Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 229

Wed, 09 Nov 2011

• 1. Re: Aveira Lishmah (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: The daf yomi in Chulin 128a Tanaim hold the kishus planted in an otsits sh'aino nakuf is yonaik min ha'aretz- (hankman)
• 3. Re: The daf yomi in Chulin 128a Tanaim hold the kishus planted in an otsits sh'aino nakuf is yonaik min ha'aretz- (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: the physics of giants (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: the physics of giants (Marty Bluke)
• 8. Re: the physics of giants (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: What was AA Hetter to Engage in War (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. Re: What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: the physics of giants (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Tefila Over Loudspeakers At a Big Gatherings (Chana Luntz)
• 14. Re: other inyanim (like buddhism)-nirvana?? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 15. Re: Maarit Ayin - Sources? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 16. Change Has Come To Modena (Prof. Levine)

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:05:17PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I am bothered by a dvar Torah I recently read about Lech Lecha. It was
: written by a Rabbi Yaacov Haber of "TorahLab"...

I am spending shabbos with RYH, I intend to ask him about his intent.

...
:> The Chazon Ish answered, ?If you build the mikvah you will be
:> punished by G-d for violating the Halachah. However, as the Rabbi
:> you should accept this punishment upon yourself so that the
:> community will have a Mikvah!?

:> The answer boggles the mind, but this is the teaching of Abraham.
...
: I certainly understand that there are times when one must sacrifice
: some of his ruchniyus for the sake of someone else. But that should
: be limited to choosing a less-important mitzvah over a more-important
: mitzvah...

I think the CI was saying that ThM is docheh the kavod beis kenesses.
Not that halakhah is being violated, but not that it's huterah either.
And like most things in life, the rabbi will have to gain spirituality
on one end byu paying on another.

BTW, there is a teshuvah from RMF in his European days to a shul in the
younger USSR. They were able to build a miqvah, but only in the ezras
nashim of the shul. Not the former shul -- the same shul that would be
used for shacharis the next morning. He permitted.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

RMB wrote:

I am saying that in order for halakhah to work, it much fit the workers
of people. And since people are moved by what they experience firsthand,
we care more about the experiences the universe offers than by the
details of the working by which it does so.

CM responds:

If you want to place emphasis on firsthand experience and by what they
experience, you are welcome to try that approach ? but not to the point of
using facts that are demonstrably false to the best of current knowledge.
Torah is not meshaker! (not in whole and even not in part ? ie it is not OK
for the psychology to be correct but not the underlying facts).

RMB wrote:

To tell the truth, I do not have a single mystical bone in my body ? except perhaps for the Luz bone for techias hamesim.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111109/2f855a93/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 01:03:31AM -0500, hankman wrote:
: If you want to place emphasis on firsthand experience and by what
: they experience, you are welcome to try that approach ??? but not to
: the point of using facts that are demonstrably false to the best of
: current knowledge. Torah is not meshaker! (not in whole and even not in
: part ??? ie it is not OK for the psychology to be correct but not the
: underlying facts).

I still wasn't clear. Yes, the Torah isn't meshaqer. But halakhah
simply isn't based on the hard sciences, and therefore no halakhah
implies anything one way or the other about them. IOW, halakhah is about
psychology, not "underlying facts". Thus, it can't lie or even imply a
truth about the physics/chemistry/biology of the situation. The whole
thing is off topic.

This assumption that when the gemara bases a law on the idea that "maggots
are born without piryah verivyah" it is making a claim about biology is
the over-scientism caused by a couple of centuries of success at matering
the world ("veqivshuha") by Coginitive Man. The sentence is totally
unrelated to biology; it can't be incorrect in the realm of biology since
it says nothing about biology. The gemara is saying that maggots don't
reproduce in a way that people can associate with piryah verivyah. The
microscopic eggs that we since discovered they emerge from is totally
outside the domain of the statement, and has nothing to do with its truth.

: RMB wrote:

: To tell the truth, I do not have a single mystical bone in my body ??? except perhaps for the Luz bone for techias hamesim.

You wrote your little header, but didn't quote me saying anything.

But you apparently meant to reply to my claim that requiring halakhah
to relate to the physics, chemistry and biology requires a mystical
approach to halakhah. One in which the purpose of the law is to move
the universe directly, rather than to move the people in it.

So, it is inconsistent for someone with not a single mystical bone
in their body to make this assumption.

(BTW, "Luz" is the original name of Bet-El, where Yaaqov saw that heaven
and earth meet, it's the city where no one lies, and no one dies, and it's
the bone where head and body meet. Speaking, as Lisa is on another thread,
about blatant metaphors...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On 8/11/2011 9:12 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But notice that even in the examples you raised, a milchemes reshus
> asserts sovereignty, showing our might vs other nations and thus insuring
> long-term survival. It's not about money.

"To increase his [the king's] greatness and fame".

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 10:29:58PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> "To increase his [the king's] greatness and fame".

Not "and wealth".

The king's greatness and fame scares off attackers (and scufflaws, but
none of the rishonim I mentioned discuss that). That's the preemptive
attack where the threat is not immediate.

You're assuming an association that isn't explicitly made, and in doing
so arguing with halakhah pesuqah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 11/8/2011 12:14 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 8/11/2011 11:53 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
>> Are you telling me you honestly can't think of another way to read
>> the midrash in that context?
>
> Are you telling me you can?  Why don't you suggest another way of reading
> that maamar chazal?  (Why do you call it a midrash?)

Because it's midrashic.  That doesn't mean aggadic, necessarily.  
There's midrash halakha and midrash aggadah.

> In the first place, his erecting the mishkan on his own is midrash 
> itself.
>
> What are you talking about?  It's an explicit pasuk.

No, it's a literal reading of a pasuk.  When Rambam says Mashiach is 
going to build the Beit HaMikdash, do you think he means that he's going 
to do it all with his own hands?

>> But even if you take it literally, you aren't forced to imagine Moshe
>> Rabbenu being some 18 feet tall.
>
> No, one could imagine him using a ladder instead, but if we're smart
> enough to think of that don't you think Chazal were too?  And yet they
> didn't even consider this possibility.  When it comes to the weight of
> the boards, Rashi says he needed Divine help, because they were too
> heavy for any one person to lift.  But when it comes to the height of
> the roof, the Torah says he spread the roof, and the gemara derives
> from this that he must therefore have been at least as tall as that
> roof.  No ladders.

<eyes rolling>

> And what will you do with the hava amina that the gemara seriously
> entertains that all the leviyim were that tall?  Indeed RMF takes
> seriously and literally the gemara that the entire generation of
> Bnei Yisrael who were present at Matan Torah were ten amot tall.
> (IM YD 3:66)

I don't have a copy of Igrot Moshe.  I'd have to see that inside.

Lisa

R' Zev Sero said:
<However I don't see what choice we have but to accept that Moshe Rabbenu
was literally ten amot tall

In fact, the Maharal in Chidushei Aggados Bava Metzia 84a (
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14192&;st=&pgnum=37&hilite=)
understands that Moshe was not really 10 amos tall and that Chazal are
describing his spiritual attributes.
The Maharal writes:
 "ayn zeh shiur gashmi rak ki haya rauy lishlaimus umaalas nafsho aeser
amos"

My translation:
This [Moshe being 10 amos tall] is not a physical measurement but rather
that Moshe was fit for the perfection and spiritual heights of 10 amos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111109/680726b9/attachment-0001.htm>

On 9/11/2011 9:08 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> R' Zev Sero said:
> <However I don't see what choice we have but to accept that Moshe Rabbenu was literally ten amot tall
>
> In fact, the Maharal in Chidushei Aggados Bava Metzia 84a (http://w
> ww.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14192&;st=&pgnum=37&am
> p;hilite= <http://w
> ww.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14192&;st=&pgnum=37&am
> p;hilite=>) understands that Moshe was not really 10 amos tall and
> that Chazal are describing his spiritual attributes.
> The Maharal writes:
> "ayn zeh shiur gashmi rak ki haya rauy lishlaimus umaalas nafsho aeser amos"
>
> My translation:
> This [Moshe being 10 amos tall] is not a physical measurement but rather that Moshe was fit for the perfection and spiritual heights of 10 amos.

Actually your translation is incorrect.  It should be "...the completion
and stature of his soul made him fit to be ten amos tall; because of the
body's deficiency this full measure wasn't there, but he had whatever
height was possible."

However, this does not explain how he managed to put the roof on the
mishkan without a ladder.  And if he did use a ladder then what on earth
would impel the gemara to say he was that tall in the first place?  How
does it know he was, in principle, 10 amot tall and not 7 or 13?  And
how could it at first assume that his entire tribe was also that tall?
No, this "explanation" must itself be taken as an "agadeta"; it simply
does not work as pshat.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

R' Meir Rabi writes:

> But these observations do not address our issue, which is:
> Under what circumstances is the army permitted to engage in
> life threatening activities? Does R Zev think that Milchemet
> Reshut is a war that is prompted by any whim of the king,
> the BD or the people?

No, not their "whim". Their *decision*, based on however much discussion and investigation they deem appropriate under the circumstances.

> It is obvious that expanding borders and increasing greatness
> and fame are strategies of reinforcing and guaranteeing the
> safety of EY. Of course there is also a financial gain but I
> don't believe we can prove that financial gain alone is a
> Halachically sound Hetter to go to war and endanger Yiddishe
> lives.

That depends on the circumstances. A situation which seems to have only a
moderate economic impact in the short term, might be seen as having a major
survival impact in the long term.

My sensitivities are similar to those of RMR. I sure hope that we would not
go to war over trivialities. But I also trust the Melech and his Beis Din
to determine what is trivial and what is not. The very fact that the Torah
does sanction a Milchemes Reshus (regardless of how it is defined) seems to
indicate that not all wars are so clear-cut, and that even the less
clear-cut ones might be legitimate.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4eba7a004e827ee2b97st03vuc

On 9/11/2011 5:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 10:29:58PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> >  "To increase his [the king's] greatness and fame".
> Not "and wealth".
>
> The king's greatness and fame scares off attackers (and scufflaws, but
> none of the rishonim I mentioned discuss that). That's the preemptive
> attack where the threat is not immediate.

That's your speculation; it's not in the text.


> You're assuming an association that isn't explicitly made, and in doing
> so arguing with halakhah pesuqah.

What halacha pesuqah?  What have you quoted to support your claim that
he can't make war merely to get booty?  The gemara in Brachos seems
pretty clear that he can.

In any case, the original question doesn't begin.  There can be no
question that it is permitted to go to war to rescue one person, even
if it's certain that more than one person will be killed in the effort.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 09:37:05AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> The king's greatness and fame scares off attackers (and scufflaws, but
>> none of the rishonim I mentioned discuss that). That's the preemptive
>> attack where the threat is not immediate.

> That's your speculation; it's not in the text.

Again, it's not my speculation; it's in the Minchas Chinukh. It fits
the examples of milchemes reshus in Tanakh. It fits the Rambam. It is
therefore the more logical conclusion.

>> You're assuming an association that isn't explicitly made, and in doing
>> so arguing with halakhah pesuqah.

> What halacha pesuqah?  What have you quoted to support your claim that
> he can't make war merely to get booty?  The gemara in Brachos seems
> pretty clear that he can.

The gemara in Berakhos 3b you're referencing isn't a sugya about war
in itself. It's a detour explaining how David knew when midnight was,
something they darshen from Shemuel I 30:17. The story also references
the gedud of 30:8. If you look in Shemuel, you'll see the context was
a milkhemes mitzvah against Amaleqim who had already captured two of
David's wives.

So what's the thing about parnasah? Quite likely that was the trigger for
choosing one day over another. The war was going to happen either way.
Then the chakhamim told him the people had no money to support each other
-- neither tzedaqah nor healthy economy -- and people were starving. So
David tells them that this is the day to do the attack.

According to the Ritva, admittedly the financial angle does factor in --
but it's still about survival, as the chakhamim talk about starvation and
thirst. To quote RMYG's transliteration from our Aug 2007 iteration
on this topic <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n171.shtml#01>:
    V'zeh she'hayu omrim she'tzrichin parnassah, k'she'hayu aniyim
    dechukim hayu omrim kach v'lo b'chol sha'ah...

So, the kn

> In any case, the original question doesn't begin.  There can be no
> question that it is permitted to go to war to rescue one person, even
> if it's certain that more than one person will be killed in the effort.

There is also the general intimidation factor; Avraham was dealing with
barbaric tribes who would only leave him alone if afraid of him. If they
saw weakness in his not recovering his nephew, things would only get more
deadly later.

BTW, I think I have of a good example of a milchemes reshus according to
both the Rambam and Rashi: If we had a melekh who decided to attack Iran
before the bomb was complete, that would be a milkhemes reshus lekhol
hadei'os. The need to attack today isn't "haba lehargekha" levels, so
it's an honest political decision, not chiyuv. (If you disagree with
that assessment of the metzi'us, then go back a few years. That's not
the point here.) And Iran is outside the gevul, so Rashi would call it
a milchemes reshus as well.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On 11/9/2011 8:28 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 9/11/2011 9:08 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
>> R' Zev Sero said:
>> <However I don't see what choice we have but to accept that Moshe 
>> Rabbenu was literally ten amot tall
>>
>> In fact, the Maharal in Chidushei Aggados Bava Metzia 84a 
>> (http
>> ://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14192&;st=&pgn
>> um=37&hilite= 
>> <http
>> ://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14192&;st=&pgn
>> um=37&hilite=>) 
>> understands that Moshe was not really 10 amos tall and that Chazal 
>> are describing his spiritual attributes.
>> The Maharal writes:
>> "ayn zeh shiur gashmi rak ki haya rauy lishlaimus umaalas nafsho 
>> aeser amos"
>>
>> My translation:
>> This [Moshe being 10 amos tall] is not a physical measurement but 
>> rather that Moshe was fit for the perfection and spiritual heights of 
>> 10 amos.
>
> Actually your translation is incorrect.  It should be "...the completion
> and stature of his soul made him fit to be ten amos tall; because of the
> body's deficiency this full measure wasn't there, but he had whatever
> height was possible."

Actually, his translation was correct.  Sheimut is perfection; not 
completion.  Completion is hashlama.  And read above a few lines:

Da ki ha-godel hu lefi madreigot ha-davar u'lefikach timtza ki 
ha-rishonim asher hayah lahem madreiga elokit b'yoter hayu metu'arim 
b'gadlut b'yoter.

And:

Ach al tomar klal v'klal she'ha-shiur asher ne'emar kan she'hu muchash 
l'fanecha, aval davar zeh kemo she'nitba'er harbeh, hu mufshat min 
ha-gashmi, u'kemo she'timtza shiurim asher einam muchashim v'hem 
muskalim bilvad.

The Maharal understands that these measurements aren't physical ones.  
You need to understand that as well.

> However, this does not explain how he managed to put the roof on the
> mishkan without a ladder.  And if he did use a ladder then what on earth
> would impel the gemara to say he was that tall in the first place?  How
> does it know he was, in principle, 10 amot tall and not 7 or 13?  And
> how could it at first assume that his entire tribe was also that tall?
> No, this "explanation" must itself be taken as an "agadeta"; it simply
> does not work as pshat.

<sigh> No.  The Ramban on Bamidbar 4:6 says that "v'samu badav" can mean 
to adjust them to their proper position.  The kind of literalism you're 
engaging in is embarrassing.

Lisa

RYL writes:

>  From http://revach.net/article.php?id=2181
> 
> Rav Shlomo Zalman says that hearing something through an electronic
> device such as loudspeaker or telephone is not considered hearing in
> Halacha.  The reason is that you are not hearing a person's voice
> rather you are listening to an electronic simulation of it.
> Technically you cannot be yotzei any bracha or even answer amen.
> 
> If so during large gatherings where a microphone is used by the
> Chazan, how could people answer amen?  Rav Shlomo Zalman explains
> that the shul in Alexandria, Mitzrayim was so large that people could
> not hear the Chazan.  They set up a flag system where people would
> answer upon seeing the different flags being waived and this way
> would be able to participate in the tefila and they answered amen
> even if they didn't actually hear.
> 
> Similarly he says if you are standing in a minyan and cannot hear the
> chazzan, but only know that amen is being said because you hear it on
> the speaker system, then you may answer amen together with the
> Tzibbur.  Not because you are answering to the loudspeaker but rather
> because you are part of a minyan.  Although you do not technically
> hear what they are saying, the loudspeaker indicates this to
> you.  However if you are not standing in the presence of the minyan
> you may not answer. (Halichos Shlomo, Tefila 22:15)

Assuming that this teshuva is quoted correctly, then Rav Ovadiah Yosef would
seem to disagree with RSZA in various respects (the reason why I say would
seem, is that Rav Ovadiah seems to understand RSZA as agreeing with him (see
the end of Yachave Daat chelek 2 siman 68 - although it is possible that
this reference is only to the part about not fulfilling ones' obligation via
gramphone)).

In Yachave Daat chelek 2 siman 68 ROY has a teshuva as to whether, if you
hear slichos and the 13 midos over the radio "live" ie in real time, you
should answer amen and say the 13 midos with the tzibbur.  He holds that you
should, and that this is different from hearing them on a "gramophone" (or
CD), as in the latter case the koach of the person making and who is
obligated in the bracha has already ceased.  Similarly one should answer
amen to a bracha heard of the telephone, since again it is in real time.

On the other hand, he holds that one cannot fulfil one's obligation to hear
megila or be patur from a bracha by way of shomea k'oneh by hearing it over
the telephone or radio (even if live).

Note however that the Yalkut Yosef (chelek 5 dinei kriyat megila oit 11)
adds that if one is in a shul where there is a great gathering to hear the
megilla, they can hear the megilla by way of microphone (ram kol) if and
only if, if they took away the microphone, everybody would still be able to
hear the shaliach tzibur.  But if, without the microphone, it would not be
possible for everybody to hear the megilla, then they cannot hear the
megilla using a microphone.  In oit 9 the Yalkut Yosef discusses somebody
who need a hearing aid to hear the megilla, ruling that such a person does
not fall within the category of cheresh (ie he is obligated in hearing the
megilla), that he can hear the megila by means of his hearing aid and fulfil
his obligation, and indeed that such a person can read and exempt others.

Going back to the teshuva in Yachave Daat, ROY provides as the basis for
this position the statement in Sukkah 38b that even if there is a mechitza
shel barzel it does not create a hefsek between Yisrael and Hashem and the
Tosphos in Rosh Hashana 27b and Pesachim 85b that this means even a mechitza
shel barzel does not prevent one from answering amen and to kaddish and
kedusha with the tzibur.  He then quotes the Shulchan Aruch in siman 55
si'if 2 that if there are ten men in one place and they say kaddish and
kedusha even one who does not stand with them is able to answer amen, and
there are those who say (yesh omrim) that there needs to be that there is no
hefsek of a substance that is not clean or avodah zara.

ROY then discusses whether this yesh omrim can be understood to be arguing
with the stam, or adding to it (if arguing, then the stam will prevail as
the halacha, if adding, then this caveat applies).  He then discusses the
argument that, if somebody hears a bracha over the telephone, there must be
somewhere between the person talking and the person answering a substance
that is not clean, and therefore a person cannot answer amen, but concludes
that so long as this substance cannot be seen, the fact that the telephone
wire or radio wave might go over something that is not clean does not
matter.

He does bring the case of the flag waiving in Alexandria (Sukkah 51b) and
the Tosphos there and in Brochos 47a that this was only not considered an
orphan amen because the bracha which was being answered was known (and the
Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 124 si'if 8)- but points out that over any
telephone or radio, the bracha being answered is known.  He brings, inter
alia, Rav Ya'akov Moshe Toledano, in Shut HaYam HaGadol who holds that if
the one making the bracha intends to exempt the listener, the listener can
be exempt via the telephone or radio (although not via a gramophone, as that
is not in real time), but ROY himself disagrees, holding only that one is
required to answer amen to a telephone or live radio bracha, but cannot
thereby be exempt himself, as the listener does not in fact hear the bracha
from the mouth of the bar chiyuva, but only via the vibrations or radio
waves.

There is no requirement in the teshuva for there to be a minyan present to
answer amen, kaddish and kedusha (indeed ROY seems to be contemplating
somebody listening to a radio broadcast from the privacy of his house),
disagreeing with the position set out in the name of RYZA, although the
teshuva above does seem consistent with the position brought in the Yachave
Daat and the Yalkut Yosef regarding being exempt from obligation (as against
that of Rav Toledano).

Regards

Chana

R' Harvey Benton asked:
> they hold we have gilgulim (and we do as well) perhaps thier
> exact numbers of gilgwhat does buddism expound and is it
> azara??
> do other cultures (???) have the same name(s) as we do for
> shamayim (or olam haba?) or karma [like midah k'neged
> midah? that are posibly valid expressions of the same thing??
> eg (if gilgulim (in thier opinion(s)are not the same as ours,
> but if they have the same basic inyanim and outlook, do we
> and/or should we have a problem with tehm?????

There are many such things which are common to many religions. My approach is to ignore them.

I have nothing to gain from them, because there is no presumption that they
are correct. Their views on these things are not rooted in Torah, so why
should I care what they understand the afterlife to be like?

I also do not go out of my way to reject them, because it distracts me from
my *real* problem with such religions, which is their belief in multiple
gods, or no gods, or some other form of avodah zara.

(I have found some rabbis who like to find some practice or belief of
another religion, and pounce on it and make fun of it. I generally refrain
from participating in such taunts, because they tend to take an
overly-superficial view of the practice or belief that they're making fun
of. In my view, this greatly lessens the credibility of that rabbi, because
so many of our own practices and beliefs can also be made fun of, if one
takes an overly-superficial view of them. Woe to the one who uses a weapon
that can be turned against him.)

Thus, I just ignore what other religions say about these things, and get back to learning Torah.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 28
Mom Reveals $4 Wrinkle Therapy Angering Doctors! We reveal how......
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4eba76e8c321314da630st02vuc

R' Liron Kopinsky forwarded a question from someone else:

> if you're doing something halachically allowed but socially
> unaccepted (or just something most people are ignorant about)
> would Maarit Eyin apply? Is it a question of halacha or the
> way you will then be viewed by the klal, regardless of it's
> actual halachic status...

My understanding is that Maarit Ayin relates to confusion over whether
something is assur or mutar, such as such as when you do something which is
halachically allowed, but people will think that you're doing something
wrong. For example, entering a non-kosher restaurant to use their bathroom
-- some people may mistakenly think that you're eating the non-kosher food,
and some people may mistakenly think that the restaurant is kosher.
(Actually, I think one of those is Maarit Ayin, and the other not, and I
don't remember which.)

But in any case, that's NOT the question being asked. The question being
asked is about an action which is halachically allowed but socially
unacceptable. I would think such activities to be not Maarit Ayin, but
Chilul Hashem, because it causes the onlooker to have lessened respect for
HaShem and for Torah people.

I'm not sure what the questioner means by "or just something most people
are ignorant about". Perhaps he means "an action which is socially
unacceptable, but people are ignorant about why it ought to be socially
okay". I so, I would imagine this to still be a Chilul Hashem, because the
net result will still be that - rightly or wrongly - it causes the onlooker
to have lessened respect for HaShem and for Torah people.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4eba6531489f114d62aast01vuc

 From http://tinyurl.com/7t4nzd2

The Kitzur Shelah by Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, 
was first published in F?rth in 1683. It was not 
truly an abridgement of the Shnai Luchos HaBris, 
but rather a Sefer which stood on its own. It was 
used for many years by people in smaller 
communities as a guide for what to do at 
different times of the year. As many know, it is 
reputedly the source of the actual Pesukim 
recommended for the custom of saying Pesukim Lishemot Anashim.

<Snip>

In fact, this custom of reciting a Pasuk 
associated with one?s name is recorded there at the very end.

Chapter 5 of Post Sabbatean Sabbatianism by Rabbi 
Dr. Bezalel Naor goes into the reasons why Rav 
Yakov Emden blacklisted this book. It is based on 
the Hakdamah which uses the expressions Mashiach 
Ha'Amiti and Y'Mot HaMashiach, which equal 814 
and is also the Gematria for Shabbetai Zvi.[4] 
The copy I have from 1707 comes with the original 
quotation marks, functioning like italics, on 
both Mashiach Ha'Amiti and Y'mot Hamashiach.

<Snip>

I was looking through the book to find the part 
that speaks about the Pesukim L'Shemot Anashim 
and found it at the very end. I was fascinated to 
see that immediately before the final section, 
Rabbi Epstein concludes his Sefer with a hope for 
the coming of Moshiach, and he refers to Moshiach as Nezer Rosheinu.

I was curious about the words Nezer Rosheinu to 
describe Moshiach, and suspecting foul play, I 
did two things. Firstly, I wrote to Dr. Shnayer 
Leiman and asked him about the Kitzur Shelah and 
its use of the word Nezer Rosheinu. This is what 
Dr. Leiman answered (posted with permission).

?Briefly, Kitzur Shelah is a Sabbatian work. It 
is suffused with Sabbatian material, so one 
needn't look for evidence just at the beginning 
and end. It was already identified as Sabbatian 
by R. Yehezkel Katznellenbogen in the first quarter of the 18th century.

[Nezer Rosheinu] is surely a reference to 
Sabbetai Zevi. The latter name in gematria totals 
814, a sacred number for Sabbatians.

See the above URL for the entire article. YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111109/851d3d64/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 229
***************************************

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..."