Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 172
Wednesday, August 18 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:26:16 -0500
From: Avram Sacks <Avram_Sacks@cch.com>
Subject: proofs of G-d
As Eli Turkel suggested, proof in the classical sense cannot be
possible, because proof implies complete knowledge over the subject of the
proof. So, by definition, a human being, who is defined by limits, cannot
possibly prove the existence of G-d. What has worked for me is Abraham
Joshua Heschel's notion of "a leap of faith." He discusses this is his
last book, "A Passion for Truth" which I read in college and found to be
very moving. Until that point I was obsessed with the concept of "proof."
After reading the book, I came to understand that it wasn't so much finding
proof of G-d's existence that strengthens emuna, but rather using our
knowledge and understanding of the world in such a way as to allow us to
make that leap of (to?) faith. Now, as for what allows us to make that
leap of faith will vary from individual to individual. For me:
1. history of the Jewish people - just as you put it.
2. miracles - not the fact that a phenomenon occurred- for I
believe all miracles can be explained scientifically based on the the
Talmudic dictim ha-olam holekh k'minhago. Rather, that a phenomenon
happens WHEN it happens is what makes it a miracle.
3. the intricacy of biology - as an undergraduate biology major
at one of the top schools of biology in the country some years ago I came
to appreciate more and more as I studied how perfect the systems were.
Again, as you put it, the chances of winning the lottery seem more likely
than such systems being put in place by chance.
Ultimately, though, I come back to number 1. This could be
dangerous, however, in that Reconstructionism is predicated on elevating
Jewish "peoplehood" to iconic levels. For me, however, that history merely
provides the ledge that allows me to make that leap of faith. So, I don't
believe we should be looking for proofs. Proofs can be disproved and invite
debate. Rather, we should be looking for that which allows us to make the
leap of faith.
I//Avi
Avram Sacks
Chicago, IL
achdut@enteract.com
sacksa@cch.com
>From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu> on 08/18/99 09:47 AM
>To: avodah@aishdas.org@SMTP@cchntmsd
>cc:
>
>Subject:
>
>Subject: proofs of G-d
>
> As Rosh haShana approaches I would be interested in hearing
opinions
>about various proof of G-d's existence. ...
>
>[snip]
>
>I will instead list the proofs (in short) that I personally find
more appealing.
>
>1. Anthropic principle.
>
> It is well known that life exists only because many physical
parameters
>are within a small range that allow the universe, earth and life to
exist.
>The probabilty of this being coincidental is extremely small. This
indicates
>that there is a guiding force in the universe...[snip]
>
>2. Extra-Sensory Perception (ESP) [snip]
>3. Near-death Experiences (NDE) [snip]
>4. History of the Jewish People
>
> I personally find the survival of the Jewish people in exile and
their return
>to the land of Israel unexplanable accept by miracles. As Rav
Soloveitchik has
>stressed under normal conditions one would expect the land of
Israel to become
>fully occupied and hence for the Jews to return there en-mass
impossible. It would be
>like the Indians reclaiming America. No matter how reasonable it is
impractical.
>
>Kol Tuv,
>Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:49:02 -0400
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject: Re: midgets v. giants
Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
<<<
I am having great difficulty dealing with the righteous
condemnation of various gedolim by members of our group. Aside
from the serious question of whether there is any heter for
such public pronouncements - I find them rather distasteful and
unpleasant to read. They stand in strong distinction to the
majority of postings which inform and uplift and/or raise
important concerns on a wide variety of topics. I'd like to
propose a rule governing these condemnations.
>>>
I agree. Some of what has been posted is distasteful and
unpleasant. But doesn't one have to distinguish between a
factual report of events or actions in the past and a value
judgment about those involved in the events or those who took
the actions in question. Is one permitted to make a true report
of some past event that might plausibly be interpreted as
portraying a particular gadol (Rabbi X) in an unfavorable
light. If the answer is no, what factual information may one
provide about a gadol other than that he learned a lot of Torah,
performed a lot of mitzot, and loved children? May one say that
he used to read the newspaper or read literature? In the eyes
of some that would portray him in an unfavorable light. Are we
allowed to quote a published t'shuvah in which he reviles other
Jews, perhaps even shomrei mitzvot? On the other hand, if we
are allowed to discuss facts about a gadol that are in the public
record (I am not talking about revealing secrets or other
confidential information), why is it any less permitted to express
an opinion concerning the appropriateness of a particular action
taken by Rabbi X than to express an opinion conerning the
cogency of his reasoning in reaching a particular p'sak
concerning, say, brushing teeth on Shabbat. Of course, one
should express disagreement in a properly respectful tone,
but it is well known that in the heat of battle, b'rai p'lugta often
use rough language.
<<<
No criticism of a recognized gadol can be made - unless it is
based upon reliable statements from a major talmid chochim.
If I am informed that Rav Soleveitchik or Rav Hutner had
strongly condemned Rebbe X for his conduct - I have learned
something of value. If I read, however, that a chaver of this
group - feels that certain gedolim are a disgrace to the
profession - I have learned nothing of value. If there are no
public pronouncements denouncing that particular gadol - that
must mean that our rebbes and rosh yeshivos must have felt that
condemnations should not be made. The insistence of being more
zealous than our Teachers - is itself one of the major reasons
for the continuing disputes of Klal Yisroel.
The above does not mean that I am against criticizing gedolim
c.v.. Chazon Ish supposedly said that one can only speak lashon
haRah about the errors of a genuine gadol. There is no to'eles
about saying bad things about someone who does not determine
the nature of yiddishkeit. But at the same time there is no
to'eles of condemnations - which have no basis in the
pronouncements of gedolim. We are all midgets. First find a
gadol whose shoulder you can stand on.
>>>
But again the question is if we are confronted with known facts
about a particular gadol, are we not supposed to talk about them
at all? Are we supposed to suppress facts that are already known,
but not too well known? Why is it all right to discuss and argue
about the Torah of gedolim, but not about their public actions?
David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:09:11 +0300
From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net>
Subject: CD T'amim search
R'Russ Hendel writes:
Also I heard a while back that the next Bar Ilan CD will have te'amim search capability.
Bar Ilan has already put out the Keter on CD with nikkud and t'amim. This is
Menahem Cohen's work not the Breuer edition. Breuer is based on majority rule.
Cohen is a copy of the Keter, with reconstruction where necessary. Reconstruction
is based on Cohen's analysis of the existent Keter as well as other manuscripts.
I know that it has search by nikkud, both a particular word or any word with particular
nikkud. I don't know about search by ta'am.
Shana tova,
David
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:19:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
Subject: criticizing Gedolim
> Second, sometimes it is obvious from statements of gedolim that they would
> have criticised other gedolim. For example, Rav Soloveitchik is reputed to
> have said that the Holocaust proves the falsity of the concept of da'at
> torah. Presumably, he would have criticised those gedolim who, on the eve
> of the Holocaust, promised their followers that no harm would befall them
> (see the story mentioned by--I think--Dr. Moshe Sokolov in the volume put
> out by the Orthodox Forum).
1. The Rav (in Hamesh Drashot) states that "lo ba-Shamayim hi" does not
apply to history. In assessing historical events, G-d does not have to
follow the gedolim. He explicitly applies this Zionism. In Kol Dodi Dofek
he says that we should be thankful for medinat Yisrael if for no other
reason than that Jews in trouble have somewhere to run to.
2. At the same time, when a student asked the Rav whether many Jews would
have been saved had gedolei Torah taken a different attitude toward
Zionism, his answer was "A ben Torah doesn't talk that way."
Lesson: There are a variety of ways to express disagreement and criticism.
Precise choice of words is crucial.
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:20:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
Subject: PS to criticizing Gedolim
The book in Orthodox Forum series is presumably the one edited by Moshe
Sokol.
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 21:15:36 +0100
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Erroneous Psak
In message , Carl M. Sherer <csherer@netvision.net.il> writes
>Not too long ago, I heard a Hilchos Nida Shiur from a posek who
>essentially said that if a "fruhm" couple (meaning one that is not a
>couple of recent baalei tshuva) has relations during the shiva
>n'kiyim, that a posek should "throw the book at them" to make
>sure that it doesn't happen again. Meaning, he should "give them
>every chumra in the book." (Lest anyone think otherwise, he said
>worse things about a couple that has relations when the wife is
>menstruating).
I find this bizzare - lets analyse the situation logically as to the
possibilities:
a) the woman is going to mikvah after the 7 clean days, but they are
having relations before then;
b) the woman is going to mikvah after the end of the d'orisa period, but
they are not keeping the shiva nekiim;
c) the woman is not going to mikvah at all;
d) they had relations during the sheva nekiim in the past, but they now
wish/have done, teshuva.
So how is "throwing the book" at them going to help.
In the case of a) and c) clearly the couple don't care about being over
an issur d'orisa chayav kares (until she goes to mikvah, she is assur
d'orisa), so why is a chumra going to change matters. At most it will
delay her going to mikvah meaning there will be even more occasions on
which they breach the issur (ie being machmir means that the Rav is
increasing the incidents of issurei d'orisa chayav kares!)
In the case of b) - when and what are they going to be asking a Rav. If
she is not keeping the 7 clean days, she is unlikely to be doing any
bedikas (the most common form of shiala), and I suspect is not exactly
checking for stains - what book do you have to throw? And if they only
care about the d'orisa issur (and know enough to adequately avoid it,
which is another question) how much attention are they going to pay to a
chumra, even not billed as such. The only think that would seem to be
effective is to bill everything as an issur d'orisa, but they are likely
to know enough to know that is not true - and it might lead them to
believe that certain matters are really not d'orisa when they are (for
example, most people don't distinguish within the 7 clean days, but if
the woman is able to do a hefsek tahara on the fifth or sixth day after
she commences bleeding, it may be that the first one or two of the seven
clean days are still within the d'orisa nida period. Not making that
clear might mean that she never goes validly to mikvah (going before
the end of the d'orisa nida period being totally ineffective))
So I can only see the posek having any effect at all in case d). So
what you are telling me is that - we have in front of us a couple who
had relations during the 7 clean days, but now want to do teshuva. That
is, they managed to withstand temptation for the duration of the period
of bleeding, but could not manage the extra 7 days. They now are
determined to try and make it for the rest of the time. So what does
the Rav do. He makes it as difficult as possible for them by making the
temptation even greater than that borne by the average person (eg making
them wait 15, 16, 21 days) by the application of chumras. Is it his job
to test them in this manner? To give them additional trials to see
whether they are worthy of being granted kapara? We are taught from a
very early age that if one genuinely wants to do teshuva, HaShem helps
one to tunnel under the kisei hakavod. But instead of imitating this
attribute of chessed, the Rav is requiring of them not just the din, but
more than the din, he is pushing them away rather than bringing them
close. And what happens if, under the strain of this, they do indeed
crack once again?
And not only that, but having relations b'heter is a mitzvah (or two).
And it may well be that this couple have not exactly performed this
mitzvah many times in the past (certainly if most times she had not gone
to mikvah and hence were b'averah). How exactly does this Rav plan to
justify himself before the beis din shel ma'ala when asked on what
grounds he was mevatel the mitzvah of pru u'rvu and onah?
>
>IMHO this is a proper role for a posek. It's also why IMHO one is
>required to choose a posek ("aseh l'cha Rav), so that the posek
>gets to know you and your spiritual needs.
>
>IMHO TELLING such a couple that it's a chumra could defeat the
>purpose, because if they know it's not halachically "required" they
>may not keep it, and that would put them back into the same
>position from which they started.
>
If they will keep the din (just not more than the din) they are much
better off than they were before. If they have really done teshuva and
they want, as a reminder of their previous failing, to keep some extra
chumra - that is a different matter. But in order to do that they need
to know that it is a chumra, and keep it for that reason, ie to go
lifnim meshuras hadin to counterbalance being previously over on the
din. But if they do not know, there is no such effect - except possibly
in the accounting of HaShem. But for that one would need to be privy to
the innermost secrets of that Judge and judgement, and know that you
were required to be the instrument of punishment (and even then, the
Mitzrim were only fulfilling the prophesy given to Avraham - and yet
they were punished, the machlokos there as to why is to me indicative of
the issues at stake here). It strikes me as a brave (or foolish) man
indeed to suggest that any person today has that level of access and
certainty about any other's spiritual welfare.
>- -- Carl
>
>
>Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Kind Regards
Chana
--
Chana/Heather Luntz
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: criticizing Gedolim
R. Carmy wrote:
<<At the same time, when a student asked the Rav whether many Jews
would have been saved had gedolei Torah taken a different attitude
toward Zionism, his answer was "A ben Torah doesn't talk that way."
Lesson: There are a variety of ways to express disagreement and
criticism.
Precise choice of words is crucial.>>
Agreed. And certainly in chodesh Elul we should be especially
careful as to our choice of language.
I think this points to another limitation of R. Eidensohn's proposal
(for us midgets not to criticize a Gadol unless another Gadol has
criticized that Gadol): Certain Gedolim by temperament or by choice
are much more likely to be very cautious as to criticizing others.
Other Gedolim (such as one who referred to someone as a "sonay
yisrael") are more vociferous in their attacks. Does that mean that
this imbalance of criticism is to be perpetuated for the following
generations?
Interestingly, my proposal, unlike R. Eidenson's, is to limit
criticism as much as possible. In a thread just a few weeks ago
entitled "Divided Community" it was I who advocated being accepting
of others' positions (based on a notion of elu va'elu) and it was R.
Eidensohn who advocated maintaining the old custom of disagreeing
vociferously.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:49:43 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: midgets v. giants
In a message dated 8/18/99 1:51:43 PM EST, DGLASNER@FTC.GOV writes:
> Why is it all right to discuss and argue
> about the Torah of gedolim, but not about their public actions?
If it is done Lilmod Ullameid, how one should or may conduct himself, that
seems fine, however it is different then criticizing or mentioning in a manor
that the criticism stares one in the eyes.
KVCT
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:56:45 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Chazal and Technology
In a message dated 8/18/99 9:49:00 AM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
>> The problem with this is also removing the Ikkar that HKB"H can make
>> miracles, the Rambam in his self defense about Techiyas Hameisim says
>> clearly
>> that he didn't elaborate on this as this is purely Miracle, which one
must
>> believe in.
> Question: were these miracles among those creatd bein hashmoshos on the
> first Friday?
I don't know, the simple reading of the Mishne does not include them, but
neither is there mention of Moshe RO"H's hand becoming Nitztareia and it's
cure, the splitting of the Yardein (this can be included in Krias Yam Suf
which was done by the Mateh which is mentioned), or the falling of Yerichoi
etc. etc. (as an aside IMHO the criteria for enumeration in the Mishne of
Ovos is not defined by the term of "miracles" alone).
KVCT
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:56:23 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ma'aseh B'reishis
In a message dated 8/18/99 9:48:07 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I don't have much new to add. I would like to avoid the old "creation vs.
> evolution" debate, so I won't cite the same old list of sources that
clearly
> don't understand ma'aseh bireishis as time having begun less than 6
millenia
> ago (see the book Confrontation if you're interested in the sources).
As already mentioned the simple Pshat. that is borne out by Rashi Chagiga
12a, is that each of the 6 Yemei Breishis were 24 hour periods, (as
understood for the one to whom the Torah and Shabbos were given),
unfortunately these sources are not given "equal rights" under the new
enlightened world of science.
> My
> point with the Rambam was not that he denied yeis mei'ayin, because he
didn' t.
> Rather, that he said that it's possible to read the chumash that way. Which
> would imply that a discussion of the p'shat of the text shouldn't revolve
> around understanding yeish mei'ayin.
IMHO Lav Davkoh, but that too is not the Issue, Ukidil'halon.
> In summary, my basic point was that the Maharal says that we can only
> approximate understanding p'shat in ma'aseh b'reishis. I therefore
concluded
> that the apparant p'shat that we think we understand is wrong. Which leaves
> us with being content with understanding the nimshal.
I have yet to see, where the MaHaRaL says that what we think is Pshutoi Shel
Mikroh is "wrong," (after all Rashi made it his point to be Mfareish these
Psukim Al Pi Pshuton).
> Yitzchok Zirkind first appeared to limit the inability to understand to
> the concept of yeish mei'ayin.
If I was unclear I apologize, my point was not to limit to "yesh M'ayin"
rather to illustrate what the MaHaRaL (according to my understanding) says
are not understood in Maasei Breishis, IOW "how" things were created (the
most Boleit is Yesh M'ayin), this is in contrast to explaining that even
"what" was (and "when" it was) created is not understood, hence those words
that are in the Torah are not included in "Hasteir Davar" as they are
written, the "how" is not written, however the "how" includes the entire
spectrum of the creation, until Vayichulu when no further creation was made.
> In a more recent post he includes "Seder of
> things as not understood". Which would imply a broader inability. I need
> more clarification of how Yitzchok understands the Maharal.
I was in error for bringing this in, as it has to do with what the MaHaRaL
calls "Ein Dorshin B'aroyois," and it is not needed for our discussion.
KVCT
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:02:16 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject: choosing 4 minim
>>>I most definitely agree that when one invests his time and effort in
looking for an Esrog/Lulav which is beautiful to *him*, it can create an
emotional connection.<<<
I don't understand this thread - the mitzva is being notel lulav and esrog,
not buying or choosing a set. You may feel emotional, but l'ma'aseh the few
hours spent picking out a set can be spent in ways that involve true kiyumei
mitzva.
-CB
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:12:29 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject: RE: Avodah V3 #171
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
Subject: Re: Repeating for vocalization change, ashqenazis really speak si
fard
<<
<Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:11:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Moshe Feldman
<moshe_feldman@yahoo.com
<http://be8-mail.zdnetmail.com:80/32161848702207840934982298/ab_mailto_froma
b.femail?wholemail=moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>> Subject: Re: Repeating for
vocalization change "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com
<http://be8-mail.zdnetmail.com:80/32161848702207840934982298/ab_mailto_froma
b.femail?wholemail=jjbaker@panix.com>> wrote: <<But he thought it did change
the meaning: dam naki would be "innocent blood", per the Kaplan chumash
(which has dam, like the Massorah), while dom naki (per Onkelos) is rendered
by, e.g., Mendelssohn, and New JPS, as "dom shel naki" - "blood of an
innocent." Are they both nouns, or is one a noun and one an adjective? That
seems to be the difference. Onkelos renders it "dom zacai", while Targum
Yerushalmi has "adam zacai". >> Question: What is the definition of mishaneh
et ha'inyan, for which we cause a ba'al koreh to repeat what he read (see OC
142)? Does it mean (1) that the meaning of words changes (here, it clearly
does), or (2) that the concept/idea is changed (here, I'm not so sure--is
there ultimately any difference between innocent blood and blood of an
innocent)? Kol tuv, Moshe >
And from REC: <I would also add that I spoke once with a person who often
served as a ba'al keri'ah in the "Shtieblach" in the Katamon neighborhood of
Yerushalayim, and he told me that he was once corrected by R. Aharon
Lichtestein for reading dam (with a patach) instead of dom (with a kamatz),
or vice versa. Kol tuv>
I have a somewhat different angle on this dam-dom stuff. First, there
should not be the slightest doubt in anybody's mind that they mean different
things - being mishaneh the inyon depending on whether noqi is a
adjectivally adjunct to dam, or an independent noun.
>>
I am in agreement with you that dam--an adjective--is different from dom, a
noun. However, what is your position with regard to my chakirah: <<Does it
mean (1) that the meaning of words changes (here, it clearly does), or (2)
that the concept/idea is changed (here, I'm not so sure--is there ultimately
any difference between innocent blood and blood of an innocent)?>>
According to (2) why is it mishaneh et ha'inyan?
Kol tuv,
Moshe
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:13:44 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject: Lashon Hara on the Dead (was: Criticizing Gdolim (2))
Moshe Feldman writes:
> I assume that you're referring to implied criticism of the Munkatcher Rav.
> Does lashon hara apply to criticism of the deceased? I thought not (though
> I would appreciate a source for this). Why not say that because of hilchot
> lashon hara gedolim were more reticent about criticizing other gedolim
> during their lifetimes than after their deaths?
Lashon Hara does apply to the dead. See Chafetz Chaim Hilchos
Lashon Hara Clal 8, S'if 9 [translation mine]: "And know also that
even to disparage and curse the dead is also forbidden (citing
Mordechai in Bava Kamma Letter 82), and the poskim have written
that there is a regulation and cherem of earlier generations not to
speak ill of and besmirch the dead. And this even if the subject is a
boor, all the more so if he is a Talmid Chacham, certainly one who
disparages him commits a crime and should be excommunicated
for this as is paskened in Yoreh Deah 243:7. And the issur of
disparaging a Talmid Chacham applies even if he is disparaging
him personally, and certainly if he is disparaging his Torah.
-- Carl
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:13:44 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject: Brushing Teeth on Shabbos
Another matir is R. Chaim David Regensberg in Mishmeres Chaim
Siman 9. He is matir to use regular toothpaste with the brush.
Here in Eretz Yisrael they sell special Shabbos toothpaste, which
is liquid, and which apparently gets around the memachek
problem, but not the schita problem? Anyone know of a posek who
discusses that kind of toothpaste specifically?
-- Carl
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:20:51 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #171
Correction:
I wrote:
<<
I am in agreement with you that dam--an adjective--is different from dom, a
noun.
>>
I should have written:
I am in agreement with you that dam--making naki an adjective--is different
from dom, which makes naki a noun.
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Lashon Hara on the Dead (was: Criticizing Gdolim (2))
--- Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> Lashon Hara does apply to the dead. See Chafetz Chaim Hilchos
> Lashon Hara Clal 8, S'if 9 [translation mine]: "And know also that
> even to disparage and curse the dead is also forbidden (citing
> Mordechai in Bava Kamma Letter 82), and the poskim have written
> that there is a regulation and cherem of earlier generations not to
> speak ill of and besmirch the dead.
Am I correct, though, in assuming that the issur in the case of the
dead is not nearly as grievous as speaking lashon hara with regard to
one who is alive (where there clearly are issurei d'oraita involved)?
For example, does "lo telech rachil b'amecha" apply to a dead
person?
Assuming that it's not as grievous, my argument still stands: a gadol
may be more willing to speak negatively about someone after his death
than prior to his death (presuming that there are good reasons to
make such comments).
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:48:53 -0400
From: "Ken G. Miller" <kgmiller@datacorinc.com>
Subject: Proofs of G-d
In Avodah 3:171, Eli Turkel mentioned <<< the proof based on the Mesorah
that 600,000 men (2 million people?) were present at Mount Sinai. I believe
that was first presented in the Kuzari. Several years ago I saw an expended
version from R. Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr Samayach but was not able to find it
again on their web site. >>>
That entire book, "Living Up to the Truth", by Rabbi Gottlieb, is available
on the Ohr Somayach website at
http://www.ohr.org.il/special/books/gott/truth.htm The Kuzari's proof is
the topic of Chapter six, at
http://www.ohr.org.il/special/books/gott/truth-6.htm
Akiva Miller
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:56:55 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject: Re: Hebrew language--correction
I had written
<<For example, at the
beginning of parshat terumah there are a whole series of es and ais
(beginning "Es hamishkan es ahalo v'es michsayhu").
>>
That should have been: parshat vayakhel.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
Go to top.
*********************
[ 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 ]