Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 067

Friday, May 28 1999

• Re: ikkarim
• Electricity on shabbos
• Administrivia
• Lomdus ba'goyim ta'amin
• Re: Halocho al Pi Arahceology
• Loshon Horo - Wives
• Re: archeology
• Re: Electricity on shabbos
• electricity
• Re: archeology
• Mishno Bruro
• Re: lashon (l'shon?) ha-ra
• Ikkarim
• Re: electricity
• Re: Electricity on shabbos
• Re: electricity
• Re: electricity
• Re: lashon (l'shon?) ha-ra

In v3n65, Yitzchok Zirkind <Yzkd@aol.com> writes:
: Other issues that come to mind is a) if one is Mkadeish a women with the 
: condition that he has a Chelek L'olom Haboh, (as the Gemoroh says Al Mnas 
: Sh'ani Tzadik, Sh'ani Taanoee etc.).

I'm not sure how the definition is relevant. We assume that he had hirhurei
teshuvah, and therefore the kiddushin is chal. This is true regardless of
defining the details of the issur he has hirhurim about. And, if he isn't
in violation, then we don't need to rely on hirhurim, and the kiddush is still
chal.

:                                    b) Lshitas HoRambam (Hil. Rotzeiach 4:10 
: and other places) that there is a Mitzvah to kill a Min.

And, as has already been pointed out, his definition of "min" there is very
similar but not identical to, the list of ikkarim.

I think it's relevant also lidinei geirus. What if some Christian wants to
become Jewish but not reject the trinity? Or (to bring an example from the
second half of the list) a potential geir who disagrees with the concept of
techiyas hameisim? L'ma'aseh, I know of no beis din that would consider either
of these people as candidates for geirus.

-mi

PS: I recall where I heard the idea that the ikkarim defined the border between
Yiddishkeit and the other religions of the Rambam's day. It was in my Dad's
car, listening to a tape of R' YB Soloveitchik.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Moshe Feldman writes:

"I seem to recall that the Rambam's halacha with regard to heating
metal is that "bishul" in the case of metal is defined as heating it
until it glows. "

thanks for the correection on the melacha.--NW


"(This might be connected to the famous Eglei Tal
dealing with the difference between cooking solids and cooking water;
in the case of cooking solids there is change to the substance while
this is not true of water.  That is why there might be bishul achar
bishul in the case of liquids (certainly in the case of water). "

I was told that the drashos haRan indicates that water once cooked is
different, this as a basis for a kula in apparent hachzara (by the RaMA?).
Of course, Ran is a da'as yachid; I just wanted to publicize the opinion and
perhaps someone can give us a cite. I believe it's in the context of
describing hhow the springtime water has been warmed byt he sun. not sure.
Rabbi Carmy, maybe? --NW

 "In the case of metal, after it cools down it may be no different than it
was prior to when it was originally heated.  As a result, you can't
look at the issue of whether the substance is changed by the heating
process and must look instead at the degree  of heat which was
applied to the substance.  Certainly, heating metal until it glows is
much hotter than yad soledet.)

"If so, it would seem that one might differentiate between a
light-bulb filament and a spark emitted in order to ignite a
fluorescent bulb.  If, in emitting the spark, a filament is not
heated until it glows (and I am completely ignorant of the m'tzi'ut)
then there should be no melacha of bishul."

Why is it not prohibited to cause the spark itself??--NW

In v2n65, Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> writes:
: I am forwarding this letter to avodah, an email list which is devoted
: to halachic issues.

To be exact, the topic for which I created this list was (as per the membership
agreement):
: The Avodah mailing list hosts an open forum analysis of hashkafah, avodas
: Hashem, ta'amei hamitzvos, lomdus, machshavah, and halachah -- with an
: emphasis on the places where halachah, machshavah and hargashah meet.

Frankly, I pictured something slightly different than what the list became.
In *addition* to all our conversations of halachah, metahalachah (where
authority comes from and what a p'sak means) and other issues, I expected
to see more pure philosophy and discussions of ta'amei hamitzvos.

But more than either of those, the list is called "Avodah". Theoretically,
we could see more posts that actually help eachother in avodas Hashem and
creating hislahavus.

In case anyone had ideas of these types that they refrained from posting
because they thought them inappropriate, consider yourself invited.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

--0-1804289383-927907468=:14789
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

The following was posted on the ISRAWORLD list by a non-Jew.  What
are the sources about whether one may teach Torah to non-Jews?  (I
seem to recall that there was an article published recently on this
issue.  Where?)  Also, in the case at hand, the majority of list
members are Jewish.


Note: forwarded message attached.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--0-1804289383-927907468=:14789
Content-Type: message/rfc822

X-Apparently-To: moshe_feldman@yahoo.com via mdd301.yahoomail.com
Received: from ml.egroups.com (207.138.41.146)
  by mta107.yahoomail.com with SMTP; 27 May 1999 14:32:48 -0700
Received: from [10.1.1.21] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 May 1999 22:30:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact israworld-announce-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: israworld-announce@egroups.com
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/israworld-announce/
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-israworld-announce@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 19432 invoked by uid 7770); 27 May 1999 21:30:00 -0000
Received: from mta04-acc.tin.it (HELO fep04-svc.tin.it) (212.216.176.35)
  by vault.egroups.com with SMTP; 27 May 1999 21:29:59 -0000
Received: from tin.tin.it ([212.216.3.20]) by fep04-svc.tin.it
          (InterMail v4.0 201-221-105) with SMTP
          id <19990527212957.MBEM3147.fep04-svc@tin.tin.it>
          for <israworld-announce@egroups.com>;
          Thu, 27 May 1999 23:29:57 +0200
Message-ID: <374DB6A9.173E@tin.it>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 23:18:33 +0200
From: Flavio Fontana <flafonta@tin.it>
Reply-To: flafonta@tin.it
Organization: Musander Corporation
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: israworld <israworld-announce@egroups.com>
Subject: [israworld] Talmud in electronics and astronomy...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2159

Sorry to continue playing with talmudic/halachic issues (and -what is
even worse- being "gentile" and absolutely ignorant about them), but the
subject is so beautiful...At least, this time my inquiries are a bit
nobler than the previous one. Please consider them, in the worst case,
as a "coffee break" in the discussion of other more serious problems; in
the best case, as a simple-minded but sincere testimony of my love and
fascination for the realm of talmudic discussions...  

Some months ago I met at a conference in the US two (very secular)
Israeli colleagues, involved in laser optics R&D. I posed them the
following questions, but they were unable to give an answer:

1) It is known even by us "goym" that the Jewish law forbids to switch
on electrical lights on Shabbat. My Israeli friends told me that this is
because a small spark is created whenever we press a switch: so we
actually "ignite a fire". But -I objected- nowadays I can turn on a
light also by a TRIAC dimmer activated by a capacitive proximity switch:
in this case I simply change the properties of a semiconductor w/o
creating any spark at all. What is wrong in this argument?

2) In the Artic or Antartic winter at very northern/southern latitudes,
what is the recipe to compute the times to light the candles of Shabbat
if there is no sharply defined "evening"? And what would be the answer
to the same question if -sooner or later- somebody will build a Jewish
Temple exactly at the North/South Pole?

3) And -even crazier..-if a Jewish astronaut will be member of a crew
during an interplanetary trip, what solution will he envisage to the
same problem? 

Toda' rabba' ve-shalom

Flavio


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are most stock sites so slow and annoying to use?  StockMaster.com
is fast, easy, powerful, and free!   Use company names, not ticker
symbols.  Track your portfolio.  Visit: http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/65

ISRAWORLD was established to provide a debate forum on any and every issue
imaginable and reasonable, and is dedicated to the memory of ANNA RADLAUER
z.l., who passed away on April 26, 1999.



--0-1804289383-927907468=:14789--

In v3n64, Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
: My point is this, you cannot uproot fixed, binding halocho by independent 
: non-masora means.  You might be able to verify a "metzius" question.

The case at hand is NOT one of access to sources they didn't have. If someone
wants to recreate the original motivation behind Chanukah based on sefer
haMakabiim he should realize that the authors of Shabbos perek 2 also have
read sefer haMakabiim.

:                                         or perhaps if we went back far enough 
: in history we could find the location of the simmanim of a girraffe...

Aside: we know how to shecht giraffe. That bit is an urban legend. In fact,
since a giraffe is a dear with a long neck, the proper location is large,
and it's easier to shecht than a dear. The meat isn't worth the effort, though.

: Acceptance counts.  But I think the imperative watchword is minhog avosienu 
: beyodeinu.

This part of the evidence vs. minhog argument has been covered repeatedly when
we were discussing s'varah vs. minhog. I still think that willingness of the
Gaon, R' Moshe Feinstein and R' YB Soloveitchik to switch from three matzos to
two argues that there are cases where minhog avos can be overruled. (And we're
talking about what they did l'ma'aseh. You can't dismiss it as "theoretical
discussion only".)

My hypothesis in that debate would actually lead one to conclude that evidence
/does/ overrule p'sak. I argued that minhag has authority to choose between
two "right" shitos, i.e. in a case of "eilu va'eilu". However, one could
overrule minhag if it were found that the shitah we follow is in error.

For example, R' Kook addresses the question of abiogenesis. Maggots found
within the meat are considered kosher by Chazal because they are born of
the meet. According to R' Kook, the p'sak is wrong, and they are treif.
Lekulah, though, we can't rely on evidence. Not because the evidence hasn't
the authority, but because we can't be sure we ruled out every cause of the
issur.

: Permit me a poor but useful illustration.  The Rambam notes that one should
: NOT be mesadder birchos hasachar all at once - even though he concedes that
: such was the prevailing minhog.  Let's survey our list, how many of us
: actually say she'oss li kol tzorki when putting on our shoes in the morning...

This actually is back to the s'varah vs. mihag debate. I see no difference
between that and between some of R' Chaim's modifications to minhag based
on the Rambam -- except that in thise case, R' Chaim didn't find the argument
as compelling.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

R. Moshe >>here is an inyan for husbands to share their thoughts--not
only their flesh--with their wives (think of all the sheva b'rachot
divrei torah you've heard). <<

I know many may not agree with this, but as an attorney, my wife NEVER shares 
with me attorny-client confidences,
And as a Rav I NEVER share with her clergy type confidences.

I consider loshon horo as equally inappropriate.  If do share a story,  I do my 
best to change the names, etc. so as not to point to any individual.

As far as husband wife intimacy goes, See Avos 1:5 - Al Tarbe Sicho... b'ishot 
omru...

Rich Wolpoe 

In v3n64, Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes:
: Everyone seems to agree that Chanukah today is based on the miracle of
: the oil. However, this is not true. Many have pointed out that Al
: Hanissim stresses the military battle.

I'm not sure how the third sentence proves the second.

I mentioned two moments ago that we assume that every takkanah could rest
on multiple causes, not all of which were necessarily published. Why do we
need to say the cause of Chanukah is either-or? It would be atypical of Chazal
to create a din because of one reason alone.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Noah Witty <nwitty@ix.netcom.com> asks:
: Why is it not prohibited to cause the spark itself?

An electric spark bears little resemblence to the kind of spark chazal would
be addressing. A smith throws sparks that are tiny bits of glowing metal --
with the same problem of either havarah or bishul as any other glowing metal.

Electric sparks are a bunch of electrons. I would argue that what you actually
see is physically identical to the blue part of a flame. In one case heat
puts energy into air, which is then rereased as light. In the other, it's
electricity doing the energizing. But the light itself is a product of the
same process. Perhaps it's therefore aish. But perhaps not.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Lest we conclude that all poskim in the past generations were machmir, 
I would cite a p'sak by the Orach Hashulchan to the effect
that the use of electricity on chag is permitted. (This was
quoted in the Jewish Press halacha column some years ago-
I have a photocopy packed away in Michigan...) 

I have a theoretical question re the analysis
of issues such as electricity. On what physical level are we
to look - after all, the way that electricity was understood
in the 19th century via Maxwell's equations is quite different
philosophically and physically from the current quantum-mechanical
view. Should a rav be required to understand quantum mechanics before he
paskins on incandescent/flourescent lights? 

If the answer is "yes" then doesn't that imply the necessity of a
university education? Popular books on the subject are really
not very accurate. If you are supposed to know (as, one would presume the
Rambam would demand) physical science, then there is only one place to
learn it...  


---------------------------------------------------------
Claude (Chaim) and Rivka Schochet
Math Dept		04-834-6049 home (also for short faxes)
The Technion		04-829-3895 office
Haifa, Israel 32000     04-832-4654 office fax
                        When calling from US, dial 011-972-4-8xx-xxxx

In a message dated 5/28/99 12:26:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<<  Everyone seems to agree that Chanukah today is based on the miracle of
 : the oil. However, this is not true. Many have pointed out that Al
 : Hanissim stresses the military battle.
 
 I'm not sure how the third sentence proves the second.
 
 I mentioned two moments ago that we assume that every takkanah could rest
 on multiple causes, not all of which were necessarily published. Why do we
 need to say the cause of Chanukah is either-or? It would be atypical of 
Chazal
 to create a din because of one reason alone.
  >>

Additionally, I think it fair to point out that while the text of T'fillot 
are important, they are not in and of themselves Halacha documents.

Jordan

R. Moshe:n addition, I have been told
both by Rav Hershel Schachter and by Rav Dovid Weinberger (who quoted
Rav Moshe Feinstein) that the CC was not a posek and the MB was
written as a helpmate to learning Shulchan Arukh, not as a sefer
psak.<<

I once told a chaver that the MB is more a "mussar" sefer than a hlcah sefer and
(much to my surpise) he agreed with me and said that it gave him a whole new way
of looking at it. He started noticing that while the MB brought down a nubmer of
opinions he would "recommend" to be machmir.

Caveat #1: I didn't LITERALLY mean it was more of a musar sefer. Just in 
discinction to other sifrei halocho (especially the oruch hashulchan) the MB was
more interested in good middos than hard-headed analysis.

Caveat #2:  R. Schwab's visit to the CC was followed by a visit to R. Chaim 
Ozer.  When R. Schwab "swooned" re: the CC's tzidkus, R. Chaim Ozer (ever the 
Livak) exclaimed: didn't you talk torah?.... The CC wrote THE most important 
halachic work of the last X years!  I understand that R. Chaim Ozer was 
referring to the Beiur Halocho (either explicitly or implicitly) and not 
specifically the MB.

And therfore

Caveat #3.  I do not take the above statemtn as literal either. Rather as 
realitvely speaking the MB was not so much psak orinted but hanhogo oriented. 
And most sifrei halocho were psak oriented.  EG you don't see the Beit Yosef 
saying 6 or 7 shitor and then adding but a Yerie shomayim will be yoteiz lechol 
hadeios. Rather, the BY analyzes based upon either the relative weight of the 
poskuim, or based upon sefardic practice, etc. but not which psak engneders more
yir'as shomayim.


Rich Wolpoe 

Just to take our discussion about permissible speech within a family a bit further, let me pose the following question.  If my child comes home and tells me a) that her friend was mean to her (or to another child) or hit her (or another child) or yelled at her (or another child), or was using inappropriate language, b) her friend's mother was mean to her (or another child), c) her teacher was mean to her (or another child), yelled at her (or another child), hit her (or another child), or otherwise mistreated her (or another child), or was incompetent or rwise ineffectual in discharging her teaching duties, what is the appropriate (i.e., halachically mandated) parental response according to the shitah of the Chofetz Chaim or of other reputable poskim?  Is it a) tell the child that she is speaking lashon (l'shon) ha-ra and you will not listen to her, much less believe her; b) tell the child, it is okay to tell your parents what happened to you or another child, but don't use any!
!
!
 names or provide any other information that would allow the parent to figure out who was involved, and, by the way, try to be more careful about speaking lashon (l'shon?) ha-ra next time; c) thank the child for confiding in you, take what she said seriously and follow up as seems reasonable without regard to lashon (l'shon?) ha-ra issues; or d) some other response?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

R. Chaim Brown:>>
Therefore, the whole discussion of the Ikarei HaEmunah is academic to 
halacha; i.e. you will not find any literature on it in Shut sefarim that 
deal with real cases.<<

Tangentially, Do shut talk about the prohibitionm of saying Modim. Modim or 
Shema twice as a function of appearing to confirm "shtei reshuyos"?

Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 5/28/99 12:33:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
schochet@techunix.technion.ac.il writes:

<< 
 I have a theoretical question re the analysis
 of issues such as electricity. On what physical level are we
 to look - after all, the way that electricity was understood
 in the 19th century via Maxwell's equations is quite different
 philosophically and physically from the current quantum-mechanical
 view. Should a rav be required to understand quantum mechanics before he
 paskins on incandescent/flourescent lights? 
 
 If the answer is "yes" then doesn't that imply the necessity of a
 university education? Popular books on the subject are really
 not very accurate. If you are supposed to know (as, one would presume the
 Rambam would demand) physical science, then there is only one place to
 learn it...  
  >>
One of my favorite questions especially as it applies to post talmudic issues 
so that the answer of science being "closed" for halachic purposes at the 
time of the talmud can't be posited. The answer usually given is something 
along the lines of either     -1)An expert is consulted and the Gedolim 
imbibe all the relevant knowledge in a relatively short time  or
2) Daat Tora insures the right answer is given even if all the mtziut aren't 
understood.

I can't help but think of  The Rav's(YB Soloveitchik) famous quote re: 
microphones on shabbat.  Those who were matir didn't know enough halacha to 
do so and those who assered didn't know enough physics to do so.

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

--- Noah Witty <nwitty@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman writes:
>  "In the case of metal, after it cools down it may be no different
> than it
> was prior to when it was originally heated.  As a result, you can't
> look at the issue of whether the substance is changed by the
> heating
> process and must look instead at the degree  of heat which was
> applied to the substance.  Certainly, heating metal until it glows
> is
> much hotter than yad soledet.)
> 
> "If so, it would seem that one might differentiate between a
> light-bulb filament and a spark emitted in order to ignite a
> fluorescent bulb.  If, in emitting the spark, a filament is not
> heated until it glows (and I am completely ignorant of the
> m'tzi'ut)
> then there should be no melacha of bishul."
> 
> Why is it not prohibited to cause the spark itself??--NW
> 

If I rub my shoes on a carpet during the winter and then touch some
metal, I may cause a spark, which is actually (I think, I'm no
scientist) the transfer of electrons.  Clearly that is not
prohibited.  

In the case of fluorescent lighting, the question is how the spark is
caused.  I would think (and again, I'm ignorant of the m'tzi'ut) that
the electrons from the electric current (generated by a power plant)
are permitted to "escape" into a defined area.  (Electrons are not
created; they exist.)  I cannot see why there would be any bishul of
metal.

So the only issur would be the general issur of using electricity.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Claude Schochet <schochet@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> Lest we conclude that all poskim in the past generations were
> machmir, 
> I would cite a p'sak by the Orach Hashulchan to the effect
> that the use of electricity on chag is permitted. (This was
> quoted in the Jewish Press halacha column some years ago-
> I have a photocopy packed away in Michigan...) 
> 

Could you please provide the citation for the Arukh Hashulchan?

> I have a theoretical question re the analysis
> of issues such as electricity. On what physical level are we
> to look - after all, the way that electricity was understood
> in the 19th century via Maxwell's equations is quite different
> philosophically and physically from the current quantum-mechanical
> view. Should a rav be required to understand quantum mechanics
> before he
> paskins on incandescent/flourescent lights? 
> 
> If the answer is "yes" then doesn't that imply the necessity of a
> university education? Popular books on the subject are really
> not very accurate. If you are supposed to know (as, one would
> presume the
> Rambam would demand) physical science, then there is only one place
> to
> learn it...  
> 
 
This issue applies to certain medical issues as well.  My
understanding is that Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav S. Z. Auerbach
relied on doctors and scientists to advise them.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

On Fri, 28 May 1999, Claude Schochet wrote:

> Lest we conclude that all poskim in the past generations were machmir, I
> would cite a p'sak by the Orach Hashulchan to the effect that the use of
> electricity on chag is permitted. (This was quoted in the Jewish Press
> halacha column some years ago- I have a photocopy packed away in
> Michigan...)
> 

Generally chalked up to misunderstanding of the nature of electricity.

> I have a theoretical question re the analysis of issues such as
> electricity. On what physical level are we to look - after all, the way
> that electricity was understood in the 19th century via Maxwell's
> equations is quite different philosophically and physically from the
> current quantum-mechanical view. Should a rav be required to understand
> quantum mechanics before he paskins on incandescent/flourescent lights?
> 
> If the answer is "yes" then doesn't that imply the necessity of a
> university education? Popular books on the subject are really not very
> accurate. If you are supposed to know (as, one would presume the Rambam
> would demand) physical science, then there is only one place to learn
> it... 
>

The answer is "yes" and then "no". RSZ Auerbach understood electricity far
better than most of us "educated" fellows. 


YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

--- David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV> wrote:
> Just to take our discussion about permissible speech within a
> family a bit further, let me pose the following question.  If my
> child comes home and tells me a) that her friend was mean to her
> (or to another child) or hit her (or another child) or yelled at
> her (or another child), or was using inappropriate language, b) her
> friend's mother was mean to her (or another child), c) her teacher
> was mean to her (or another child), yelled at her (or another
> child), hit her (or another child), or otherwise mistreated her (or
> another child), or was incompetent or rwise ineffectual in
> discharging her teaching duties, what is the appropriate (i.e.,
> halachically mandated) parental response according to the shitah of
> the Chofetz Chaim or of other reputable poskim?  Is it a) tell the
> child that she is speaking lashon (l'shon) ha-ra and you will not
> listen to her, much less believe her; b) tell the child, it is okay
> to tell your parents what happened to you or another child, but
> don't use any! ! !  names or provide any other information that
would allow the parent
> to figure out who was involved, and, by the way, try to be more
> careful about speaking lashon (l'shon?) ha-ra next time; c) thank
> the child for confiding in you, take what she said seriously and
> follow up as seems reasonable without regard to lashon (l'shon?)
> ha-ra issues; or d) some other response?
> 

I would think that these cases are all cases of to'elet, certainly
where the parent has the ability to correct the situation.  Even
where the parent does not have the ability to correct the situation,
I would think that there is to'elet provided that (1) the child is
the type of child that needs to be comforted by the parent, OR  (2)
the child will learn from the parent how to deal with the situation.

The general rules of to'elet should apply: the child should not be
communicating the information to the parent in order to bad-mouth
those involved (and the parent, as a point of chinukh, should make
that clear to the child); the parent should not necessarily believe
the veracity of the story but should take appropriate action based on
a presumption that the story is true.

Kol tuv and Shabbat Shalom,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]