Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 075

Thursday, June 3 1999

• Re: Hypothesis, the Gemoro may err in Metzius
• MB
• Last time for Kiddush Levana
• L"H and professional confidences
• Re: L"H and professional confidences
• Re: Ikkarim
• Re: Gemoro may err in Metzius
• Tefila
• Re: Mishna Brurah: Advice or Psak?
• Re: Catholics who helped Jews during the Holocaust
• Re: Gemoro may err in Metzius
• Re: Gemoro may err in Metzius
• Re: Mishna Brurah: Advice or Psak?
• Re: Avodah V3 #74
• Re: Catholics who helped Jews during the Holocaust
• Re: Gemoro may err in Metzius
• Re: Gemoro may err in Metzius
• L"H (and Newspapers?)

Rich Wolpoe asks:
: Question: Couldn't the possiblity exist that- legabei maggots and sponteous 
: re-generation - our aniyus daas does not fathom the gemoro correctly?  And
: that it is presumptious to assume that the Gemoros statements were merely a 
: refelction of the science of its era?

My Rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz zt"l, offered something similar.

The maggot isn't even potentially treif until it's large enough to be
visible. L'ma'aseh, there are two causes for the existance of a maggot
large enough to be a problem: 1- the egg, 2- the food the larvae ate to
get that size. L'halachah, though, the egg doesn't count, as it too is
too small to have mamshus. So, the only remaining goreim is the food
around the egg. In a sense, therefore, it's still true that the visible
maggot is a toladah of the meat.

However, I don't recall R' Dovid saying anything that would contradict
R' Kook. R' Kook was forced to conclude that since the science wasn't
salvagable, any kulos based on it must be rethought. R' Dovid found a
way of salvaging the metzius. In terms of procedure, though, they might
yet agree.

There is a question of how far to generalize R' Dovid's words. Does he
mean to say (as I've argued in the past) that halachah only addresses
observable reality in general, or that the lack of mamashus of the eggs
is implied by the lack of mamashus of microscopic bugs.

Or, can we really generalize, and say that the science of halachah is
"intuitive science". IOW, halachah is so much about how man percieves
the situation that we don't care how things work, we care how most people
instinctively feel it works. Which, according to a Scientific American
article of a few years back, closely resembles Aristotilian physics.

-mi
-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  3-Jun-99: Chamishi, Beha'aloscha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 323:1-7
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 90a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari II 77-80

Eli Turkel wrote:

"On the other hand others have claimed that the MB is the end of the era  .
.. ."

In a letter printed to the Jewish Press (more than ten years ago), Issar
Kaplan noted at least three occasions where Aruch HaShulchan argues with
MB--having seen MB!  So now, where does the "end of era" get us.

All we need is a few years of chipping-in to buy sets of Aruch haShulchan
for Bar Mitzvah bochurim and we could single-handedly create this
"revolution."

NW

>>
"Stokar, Saul (MED)" <STOKASA@euromsx.gemse.fr>
...        It has been suggested by a number of posters that final time for
recitinOf course, it is well known that
this discrepency has occured due to the extrapolation of a known
approximation (i.e. that the solar year is 365.25 days) for many thousands
of years! ...

Saul Stokar
<<

Several Questions come to mind:

1) re: the 265.25, Does Saul mean to imply we should have v'sain Tal umtor moved
to reflect the "actual" Aumnal equinox + 60 instead of Dec. 4/5?

2) Do we know for a scientific fact that the sun was creatd on the Vernal 
Equinox on that first Wednesday?  Isn't it a mchlokes in the Gemoro wrt to whne 
brias ho'olom took place, Nissan or Tishrei?

3) Is the Yom Revi'i of our day a realistic mathc of the primoridal Yom Revi'vi 
considering that the shemesh only started on Yom Revi'i, so what kind of 
physical yom was there during the 3 "days" that preceeded it?

Rich Wolpoe

Josh of BACKON etc., writes:

"So needless to say, it is halakhically  forbidden for any doctor to *talk
shop*
with his wife about any patient he treated during the day."

Since it is forbidden to share any statement with another, I don't quite
understand why you would limit this to doctors.  If we are talking about the
Torah-halakha responsibility, then even if two women are schmoozing, the
recipient of the info has no heter to share the info with her husband (not
because he can't keep his mouth shut but because it's assur for her to share
the newly acquired private info. Am I wrong on this????)  Kal va-chomer for
professionals, doctors or otherwise.

OTOH, if professionals *are allowed* to share their clients'
confidentialities with their own, i.e. the professionals' own spouses
despite clients' expectations of privacy, then why Josh's (and the sh"ut
cited) limitation of the issue to physicians?

NW

--- Noah Witty <nwitty@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Since it is forbidden to share any statement with another, I don't
> quite
> understand why you would limit this to doctors.  If we are talking
> about the
> Torah-halakha responsibility, then even if two women are
> schmoozing, the
> recipient of the info has no heter to share the info with her
> husband (not
> because he can't keep his mouth shut but because it's assur for her
> to share
> the newly acquired private info. 

You are correct in the case of lashon hara--that is, negative
information.  But what about neutral information (e.g., the patient
just had her period)?--there, confidentiality would come into play.

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

In a message dated 6/3/99 10:24:42 AM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Question:
>  Is an apikoros/min/kofer qualified as a sheliach tzibbur?
>  
See S"A Horav 53:21.

Kol Tuv  

Yitzchok Zirkind

Rich Wolpoe writes:

<<<
Question: Couldn't the possiblity exist that- legabei maggots and sponteous 
re-generation - our aniyus daas does not fathom the gemoro correctly?  And that 
it is presumptious to assume that the Gemoros statements were merely a 
refelction of the science of its era?  And that some future Gaon can reconcile 
the maggots issue?  Pperhaps the fertilized egg issue as well?
>>>

Anything is possible.  But if you analyze the sugya in Shabbat 107b, I think (la'aniut da'ati) that you or anyone else will be hard pressed to interpret the Gemara in a way that avoids the difficulty posed by the explicit statement that kina eina para v'rava (in contrast, by the way, to a parush which is para v'rava).  And not only that you have a derivative development of about a millennium and a half in which all the Poskim (I assume all, but have myself only looked at the Rambam and the Shulhan Arukh and the Mishnah B'rura) expound at length about spontaneous generation and the halakhic ramifications of spontaneous generation from dust as to opposed spontaneous generation from sweat and of spontaneous generation by species that also procreate as opposed to spontaneous generation by species that only spontaneously generate.  Why would it be preferable from the point of view of the integrity of the Mesorah to assume that all Poskim since Talmudic times have totally misunderst!
!
!
ood not just the p'shat of the sugya but the very meaning of the terms of used by the gemara in discussing its subject matter than that on a disputed issue (remember the idea of spontaneous generation - at least with regard to kina - is challenged by Abaye and possibly others), the halakha was subsequently decided based on what turned out to be the mistaken factual position of one of the sides in the dispute?  What ikar emunah is at stake here?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                        

>I read a comment in a sefer, prefaced by a "ka-yadu'a," (I'd never 
>heard of it), that taking a deep breath and reciting an entire bracha of

>shmone esraei aids concentration.  I tried it. I found it focuses the
mind, 
>though i suppose it does not allow the more leisurely state of mind that
I 
>imagine is necessary for multiple kavanos or for "flirting with G-d."
>(There you have it: a true Avodah post!)
	I have never heard of this particular advice although advice on how to
have more kavana is pretty widely available. I think the operative idea
is "ha'oseh tefiloso keva ein tefiloso tachanunim".  One explanation of
keva which I heard,  is "fixed" in the sense that it is always the same. 
One needs to try all different advice at different times:  sometimes
davening from a siddur helps,  sometimes davka by heart,  and so on. 
Sometimes we are more successful than others,  but the trying is what
makes it no longer keva,  but tachanunim.  Vechein yehi ratzon.

Gershon

I have refrained, until now, from commenting on what I regard as an
imposssible claim - that the MB is not an halachic work, but a plitas
ha'kulmus from my friend RRW requires some comment - i am sure he did not
mean it, but we must clarify it:

On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> They seem to focus on some objective critteraa, (eg the BY/SA and his
> hypotheticla BD).  The MB injects his concern for proper hanhogo and
> Yir'as shomayim which is a slightly different agenda than the average
> halcohic work. 
> 

Pray tell: What is possibly the putpose of Yahadus if not "proper hanhogo
and Yir'as Shomayim" (perhaps Ahavas Hashem, but you porbably included
that in one of the terms used). If so, what possible other agenda can an
Halachic work have?

YGB

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

We, Ashkenazim, hold that Catholics have a chelek l'olam ha'ba as
Chassidei Ummos Ha'Olam as shittuf is not forbidden to Bnei Noach. They
cannot, however, claim the rights accorded to a Ger Toshav as Gerei Toshav
are forbidden in Shittuf.

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:
> Rich Wolpoe writes:
> Why would
> it be preferable from the point of view of the integrity of the
> Mesorah to assume that all Poskim since Talmudic times have totally
> misunderstood not just the p'shat of the sugya but the very meaning
of the
> terms of used by the gemara in discussing its subject matter than
> that on a disputed issue (remember the idea of spontaneous
> generation - at least with regard to kina - is challenged by Abaye
> and possibly others), the halakha was subsequently decided based on
> what turned out to be the mistaken factual position of one of the
> sides in the dispute?  What ikar emunah is at stake here?
> 

Interestingly, those who seem unwilling to posit that the Amoraim
could err in Metziut are willing to allow for the fact that
Rishonim--and certainly--Achronim could err (in the latter case,
remember the statement of Rav Soloveitchik quoted recently on this
list--those who permitted microphones didn't understand enough
physics).  If Emunat Chachamim does permit post-Amoraic poskim to
err, why not the Amoraim themselves?

Of course, this hearkens back to the classic issue of why the Gemarah
seems to be binding in a way different from Rishonim or the Shulchan
Arukh (where, for example, the Shach and even the Gra feel free to
argue on the SA).  Do we believe that there was greater hashgacha
pra'tit in the case of the Gemara so as to ensure that Halacha
developed "correctly?"  (Cf. the Chazon Ish dealing with the
irrelevance of newly discovered Rishonic manuscripts.)  And, what
does "correctly" mean in light of Rav M. Rosensweig's article dealing
with Eilu v'eilu (which article I mentioned about a month ago)?

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

We have dealt here with this topic extensively in the past, as RDG himself
can readily testify. Perhaps, R' Micha, you would be so kind as to
provide the references for our previous discussions. Kashe atikta
mei'chadeta!


On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> 
> Interestingly, those who seem unwilling to posit that the Amoraim could
> err in Metziut are willing to allow for the fact that Rishonim--and
> certainly--Achronim could err (in the latter case, remember the
> statement of Rav Soloveitchik quoted recently on this list--those who
> permitted microphones didn't understand enough physics).  If Emunat
> Chachamim does permit post-Amoraic poskim to err, why not the Amoraim
> themselves? 
> 

YGB

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

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"  wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> > They seem to focus on some objective critteraa, (eg the BY/SA and
> his
> > hypotheticla BD).  The MB injects his concern for proper hanhogo
> and
> > Yir'as shomayim which is a slightly different agenda than the
> average
> > halcohic work. 
> > 
> 
> Pray tell: What is possibly the putpose of Yahadus if not "proper
> hanhogo
> and Yir'as Shomayim" (perhaps Ahavas Hashem, but you porbably
> included
> that in one of the terms used). If so, what possible other agenda
> can an
> Halachic work have?
> 

No one denies that Yir'at shamayim (maybe even Yir'as Shomayim) is
the goal of Yahadut and that ultimately halachic observance should be
geared towards that goal.  And I certainly agree that the MB is meant
to foster halachic observance.  The question is whether the MB is a
sefer psak which is machree'ya between halachic options or just a
summary of halachic works written until that time with some guidance
as to the weight of halachic opinion so that one may accomplish
"la'asoo'kei sh'matita aliba d'hilchita" (which is the declared goal
of the MB in the last paragraphs of his hakdamah).

Clearly the MB encourages one to perform mitzvot in the way most
likely to lead to Yir'at Shamayim.  (Of course, the Ramban on
"v'a'see'ta ha'yashar v'hatov comments that even lifnim meshurat
hadin is *required* of everyone, and that the 613 mitzvot are merely
examples of the exemplary way each of us should act.)  A sefer psak
does more--it tells you what is m'ikar hadin so that a posek can
evaluate what to do in extenuating circumstances, or when the
realities of life (such as psychological needs, in the case of a boss
& LH) intrude upon the niceties of halacha.

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

 I looked up the sources and fail to see what is so 'gefrailach'.  Can you 
enlighten me as to what I should have discovered other then a rehash of the 
gemara?         CB<<

>>>Question: Is an apikoros/min/kofer qualified as a sheliach tzibbur?
Rich wolpoe<<<

Answer: explicit gemera in Berachos 29a.  You don't need a diyun in achronim 
to answer that. 

-CB

What about according to the Rambam's shittah that shittuf is avodah
zara?  (Joke: will Catholics who saved Ashkenazic Jews get better
treatment than those who saved Sephardic Jews?)


--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> We, Ashkenazim, hold that Catholics have a chelek l'olam ha'ba as
> Chassidei Ummos Ha'Olam as shittuf is not forbidden to Bnei Noach.
> They
> cannot, however, claim the rights accorded to a Ger Toshav as Gerei
> Toshav
> are forbidden in Shittuf.
> 
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 
> 
> 

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

In a message dated 6/3/99 7:13:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

<< 
 Interestingly, those who seem unwilling to posit that the Amoraim
 could err in Metziut are willing to allow for the fact that
 Rishonim--and certainly--Achronim could err >>

Also interesting that we are willing to say that the Amoraim might have a 
safek in Mitziut(see Maharatz chayot on role of eliyahu in clarifying 
mitziut) but not that they could be wrong in mitziut.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

--- Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/3/99 7:13:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:
> 
> << 
>  Interestingly, those who seem unwilling to posit that the Amoraim
>  could err in Metziut are willing to allow for the fact that
>  Rishonim--and certainly--Achronim could err >>
> 
> Also interesting that we are willing to say that the Amoraim might
> have a 
> safek in Mitziut(see Maharatz chayot on role of eliyahu in
> clarifying 
> mitziut) but not that they could be wrong in mitziut.

To play devil's advocate:
One could make the following chiluk: Amoraim did not claim to be
nevi'im who knew all of science.  Therefore, they are permitted not
to know certain metziut or to be mesupak about it.  The halacha
l'ma'aseh will reflect the fact that the Amoraim were uncertain about
a certain issue.  In contrast, where the Amoraim felt certain about a
certain scientific issue and were kove'ah halacha l'dorot as a
result, hashgach pratit would ensure that they would not make a
mistake (tzadikim ein HKB"H mai'vee takalah al yadam).

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

> From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Lashon Hara (was: Avodah V3 #72)
> 
> - --- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> > ===> The fact that people "reject" a POV does not appear to be an
> > acceptable "proof".  It was not all that long ago that Mixed
> > Dancing was
> > "tolerated" even among the "Orthodox".  Does that mean that all of
> > the
> > Poskim who condemned M"D were "rejected" and that the p'sak is not
> > normative?  
> 
> Agreed.  However, major rabbanim read newspapers.  I can't say who,
> because that might be lashon hara!  ; )       

===> I think that this may depend upon *Which* newspapers and *which*
articles are read.  For example, if "major rabbonim" skip the articles
dealing with matters that would be defined as l"h, would they still be
considered in "opposition"?  More to the point, while there may be a sort
of "to'eles" involved for Rabbonim to knwo "what is going on", is there
any evidence that these same "major Rabbonim" apply leniencies in
"consulting" with their spouses.  Here, I am VERY cautious since I have
strong reason to believe that there HAVE been cases of to'eles that had
NOTHING to do with "venting".



> 
> > Also, I am not at all sure that it is possible to even
> > extend
> > the matter of "Newspapers" to that of direct telling and relating.
> 
> I never said that you should.  The only proof I brought from
> newspapers is that the CC was overly machmir in that regard.

===> Again, I am not sure if this is an "overly machmir" aspect or if
Rabbonim simply feel that the situation with Newspapers is one where
Rabbonim now feel that it is a specific to'eles to read the Papers.  IOW,
it is possible that Rabbonim feel that it is now permitted to read the
Newspapers and still be within the CC's guidelines.  For this, I believe
that it would be necessary to ASK one of these "major Rabbonim" rather
than theorize. 



> 
> > Presumably, one can claim that with a Newspaper, one is *receiving*
> > necessary info -- even if he does not "Strictly" believe it true
> > and the
> > publisher is not even necessarily Jewish.  That "reduces" the issue
> > to
> > areas OUTSIDE of L"H issues and hence is not a proof of anything
> > here.
> >
> 
> According to Rav Dovid Weinberger, advisor to the CC Heritage
> Foundation on LH issues, the CC was very much against newspapers and
> publicly railed against them.  I assume that he would have responded
> to your argument l'hakel that one may not receive LH even where one
> makes sure not to "strictly" believe its veracity.  (BTW, I find it
> difficult to believe that people reading about the Satmar girl's
> school scandal in the New York Times didn't believe the veracity of
> the story; if anything, people are more likely to believe a newspaper
> than person-to-person gossip).  I think (but I have not specifically
> researched this) that the identity of the publisher is irrelevant--
> one may not hear lashon hara about a Jew from a non-Jew.
===> I have no doubt that the CC was against Newspapers.  He was also (as
I recall) STRONGLY against secular education and even against (at least
for himself) the LANGUAGE of the country.  However, if there is a specific
defined to'eles -- it is quite possible that the CC *might* have found a
"place to be Meikeil".  This is purely speculative on my part.  However, I
believe that when analyzing the p'sak of known Gedolim, it is more prudent
to minimize the assumption of "rejection" unless that is quite clear.  In
this case, I would consider asking someone from the CC Heritage Foundation
if there is any possibility that the CC might have found a situation to
be Meikeil in our time.  If possible, it would be nice to get some
comments from the Rabbonim in question.   

> 
> >[Moshe, talking about the to'elet of speaking to one's wife about a
> >negative experience with one's boss:]
> > >  while the CC doesn't (to my knowledge)
> > specifically
> > > prohibit it, he does seem to create that impression (by not
> > talking
> > > about why it would be muttar); I have quoted some poskim
> > permitting
> > > it and I agree with Eli Turkel's post on the issue.
> > 
> > ===> From the limited amount that I have read, I never received the
> > impression that the CC was "playing that sort of game".  On the
> > contrary,
> > he is quite specific about To'eles and emphasizes that when one IS
> > allowed
> > to speak about something for To'eles, it is WRONG to avoid such
> > speech
> > (by claiming that it is L"H).  
> 
> Undoubtedly the CC permitted to'elet.  On the other hand, the CC did
> not mention a very common case--speaking to one's spouse about the
> boss, and in fact most people (and rabbanim) reading the CC come away
> with the impression that he forbade speaking to one's spouse about
> the boss.

===> Where is the to'elet?  Speaking to a spouse about one's boss does not
seem to automatically be defined as to'elet -- Hence the instances of
people ASKING theor Rabbonim and then receiving a determination that there
IS to'elet.  I would, indeed, agree with the impression cited above --
that the CC *does* forbid speaking to one's spouse about the boss --
because there is no automatic to'elet here AND my perception is that to
compalin agianst this is simply to try to make up some touchy-feely
category of "to'elet" simply because one wishes to "legitimize" L"H.
Again, where there IS real to'elet (e.g., one's spouse can provide real
and useful advice how to deal with one's boss) -- I have no doubt that
even the CC would have OK'ed the matter.


> 
> >For
> > example, a
> > poster noted that the MB may have been [partially] written by a
> > "committee" of B'nei Yeshiva under the CC.  Does anyone make a
> > similar
> > claim about the L"H compendiums. 
> 
> No.  But the poster (who happens to be me) made that point in order
> to show that the MB, which seems to have been accepted in most
> Charedi circles as the major posek of the 20th century (my Charedi
> cousin, who is a rosh kollel in Israel, told me that it was the
> accepted wisdom in Benei Beraq circles that all of the MB's psakim
> are binding), was not really a sefer psak.  Similarly, I posited that
> the CC, who was not a posek who answered she'elot, is not a sefer
> psak as it was written in a similar style--to inform people of
> already existing halachot.

===> I would be VERY cautious about how to "posit" matters.  Whiel the CC
may have had one goal in  mind with the MB, it is tricky to extend that.
This is especially true when -- unlike the M"B, we DON'T find any sort of
"opposition" or "alternative" -- in which case, we are forced to then
posit "cowardice" or "inhibition" that would prevent Poskim from speaking
out even if they think something is wrong!

> 
> > > I think it is a shame that certain poskim nowadays write seforim
> > > claiming to summarize the halacha when in reality they are
> > > consciously being machmir because they wish to be strict with
> > people
> > > who are not Bnei  Torah (often, these poskim write their real
> > views
> > > in the footnotes in terse Hebrew, which they assume will be
> > > understood only by B'nei Torah).  Do you have any evidence that
> > the
> > > CC acted in this way?
> > 
> > ===> Not at all.  I am simply trying to posit that the CC was not
> > "careless" and did not simply write material just because he was at
> > a high
> > level.  He either did so because that is how he understood the
> > halacha or
> > because the "generation needed it"....  
> 
> Chas v'shalom to assert that the CC was careless.  I am 100% sure
> that he meant everything l'tovat klal yisrael.  So, for that matter,
> did the Satmar Rebbe.  But just as I believe that the Satmar Rebbe's
> approach is not definitive, so I believe the case to be with the CC. 

===> Except that in the case of the Satmar Rebbe, it is not just "li'l Ol'
me" who is asserting the "non-definitive" aspect of the Satmar Rebbe's
approach -- it is a segment of the "Halachic World" that so asserts.
Seems to me to be a lot tought to assert a similar case against the CC
without the same sort of "backup"....


>  I believe that there are alternative approaches which may work
> better than that of the CC, especially as we approach the 21st
> century (and klal yisrael is in a different matzav) and especially
> because the approach that the CC took doesn't seem to have been very
> effective on a practical level.

====> I do not see how one can simply make up categories of "to'elet" to
legitimize instances of L"H.  I am not even sure if the claim that the
CC's was not so effective is really true.  Seems to me that there has been
a bit of resurgence in the areas of Shemirat HaLashon...  I thnk that
regardless of the approach, we have to recognize that first and foremost,
this is an area that is HARD to follow.  All too many of us (this writer
included) really enjoy hearing a "juicy tidbit".  Just as previous
generations here had no problem with the serverity of Mixed Dancing, our
Dor has no problem with the severity of L"H.  The answer does not seem  
to be "find more leniencies" by asserting a problem with the CC -- even
though we do nto find Poskim explicating such a problem -- rather, the
answer seems to be in education.  If one's initial reaction is "how will I
*benefit* by telling/hearing this item [with "benefit" meaning something
more (usually) than 'getting it off my chest']?", maybe that will be a far
more effective approach.


> 
> > > > > [Moshe:] Considering the general non-compliance of much of
> klal
> > yisrael
> > > > with
> > > > > the halachot of lashon hara, I would think that it would be
> > > > better to
> > > > > create rules that people might be willing to abide by rather
> > than
> > > > > prohibiting newspapers and all speech to spouses and waiting
> > for
> > > > > people to just sigh at their inability to fulfill the laws of
> > > > lashon
> > > > > hara.
> > > > 
> > > >[Zvi:] ===> One can make the same argument concerning Shemirat
> Shabbat
> > or
> > > > Arayot
> > > > ow whatever -- dpending upon your sample of klal yisrael.  If
> > the
> > > > halacha
> > > > is as the CC formulated it 
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > > [Moshe:] But, you're switching the argument here.  I was reacting
> to your
> > > suggestion that the CC was being machmir for non B'nei Torah and
> > that
> > > the halacha is really l'kulah.
> > 
> > ====> Sorry for the imprecision.  OTOH, if people are NOT behaving
> > like
> > B'nei Torah, the fact that they are not in compliance does not to
> > seem to
> > be a reason not to be machmir on them (otherwise, how to explain
> > all of
> > the gemarot where strictures are imposed "because they are not
> > b'nei
> > Torah". 
> 
> Sometimes it makes sense to be machmir for the ha'mon 'am.  Sometimes
> not.  In the case at hand, we tried one approach for 100 years and it
> was relatively unsuccessful.  Why not try the other approach?

===> It is not clear how allowing MORE gossip will accomplish anything
positive -- all it will do is legitimize what has been recognized as a sin
until now.  Also, I question how much we have really tried "this approach"
over the past "100 years"?  Given all of the OTHER religious issues that
we have faced, my personal (probably inaccurate) impression is that we
have NOT been paying ANY attemtion to this matter until perhaps 10 -15
years ago...

>  
> > All that we are really saying is that one has to ask a Rov whether
> > a
> > matter is a case of to'eles rather than try to rationalize for
> > one's self
> > that communication with a spouse is *automatically* to be
> > considered
> > to'eles....
> 
> I seem to recall quoting various rabbanim I asked this very question.

===> Then I misunderstood your quote.  I thought that the poskim that you
had asked had determined that there was to'eles *in specific cases* and
not as an "automatic" matter.  Please clarify.


--Zvi
> 
> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe

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


[ 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         ]