Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 348

Wednesday, February 9 2000

• Two Interesting He'aros
• Re: Gaw'al Yisrael
• Re: Two Interesting He'aros
• Re: Smoking and Halocho
• Birkas Kohanim (was: gaa-al yisrael)
• Re: Gaw'al Yisrael
• (Fwd) Off topic: Jewish Men Needed for DNA Study
• Ain Dorshin
• Re: Smoking and Halocho
• To go off on a tangent
• Daf Yomi He'oro
• ga'al yisra'el
• Re: publishing letters - issur?
• Re: publishing letters - issur?
• Re: Was Re: Gezel Akum, Now Re SE
• Re: Was Re: Gezel Akum, Now Re SE
• Re: To go off on a tangent...
• Smoking ban
• Re: Was Re: Gezel Akum, Now Re SE

1. From the Daf Yomi Yerushalmi, Sotah 10b: There was tzora'as, and taharas
metzora, after the Churban Bayis Sheni (R' Tarfon, a kohen, relates how he
was metaher at least three metzoro'im).

2. In the 5759 Am HaTorah journal, R' Simcha Sheps relates that he once
asked the Brisker Rav his opinion on those who are baki b'chochmas
ha'partzuf and fortelling the future, who can in fact discern the truth. The
Brisker Rav's answer is beautiful and instructive:

Based on his great-grandfather the Beis HaLevi [but one can trace this to
the Nefesh HaChaim as well], the Griz replied that Hashem implanted within
every individual the capacity for emuna sheleima, to believe simply and
straightforwardly in that which one must believe. By directing that belief
at small things that are worthless, one expends that capacity for emunah.
One therefore finds people that do not believe in Hashem at all, yet are
highly superstituous: They too have the capacity for emunah, but have
expended it on frivolities.

Not only by such people, continued the Brisker Rav, but by us as well: We
waste the capacity for emunah on small things, and thus lose the capacity
for true and complete emunah.

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

In a message dated 2/8/00 3:25:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov writes:

<< 5Despite the "yeshivish" custom of saying gaw'al yisrael in a
 whisper, several well known roshei yeshiva made a point of completing
 gaw'al yisrael out loud whenever they davened for the amud (led the
 services). These include Rav Shneur Kotler (Lakewood), Rav Yosef Dov
 Soloveitchik (YU), and Rav Yaakov S. Weinberg (Ner Yisrael). >>

I seem to recall that Rabbi Soloveitchik also adhered to the shita of the 
Ramoh, and required answering Amen to the Bracha.

Jordan

In a message dated 2/9/00 12:11:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

> 1. From the Daf Yomi Yerushalmi, Sotah 10b: There was tzora'as, and taharas
>  metzora, after the Churban Bayis Sheni (R' Tarfon, a kohen, relates how he
>  was metaher at least three metzoro'im).
>  
See Chinuch 169, also see Rambam end of Hil. Tumas Tzoras the Ois Upeleh WRT 
Tzoras is Tzoras Habgodim Vhabatim.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/8/00 4:55:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk writes:

<< ut what really bothers me is the implication of the proposals here. In a
 >sense, they seem to me thoroughly "Brisker". The underlying assumption of
 >the drive for halachic solutions to a health problem is that there is, in
 >Yahadus, only Halocho and non-Halocho. I.e., either it is assur - or muttar.
 >
 >But Yahadus is not pure Halocho. There are other values beyond "Assur" and
 >"Muttar". There is the greatest question of all: "Will this activity add to
 >or detract from my Ahavas or Yiras Hashem?" And there are many other
 >corollary questions, such as one which may even be halachic; "Will this
 >activity make me a naval b'reshus ha'Torah?"
 > >>

R' Yosef, I agree wholeheartedly with your point. I think the problem for 
most people regarding smoking is the inability to distinguish between this 
activity, which involves personal pleasure, at a potential risk, and other 
personal pleasures which may or may not have the same potential risk. I think 
of examples such as enjoying a nice big steak, (rare, of course) or an 
occasional Lechaim`. Are you willing to subject those activities to your meta 
Halachik criteria as well? I assume that you agree with me that it is not 
necessary in those cases, as seichel dictates a difference between smoking, 
which is only for fleeting pleasure, and eating, even if pleasure is the main 
purpose, such as that 10 oz. rare steak. Unfortunately, not everyone is 
willing to make that distinction.

Jordan

R' Eli Turkel writes <<< For the same reason I say birchat cohanim out
loud (again not louder than the cohanim) though I have heard shittot that
it should be said so that only the cohanim hear it, it doesn't seem right
to me (obviously I am talking about places/times that the cohanim bless
the people). >>>

I am curious why this does not seem right to you. The minhag in Eretz
Yisrael is for the chazan to say only the 15 words of the brachos
themselves, and I see no need for the people to hear those words. I
imagine those words to not be a real part of chazaras hashatz, and would
be probably be considered a hefsek if not for the fact that the kohanim
need to be prompted, and what they say *is* a real part of chazaras
hashatz. Only the kohanim need to hear it.

In contrast, in Chutz Laaretz, many (most?) places have the minhag that
the chazan says the preceding paragraph ("Elokeinu..."). When the chazan
says that, it forms a narrative story/prayer which the 15 words of the
brachos can be part of, lessening the "hefsek"ness of the whole business.
In that context, it seems to me appropriate that the people should be
able to hear the entire section.

DISCLAIMER: This entire post is based on nothing that I have ever heard
or learned inside, but is rather my own theory, developed over years of
observing different minhagim and trying to make sense of them. For
example, it has struck me as odd that in Chu"l, the chazan is the one to
call out "Kohanim!", but in E"Y this task is specifically given to
someone *other* than the chazan, and my theory seems to explain that
difference.

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

On 8 Feb 00, at 17:09, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> When I daven in Washington Heights, I get the stark realization that virtually 
> nobody else still does the traditional Ashkenazic practice - even the ones that 
> prevailed in Lita. EG, how many Litvisher Minyanim STILL say piyyutim on the 4 
> Parshiyos?  On Yom Tov?

For many years my father davened by Rav Mordechai Savitsky zt"l. 
Rav Savitsky used to say most of the piyutim in chazoras hahsatz 
on Yom Tov and the yotzros on Shabbos Shkalim and HaChodesh 
(Musaf only - there are no yotzros in Musaf on Zachor and Para).

> I would recommend seeing the Vilna Kol Bo Machzor/Siddur and comparing it to the
> Roedelheim, and you will see a LOT more in common than you might first expect. 
> Even on YK where the German minhag is very different, both  have selichos for 
> shacharis/mussaf/Mincha.  Follwers of RYBS thought he was being original when he
> "addedg" selichos on YK, but he was actually restoring an older minhag that had 
> fallen into disuse (Again see see the Vilna Kol Bo)
> 
> The Gro and the Yeshivishe velt in his wake has been gradually "undoing" Minhag 
> Ashkenaz for centuries.  I get the impression that this is based upon a 
> TB-centric view of halacha and minhag and I have posted this many times.

To the extent that you are talking about yoztros and the like, some 
of the undoing is simply a question of time. In "Yeshivish" davening 
on Rosh HaShanna and Yom Kippur, unless you daven netz, it is 
almost impossible to say all the yotzros (let alone slichos) and give 
the amount of time they give for the shtiller Shmoneh Esrei and still 
get through davening. I think that's where doing away with yotzros 
came from (although I have no source to prove it).

-- 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

Anyone have any comments on this (halachic or otherwise)?

-- Carl

----- Original Message ----- > >
To: Belarus SIG <
The Center for Genetic Anthropology is starting an important new project
to study the genes of Ashkenazic Jews. The center is best known for a study
that found that the majority of Sephardic and Ashkenazic Cohanim are related
to one another, and to the Cohanim in isolated Jewish communities in India
and southern Africa.
> > >
Now, the center is organizing a study to compare genetic samples from
thousands upon thousands of Jewish men, to see how much of our genetic
code we Ashkenazic Jews have inherited from the Slavs, the Khazars, the
Jews of Palestine, etc.
> > >
The researchers are asking for samples from men only, because men can
provide samples of Y chromosome DNA (DNA from the gene that turns men
into men) and mitochondrial DNA (the DNA from the little power plants
inside our cells).
> > >
Of course, there are a few women who have Y chromosomes and are,
genetically speaking, men. (Example: XY people who are insensitive
to the hormone androgen.) If you're sure you fit in that category,
maybe you could participate, too.
> > >
No needles are involved. All you have to do to participate is stick
a cotton swab in your mouth and mail the swab to London.
> > >
You can get more information on participating in the study at:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/ashkenazim/


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

   There is certainly no question that discussions in this forum of
homosexuality is a problem and goes against the rule of Chagiga 11b.
However, since over the past years , its treatment has been less than
satisfactory, with presentations often being inaccurate, I believe that
something must be said from the Torah view point.

   Let me summarize the stand of Judaism on this issue, although it should
be superfluous to state that Judaism regards homosexual conduct as a serious
transgression

   It began in Chumash Bereishis 2:24 : "Therefore a man shall leave his
father and his mother and cling to his wife and they shall become one
flesh." Man should cleave to his wife. This Mitzvah was given preparatory to
the Mitzvah of peru u'revu, to be fruitful and multiply. The Talmud
(Sanhedrin 58a; Yerushalmi Kiddushin 1) comments that Adom was instructed,
"v'davak b'ishto v'lo b'zachar" - "And you shall cleave to your wife; but
not to a male."  The prohibition of homosexual contact is in the original
Mitzvah that was given to Adom. "b'ishto v'lo b'zachar" - "To your wife; but
not to anothers wife." So adultery and homosexuality belong to the Universal
laws, applicable to all men. It is not a Jewish Halacha! The Torah was given
to us - but as a guide for all mankind. We received a heavier portion; but
the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach, which are the basis of morals and ethics in
western civilization, that is universally binding on all people created
b'tzelem Elokim.
                                   
   After the Torah was given, the Torah is quite specific: "Do not lie with
a male as you would with a woman; this is a disgusting perversion." and, "If
a man has intercourse with another man in the same manner as with a woman,
both of them have committed a disgusting perversion and shall be put to
death by stoning." 

   For the past 2,000 years, punishment for infraction of such
transgressions has not been possible. Even prior to the destruction of the
Beis HaMikdash and the advent of the present exile, we lost the ability to
impose penal sanctions as prescribed in Jewish law. Halacha regards
reinstitution of the sacrificial order and restoration of the Sanhedrin to
its chambers within the sanctified precincts of the Beis HaMikdash as
necessary preconditions that must be fulfilled in order to make possible the
administration of Biblically prescribed punishment for infractions of such a
nature. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 52b) quotes from Sefer D'varim "And you shall
arise and go up to the place which the L-rd your G-d shall choose, and you
shall come unto the Kohanim, the Levi'im, and the Judges who shall be in
those days..." Judicial authority was vested in the courts, not the Kohanim
or Levi'im, so why does the Torah mention them all together? The Talmud
explains that this teaches us that judges may impose the death penalty only
during the times when the Kohanim function in their Temple roles. Secondly,
"and go up to the place which the L-rd your G-d shall choose," serves to
establish a second condition; that the death penalty may be imposed only
when the Sanhedrin sits within the precincts of the Beis HaMikdash (in the
Lishkas HaGazis, which was a chamber built into the north wall, half inside
and half outside).

   It should be noted that apart from this, there exists an additional
impediment to imposition of capital punishment today. In order to impose
such a sentence the judges must be recipients of "Smicha" transmitted by the
ordainer to the ordainee in unbroken tradition of succession originating in
the appointment of the seventy elders by Moshe Rabbeinu. Lamentably, this
chain of transmission was interrupted in the middle of the 4th century
(4118; 358 CE) as a result of persecutions during the period of Roman
oppression subsequent to the destruction of the Second Commonwealth. 

   Accordingly, let me note loudly and clearly that as far as Jewish law is
concerned, the question of punishment is one which should not arise with
regard to individuals who engage in deviant sexual behavior or, for that
matter, with regard to our relationship with any person who violates any of
the commandments of the Torah. Insofar as our attitude is concerned, the act
must be deplored, but the person who commits such acts remains a Jew to whom
our hearts and arms are open.

   During the last several years, claims have been published in the
scientific literature that specific genes control complex behaviors. A list
of these gene-controlled behaviors include violence, hyperactivity, paranoid
schizophrenia, alcoholism and drug abuse, and, of course, sexual
orientation. These claims have put neurophysiology and psychiatry on a
collision course with religion and with our legal system. If man is
"coerced" to behave in a socially, religiously, legally unacceptable manner,
he cannot be held responsible for his behavior either by G-d or by society.
The existence of Free Will is a cornerstone of the Bible, and I dare say our
modern legal system as well. To act as responsible moral beings, we must not
be subject to physically or Divinely imposed necessity. Indeed, the validity
or non-validity of the claim that homosexuality is natural rather than
aberrant, or a normal state rather than an illness, is irrelevant to Jewish
teaching. Not everything that is normal and natural is also licit and
morally acceptable. We certainly recognize that there are individuals who
have personalities that would tend to promote certain sinful behaviors, but
we fully expect, that these individuals will control these tendencies. We no
more accept the acts of homosexuality as inevitable because of the existence
of biological, genetic or environmental factors, than we would accept murder
because the perpetrator is prone to violence. Divine commandments are not
necessarily reflective of that which comes naturally to man. Fornication,
extramarital liaisons and adultery would not necessarily be forsworn if not
for Divine decree. For some, homosexual conduct is analogous. Even if
homosexuality is an inborn predisposition in some people, it does not follow
that they cannot or need not change. Teshuvah is precisely the belief that
one can and should alter inborn and other non-normative predilections.
Everyone has some sort of deeply rooted biological or psychological
challenge to deal with.

   A distinction must be noted between homosexuality and homosexual
activity. The former is an inclination, a predisposition that may or may not
express itself behaviorally. The latter is an act that may be engaged in by
a person who is homosexually oriented (or by a heterosexual who has no such
predisposition but chooses to perform homosexual acts for various reasons).
The refusal to submit to an immoral impulse, even without the sublimation or
transfiguration of that impulse, is, in Judaism, a very high moral
achievement. The moral challenge remains, even if a biological basis to
homosexuality were to be substantiated. (See Meiri Shabbos 156)

B'virkas HaTorah,

Y. Dovid Kaye

 
 

Absolutely agreed.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <TROMBAEDU@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: Smoking and Halocho


> In a message dated 2/8/00 4:55:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> << ut what really bothers me is the implication of the proposals here. In
a
>  >sense, they seem to me thoroughly "Brisker". The underlying assumption
of
>  >the drive for halachic solutions to a health problem is that there is,
in
>  >Yahadus, only Halocho and non-Halocho. I.e., either it is assur - or
muttar.
>  >
>  >But Yahadus is not pure Halocho. There are other values beyond "Assur"
and
>  >"Muttar". There is the greatest question of all: "Will this activity add
to
>  >or detract from my Ahavas or Yiras Hashem?" And there are many other
>  >corollary questions, such as one which may even be halachic; "Will this
>  >activity make me a naval b'reshus ha'Torah?"
>  > >>
>
> R' Yosef, I agree wholeheartedly with your point. I think the problem for
> most people regarding smoking is the inability to distinguish between this
> activity, which involves personal pleasure, at a potential risk, and other
> personal pleasures which may or may not have the same potential risk. I
think
> of examples such as enjoying a nice big steak, (rare, of course) or an
> occasional Lechaim`. Are you willing to subject those activities to your
meta
> Halachik criteria as well? I assume that you agree with me that it is not
> necessary in those cases, as seichel dictates a difference between
smoking,
> which is only for fleeting pleasure, and eating, even if pleasure is the
main
> purpose, such as that 10 oz. rare steak. Unfortunately, not everyone is
> willing to make that distinction.
>
> Jordan
>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BF72FF.3E839160
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In kabballat Ha'Arizal (Pri Eitz Chaim and other works), the kavvanot =
for tefillot and tevillot of Shmini Atzeret are very similar to those of =
Rosh Hashonnah. BTW, so are those of Shvi'i shel Pesach.

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BF72FF.3E839160
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>In kabballat Ha'Arizal (Pri Eitz Chaim and other =
works), the=20
kavvanot for tefillot and tevillot of Shmini Atzeret are very similar to =
those=20
of Rosh Hashonnah. BTW, so are those of Shvi'i shel=20
Pesach.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BF72FF.3E839160--

I a mbehind in Daf Yomi, so this only came up today: It would be interesting
to compare the parameters of smoking to the parameters of Katlonis in
Yevamos 64 - see the Terumas Ha'Deshen 211, the Gilyonei Ha'Shas in Yevamos
there and the Beis Shmuel EH 9:30.

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

See Minhage Yisrael by R Sperber, vol 4 p. 26-28 for a discussion of
possible sources.

Meir Shinnar

>>>the quotation from letters of the SE that may have been published b'issur does mar the presentation. Readers new to Avodah should be aware that it is unlikely that there was any valid heter to print these letters, <<<

I won't bother to discuss whether the SE wanted the letters published, as form a purely legal standpoint it is irrelevant.  I am curious, though, about what issur there is in publishing the letters...it is hard to say there is gezel on information, and the only other thing that comes to mind is maybe takkanas R' Gershom.  Please clarify.

-Chaim

<< >>>the quotation from letters of the SE that may have been published 
b'issur does mar the presentation. Readers new to Avodah should be aware that 
it is unlikely that there was any valid heter to print these letters, <<<
  >>

I think that we've discussed this enough in the past. R' YGB has strong 
feelings on this issue as I'm sure do those who chose to publish.  My 
vote(worthless as it is) is not to reopen the debate unless there is new 
light to be shed.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 2/8/00 10:59:17 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< While one cannot but be impressed by R' Dratch's erudite analysis of the
 laws of Gezel Akum, a phenomenon that deserves complete repudiation and
 renouncement, the quotation from letters of the SE that may have been
 published b'issur does mar the presentation. Readers new to Avodah should be
 aware that it is unlikely that there was any valid heter to print these
 letters, and that the SE doubtless would never want to have seen them
 published.
  >>

I agree with RYGB's thoughts on R'Dratch's essay on Gezel Akum. Apart from 
his laudable sense of delicacy, however, I don't understand why he objects to 
R'Dratch's use of the SE letters. Far from marring R'Dratch's presentation, 
the letters illuminated it and underscored the emotional rationale that 
contributed to his analysis.

I don't know if there was a "valid heter" to print these obviously very 
private letters in the first place. At this time, however, they are very 
valuable historical sources. They are also true in the truest sense -- 
they're emes, and from the heart. Are they embarrassing to read? You bet. 
Could they kindle the flames of Gentile resentment? You bet. But they have to 
be dealt with, because they reflect a very ugly but nonetheless inescapable 
part of our past. History shouldn't be censored for any reason, ever. Once 
sent, the letters became fair game. All facts are fair game.

Question: How is the process by which we now all repudiate Gezel Akum differ 
technically from the process by which many Jews (some MO, most Conservatives) 
repudiate specific halachic ideas that they claim to be invalid beyond their 
original "historical context" or otherwise need not be followed today? I'm 
not equating Gezel Akum with, say, the prohibition against listening to a 
woman sing a song. But I'm not sure I understand the difference, at least in 
terms of which legal rules can and cannot be adapted to contemporary 
realities and notions of propriety.

David Finch

In a message dated 2/8/00 10:59:17 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< While one cannot but be impressed by R' Dratch's erudite analysis of the
 laws of Gezel Akum, a phenomenon that deserves complete repudiation and
 renouncement, the quotation from letters of the SE that may have been
 published b'issur does mar the presentation. Readers new to Avodah should be
 aware that it is unlikely that there was any valid heter to print these
 letters, and that the SE doubtless would never want to have seen them
 published.
  >>

I agree with RYGB's thoughts on R'Dratch's essay on Gezel Akum. Apart from 
his laudable sense of delicacy, however, I don't understand why he objects to 
R'Dratch's use of the SE letters. Far from marring R'Dratch's presentation, 
the letters illuminated it and underscored the emotional rationale that 
contributed to his analysis.

I don't know if there was a "valid heter" to print these obviously very 
private letters in the first place. At this time, however, they are very 
valuable historical sources. They are also true in the truest sense -- 
they're emes, and from the heart. Are they embarrassing to read? You bet. 
Could they kindle the flames of Gentile resentment? You bet. But they have to 
be dealt with, because they reflect a very ugly but nonetheless inescapable 
part of our past. History shouldn't be censored for any reason, ever. Once 
sent, the letters became fair game. All facts are fair game.

Question: How is the process by which we now all repudiate Gezel Akum differ 
technically from the process by which many Jews (some MO, most Conservatives) 
repudiate specific halachic ideas that they claim to be invalid beyond their 
original "historical context" or otherwise need not be followed today? I'm 
not equating Gezel Akum with, say, the prohibition against listening to a 
woman sing a song. But I'm not sure I understand the difference, at least in 
terms of which legal rules can and cannot be adapted to contemporary 
realities and notions of propriety.

David Finch

On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 05:09:28PM -0500, Gershon Dubin quoted me and wrote:
: << BTW, I though parnasah wasn't decided until Shemini Atzeres, which is
: why we add "umorid hageshem" then.>>

: 	If parnasa for the year waits until Chag, when we are nidonim al
: hamayim,  shouldn't it also wait for Pesach when we are nidonim on
: hatevuah,  or even Shevuos when we are nidonim on peiros ha'ilan? 

R' Yochanan holds that the "Key" for rain is the same as that for parnasah.
In Israel they were choleik. (Ta'anis 2b) The same sugya (3a) much later
discusses when we start saying "mashiv haru'ach umorid hagashem" (MhRuMhG).

It would seem, therefore, that R' Yochanan assumes that MhRuMhG is a reference
to parnassah as well as rain.

But yes, although "biRosh hShanah yeikaseivun, uvYom Tzom Kippur teichaseimun",
there appears to be many times during the year where our judgement is
re-opened.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

I have a simple question:
    If our gedolim cannot paskin that cigarette smoking is assur, then what 
about smoking marijuana? Let's leave aside dina d'malchusa problems, as in 
many jurisdictions the personal use of marijuana has been downgraded to the 
status of a motor vehicle violation, such as speeding, and I'm sure that many 
on this list routinely violate the dina d'malchusa of speeding. So is smoking 
marijuana assur? What about using cocaine, crack, heroin? Just where does the 
halacha draw the line? When does something become so detrimental to health 
that it is assur?
    David I. Cohen

I will try to abide by R' Joel E. Rich's request, and not re-open the
debate, except to respond RDF's specific points.

----- Original Message -----
From: <DFinchPC@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: Was Re: Gezel Akum, Now Re SE


> I agree with RYGB's thoughts on R'Dratch's essay on Gezel Akum. Apart from
> his laudable sense of delicacy, however, I don't understand why he objects
to
> R'Dratch's use of the SE letters. Far from marring R'Dratch's
presentation,
> the letters illuminated it and underscored the emotional rationale that
> contributed to his analysis.
>

The concept of mitzva ha'ab'a b'aveira comes to mind. A positive use does
not justify an ill-gotten gain.

> I don't know if there was a "valid heter" to print these obviously very
> private letters in the first place. At this time, however, they are very
> valuable historical sources. They are also true in the truest sense --
> they're emes, and from the heart. Are they embarrassing to read? You bet.
> Could they kindle the flames of Gentile resentment? You bet. But they have
to
> be dealt with, because they reflect a very ugly but nonetheless
inescapable
> part of our past. History shouldn't be censored for any reason, ever. Once
> sent, the letters became fair game. All facts are fair game.
>

History does not quite work that way. I am listening now to an illuminating
book: "Inventing the Middle Ages" by Norman F. Cantor, which demonstrates
how every school of history brings its own perspectives, and often biases,
to bear on the data (or blithely disregards the data), which is, of course,
subject to multiple layers of interpretation. Many - if not all- historians
"censor" history - they just call it "research".

In this regard, the choice of venue for publishing these letters is
fascinating, as the TuM journal is not an objective historical journal, but
one whose very name belies an overt agenda. The publication (and,
occasionally, the citation) of these letters, was not bias-free "history"
(if there is such a thing) but very much agenda driven (prohibition aside).

Yahadus, as formalized by Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom, dictates a specific
level of privacy in defining the contours of a person's theological or
philosophical persona: Unpublished material not authorized for distribution
is seen as rumination and speculation, which may admittedly be frivolous,
half-baked or even inane - certainly private and priveleged - and precisely
for that reason its admission as testimony in the historical record is more
harmful - either to the person, the persona, or theology and philosophy in
general - than good.

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

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


[ 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         ]