:
Havdalah as its own berakhah after ChD because without daas there is
no havdalah. Havdalah before ChD, because you shouldn't make baqashos
until after Havdalah.

The gemara doesn't say this, but notice how the Chakhamim's position
addresses both, at least as we today implement it. We say "Atah Chonein"
and praise HQBH as the Giver of daas, then Havdalah, then we go to
"[ve]choneinu mei'itkha..." startgin the baqashah part of the berakhah!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:18:15 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Napoleon ma'aseh, legend?


On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 04:53:18PM -0400, S. wrote:
: Still, another angle is that a certain percentage of the hamon,
: especially nowadays, are actually annoyed and cynical about stories that
: didn't happen but happened to have been repeated in an echo chamber,
: with no one ever looking to see if it was true, or even any reflection
: on whether or not the story even happened.

IMHO, German R, the excessive forms of Haskalah, R, C, etc... made
many of us tend toward positions that choose the words in the books
over rationalism. A maximalist attitude toward claims made in the
sefarim. Even if one could argue (and I have) that most rishonim and
most acharonim before the mid-1800s or so do not expect every aggadic
story to be historical (nor that yeish mei'ayin was less than 6 millenia
ago), we are responding to the danger we have seen in such positions.
But dangerous and false are different concepts.

Let me defuse the importance of claims of rov vs mi'ut by noting
that we can all agree that insisting this is the ONE TRUE SHITAH is
certainly new. So, we have this tendency toward maximalism which is
a counter-reformation.

And therefore it is just as logical for others to be turned off by a
new trend.

:                                            This doesn't necessarily
: bring honor to the rabbinate, for example, if it is rabbis and talmidei
: chachomim who repeat such stories. So whether or not alienating such
: people is a consideration is also something to think about, in my opinion.

But again, this error is ours, not the generations of rabbis and talmidei
chakhamim. We are the ones who are insisting that there is a historical
claim attached. We are turning religion into science (if historical research
is a science), and then complaining when it doesn't fit our expectations?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:50:32 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] why davka? amalek??


On 8/11/2011 1:21 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> Lisa, I understand what you are saying, about keri being "cold" or
> happenstance, while we, in our better state(s) should be zrizim,
> l'mitzvot (eg. "hot" for Hashem"), however, my original question of why
> would their derech meakev, or hold back Hashem's glory, or as it were
> His Throne" from being complete??? wasnt' really addressed.

I thought it was, implicitly.  It isn't enough for Hashem to be in this 
world.  Hashem has to be recognized to be in this world.  The tachlis of 
creation involves mankind coming to know Hashem.  The essence of Amalek 
is a refusal to recognize Hashem under any circumstance.

Lisa



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:35:56 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] why davka? amalek??


On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 04:50:32PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I thought it was, implicitly.  It isn't enough for Hashem to be in this  
> world.  Hashem has to be recognized to be in this world.  The tachlis of  
> creation involves mankind coming to know Hashem.  The essence of Amalek  
> is a refusal to recognize Hashem under any circumstance.

In my formulation is was about recognizing life above the physical
altogether. We see from parashas Noach, comparing the mabul to migdal
Bavel, that what the world really needs to survive more than bowing to
G-d is interpersonal ethics.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Allan Engel <allan.en...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:14:03 +0100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Characterizing our era (was: Re: shabbas//mishum


I would add the Rogatchover to that list.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

Then we get to the acharonim, who with few exceptions (the Ari, the Besht
> and the Gra are the only three that I can think of) would not take a
> position based on amoraim without taking "rishonim" (including geonim,
> as per above) into account.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110812/6b872518/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:02:01 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Characterizing our era (was: Re: shabbas//mishum


On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 01:14:03AM +0100, Allan Engel wrote:
: I would add the Rogatchover to that list.

Although, while everyone is impressed with the Rogatchover, how many
follow his pesaqim? One might say that the general rejection of his
creativity when it comes to halakhah lemaaseh is another way of saying
that he is /not/ generally considered a throwback to the rishonim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org        is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org   who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Samuel Johnson



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
[Avodah] why not two sided??


if the definition of a brit is simply unilateral, then why not 

just call it a law, or din, or halacha? or anything else that is
imposed upon us? eg, if you don't go over the speeding limit, 

THEN, you will not get a speeding ticket, or; if you do your 

homework (and/or) eat your peas and carrotss, then 

(no choice in the matter)***

you will get your ice-cream sandwhich(es) [or in our case 

a better olam haba, and/or a possibility of olam haba?] afterwards...
why the implication (at least in my mind) that a brit, is 2-sided?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110811/41b934a0/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
[Avodah] tachlis of creation//why davka? amalek??


On 8/11/2011 1:21 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
>> Lisa, I understand what you are saying, about keri being "cold" or
>> happenstance, while we, in our better state(s) should be zrizim,
>> l'mitzvot (eg. "hot" for Hashem"), however, my original question of why
>> would their derech meakev, or hold back Hashem's glory, or as it were
>> His Throne" from being complete??? wasnt' really addressed.

> I thought it was, implicitly. It isn't enough for Hashem to be in this
> world. Hashem has to be recognized to be in this world. The tachlis of
> creation involves mankind coming to know Hashem. The essence of Amalek
> is a refusal to recognize Hashem under any circumstance.

yes, but why should Hashem care what we think about him??
and how do we know what the tachlis of this creation is???
i thought it was to test us




Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:29:02 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] tachlis of creation//why davka? amalek??


On 8/11/2011 10:09 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
>> yes, but why should Hashem care what we think about him??
>> and how do we know what the tachlis of this creation is???
>> i thought it was to test us

> I thought it was, implicitly. It isn't enough for Hashem to be in this
> world. Hashem has to be recognized to be in this world. The tachlis of
> creation involves mankind coming to know Hashem. The essence of Amalek
> is a refusal to recognize Hashem under any circumstance.

Well, sure. Why *should* Hashem care what we think about Him? "What is
man that You remember him?" You can ask the same thing about davening.
  Why should we daven? God knows what we need already. Does He really
need our praises? And of course, the answer is no, He doesn't. It's all
for us. The need to recognize His hand in the world is also for us.
  Hashem is the ultimate Good. How can we reach towards the good
without knowing what it is?

As far as how we know what the tachlis of creation is, we can only
go by what our sources say. As I understand it, it's for everyone to
come to Hashem. But through their own free will. I don't know where
the idea that it's to test us comes from. That sounds kind of dodgy.
I don't think we're Hashem's lab rats.

Lisa




Go to top.

Message: 15
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@Kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:40:00 +0100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Characterizing our era (was: Re: shabbas//mishum


RMB writes:

> Until recently. Posqim born before the Shoah were and are willing to
> argue their understanding of the rishonim without much worry that they
> were disagreeing with an earlier acharon. Eg the IM.

Agree.
 
> But now among the gedolim who weren't deciding halakhah before 1945,
> it seems to me attention has shifted to following our understanding of
> the pre-War acharonim, turning only to directly referring to rishonim
> when there is no clear acharonic position.

Where do you see this?

For such an assertion we need some sort of proof and I don't see it.

What we are seeing is that the existence of modern technology (or
extraordinary memories in the case of ROY but even there that is helped by
the sheer availability of works that were not easily accessible to previous
generations) has made us able to find and be cognisant of achronim that we
might never previously have beeen able to access.  And that means that there
is suddenly a huge breadth of achronic thought that anybody, including
current gedolim, can draw on in a way that previous generations couldn't.
That therefore means that you are far more likely to find an achron who has
already said what you believe is correct halacha l'maase than in previous
generations - and obviously if somebody previously has said what you
believe is correct and it is reasonable to expect you to find it, you are
going to cite that person rather than indicate this as a chiddush of one's
own.  It is thus going to be far more common that two earlier positions are
squared off than that a person will tackle an achron directly.  But that to
my mind is to do with technology, not the Shoah.

And to get to your assertion, you would need to find somebody saying "well I
disagree with this achron, I don't find anybody whom I consider an achron to
argue with them, but I am not prepared to posken against them because they
are an achron and I am not".  Where do you find such a statement in the
shutim? Or even outside the shutim?

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Shabbat Shalom

Chana




Go to top.

Message: 16
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@Kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:36:11 +0100
Subject:
[Avodah] shelo asani isha


RMB wrote on Areivim:
> Yitz Younger wrote:
>> The beracha then is giving thanks for the mitzvos that we (men) have
>> which women don't, but from the negative perspective.

> This is the "correct" answer, as it's one given by Rashi (Menachos 43b,
> DH "hainu ishah", 2nd position), and by a number of the Tur's nosei
> keilim. R' Prof Levine gets a "barukh shekivanta". The MA (OC 46 s"q 9)
> invokes it lehalakhah. If you said a later berakhah before one of the
> ones you should have said earlier, you don't go back. Once you thanked
> Hashem for the mitzvos men have that women do not, what's the point in
> thanking him for mitzvos you already included?

And again on Areivim:

> RZL and I already posted what the author of the berakhah and baalei
> mesorah since have said was the point of the berakhah, so I'm
> wondering why this line of reasoning based on the berakhah addressing
> something else still continues.

Well for one thing it involves poskening various machlokus rishonim that
one might otherwise not want to get involved in.

That is, if you adopt the position above, and the current order of
the brochos, then you are assuming that an eved has fewer mitzvos than
(or at least the same number as) a woman.

But that is by no means so poshut. Tosphos in Chagiga holds, for
example, that avadim are chayav in pru u'rvu (whereas of course women
are explicitly defined not to be in the Mishna in Yevamos) as is brought
and discussed at length in the Minchas Chinuch on Mitzva 1 (si'if 3).
The Minchas Chinuch also brings the Turei Even and the Mishna L'Melech
as holding that when we say that the din of an eved is like an isha this
is only with regard to mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, but in relation
to mitzvos aseh sheain hazman grama or mitzvos lo ta'aseh where women
are exempt due to a gzeros hakasuv it is just women who are exempt and
not avadim.

What that means is that if you are doing this on a purely mitzvah count
only, according to these various rishonim, avadim have a whole bunch more
mitzvos that women and hence either you need to reverse the order of the
brochos (ie say shelo asani isha before shelo asani eved), or you need
(as per the Magen Avraham) to stop at shelo asani eved. Even if you
are mesupek as to whether Tosphos, the Mishna L'melech and the Turei
Even are right, you still can't go saying shelo asani isha after you
have said shelo asani eved, because safek in brochos l'hakel. So you
have to be saying that vadai the Tosphos, the Mishna L'melech and the
Turei Even are wrong in order to make your brochos as you currently do.

Or you need to find yourself an alternative reason that validates making
the brochos that will allow you to make them in the order in which you
are making them.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards
Chana




Go to top.

Message: 17
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:07:46 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] shelo asani isha


On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:36:11AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> RZL and I already posted what the author of the berakhah and baalei
:> mesorah since have said was the point of the berakhah, so I'm
:> wondering why this line of reasoning based on the berakhah addressing
:> something else still continues.

: Well for one thing it involves poskening various machlokus rishonim that
: one might otherwise not want to get involved in.

Also in that thread, I tried to be more clear about the difference between
/the/ reason and other valid reasons. We can discuss what else we can
accomplish with that berakhah and whether or not that's sufficient grounds
to justify the berakhah on its own. But we started out with an aggadic
question -- what does the berakhah mean? Well, we know its *primary*
meaning. It could take on other meanings; and in fact I would argue that
no good idea ends up becoming din if it weren't rich enough to do so.

: That is, if you adopt the position above, and the current order of
: the brochos, then you are assuming that an eved has fewer mitzvos than
: (or at least the same number as) a woman.

No, I am assuming R' Yehudah, who wrote the currently used triad of
berakhos, set it up because /he/ holds that way.

Which, I realize, requires a discussion in light of my position on legal
evolution being more important than original intent. I am not feeling
/that/ patient right now for a question no one actually may be bothered
by. But beqitzur, see above: Halakhah is a legal process, but aggadita?
Taamei hamitzvos?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
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 157
***************************************

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 >