Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 446

Sunday, March 19 2000

• Re: Mishpat Ivri
• dikduk question
• How can we condemn the church if we do not live up to at least the same standard
• Objective overview of the Pollard case
• Re: Shmuel, Agag, Rachmanus
• Re: Objective overview of the Pollard case
• Re: religious zionism
• Re: Shapiro's Biography of Sridei Eish
• Re: How can we condemn the church if we do not live up to at least the same standard
• Re: How can we condemn the church if we do not live up to at least the same s...
• Re: Moshe Rabbeinu
• Toras Purim
• mishpat ivri
• Re: Moshe Rabbeinu
• Re: mishpat ivri

In a message dated 3/18/00 3:05:29 PM US Central Standard Time, 
Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk writes:

<<What Rav Hertzog was suggesting was that
 the framework of halacha was wide enough, and had indeed been wide
 enough historically, to encompass both judicial and, in the form of
 takanot, legislative solutions to deal with specific social needs to
 given legal problems.>>

I'm not sure I understand. To which "takanot" do you refer? The Takanot 
Leeshe'at Kheroom? Are you really suggesting that Rav Herzog believed in 
rabbinic as opposed to electoral governance on contemporary legislative 
issues? 
  
 
 <<Thus the question IMHO that is being debated here is - does the halacha
 have within it a framework to allow us to deal with issues raised by the
 governance of a modern state or is it appropriate to just throw up one's
 hands and say the halacha is useless in governing a modern state.  RET
 quotes various gemorras would would indicate, on the face of it, the
 latter position.  The position that I have been arguing, and that of Rav
 Hertzog is, of course it does, and the last two thousand years provide
 ample evidence of that ability.>>

I'm still not sure whether you're really saying that Rav Herzog preferred the 
rabbinate to the Knesset. Rav Herzog believed in the common law, both the 
English kind and the Talmudic kind. That doesn't mean he believed that all 
rules must be either Daraisa or rabbinic.
 
<< As has been noted by students of democracy - the two models
 British (parliamentary)and American (presidential, involving the balance
 of powers you describe) have both been tried in many places around the
 world.  It is noteworthy that the American model is far more prone to
 breakdown (coup de etat) than the British model.  Somewhere upstairs in
 my loft I have a copy of a article which documents this fact, and makes
 the point that the US example is the only example following the American
 model which has *not* suffered from a breakdown in democracy (such as
 imposition of miltary rule of dictatorship) at any period in its
 history.  In contrast, the British model is far more stable and robust,
 and breakdown to the extent of imposition of miltary rule or
 dictatorship is extremely rare. >> 

The British model has hardly been "stable and robust" in Israel, where Judaic 
heterodoxy and parliamentary fractionalism has made it impossible for anyone 
to get along with anyone else for more than a few weeks at most. The question 
for Avodah isn't which democratic model, British or American, is better in 
the abstract or is better for warding off Banana Republic-style military 
coups. Rather, the question is whether the American model might make more 
sense given the particular social and religious realities in Israel, 
particularly the problem Orthodoxy faces when its rabbis keep dirtying 
themselves by trying to do "business" with the nation's politicians. The 
evidence is ample that the British model has already failed -- miserably. 
What else is there but the American alternative?

David Finch

Can any of the dikduk experts answer this question?
When the vav hahipuch is used, the second person singular past tense
changes from mil'ayl to mil'ra: v'a-hav-ta'  instead of a-hav'-ta, etc,
unless the word is at an esnachta or sof posuk, as in 
v'-a-chal-ta'  v'sa-va'-ta uvay-rach-ta', etc. There seems to be one
exception: v'a-si'sa, which is always mil'ayl.  It is not the absence of
the dagesh in the tav, as witness v'tzi-pi-sa'.  Any explanation?
Sadya N. Targum
________________________________________________________________
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.

There has been a lot of talk whether the apology of the Pope has been 
sincere enough and whether he should have apologized for the Holocaust.  It 
has be said that the church did not do enough to fight Hitler.

Putting the shoe on the other foot, in the 50+ years since ww2 has ended, 
there has been numerous pogroms, civil wars, ethnic cleansings, etc., that 
did not involve Jews  When did any Rabbinate officially protest these issues 
(and attempt to have them cease) in the same way they feel the church should 
have?

How can we condemn the church if we do not live up to at least the same 
standard?

/af

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

I do not want to get into a posting war about Jonathan Pollard -  but what I 
am looking for (something that I have yet to read) is an objective critique 
of the Pollard case.

It is utterly impossible to read anything unbiased about Pollard in the 
Jewish papers.

Does anyone know of such a paper written in the secular media?

/af

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 02:12:04PM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: What was so terrible about Shaul's sin with Amalek?

R' Aharon Lichtenstein, as paraphrased in Gush's email, was that he wasn't
punished for saving Agag, but for killing the rest of Amaleik. By saving Agag
he showed that he wasn't killing them to perform the mitzvah of mechiyas
zeicher/zecher Amaleik. In which case, the killing that he did do lacked
moral justification. Which is what ties it to the slaughter at Nov.

Speaking of zeicher/zecher, the Gaon held they meant differing things.
One means a reminder, the other is a memory. Unfortunately, his students argue
about which the Gaon said meant which. In addition, there is a machlokes as
to which is the mitzvah -- destroying anything that reminds you of Amaleik
or destroying only their memory. According to R' Chaim Vilozhiner, "zeicher"
is the one which refers to a memorial, and is what the Gaon held should be
read for P. Zachor.

This would mean that in Ashrei, the pasuk should be read "Zecher rav tuvcha
yabi'u -- they should tell of the memory of Your great goodness". As we've
mentioned in the past, RYBS would repeat the pasuk in both forms; first
"zecher" out loud, followed by "zeicher" said quietly.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-00: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 9a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 08:39:45PM -0800, aviva fee wrote:
: It is utterly impossible to read anything unbiased about Pollard in the 
: Jewish papers.

I wonder if it's pragmatically relevent.

Does pidyon shevuyim apply to someone whose imprisonment is mandated by
dina dimalchusa? What about here, where it's an option the law allows for,
but isn't always the implemented punishment? Do we need to explore the question
you raise in order to know how to act?

What I'm asking is something we raised before, but to no conclusion. The
population changed somewhat, so it's worth another shot.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-00: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 9a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On 17 Mar 00, at 8:00, Newman,Saul Z wrote:

> in this month's jewish observer   rabbi aharon feldman notes that religious
> zionism is falling apart.    an article in this week's philadelphia jewish
> paper asks 'is religious zionism dead?        so that's my question----does
> mafdal type judaism have a future? does it matter?

I think that "Mafdal type Judaism" is being being pulled from two 
sides at this point, both of which we saw in the last election. 
Mafdal went from twelve seats in the last Knesset to six in this 
Knesset. Some of those votes went to HaIchud HaLeumi (the 
parties of Benny Elon, Gandi and others). Others went to the 
Charedi parties, particularly UTJ, which for the first time set up a 
campaign headquarters in Yesha.

Is Religious Zionism dead? I don't know if I would go that far. But I 
think it is in the throes of a conflict between those who would place 
the greater emphasis on being religious (known as "Chardal," - an 
acronym for Charedi Leumi, although the word itself actually means 
"mustard" :-), and those who would place the greater emphasis on 
living together with the chilonim.

-- 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

On 17 Mar 00, at 9:18, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> One more time...
> 
> For those who have actually read this book, or even parts of it, I welcome any 
> input,

It was reviewed in Friday's Post. I have not seen the review on the 
web site yet.

--- 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

On 18 Mar 00, at 20:38, aviva fee wrote:

> Putting the shoe on the other foot, in the 50+ years since ww2 has ended, 
> there has been numerous pogroms, civil wars, ethnic cleansings, etc., that 
> did not involve Jews  When did any Rabbinate officially protest these issues 
> (and attempt to have them cease) in the same way they feel the church should 
> have?
> 
> How can we condemn the church if we do not live up to at least the same 
> standard?

There's a fundamental difference. We as a people have never 
(AFAIK) carried out a pogrom against anyone. The Church called 
for the Crusades. Most of the pogroms against Jews that have 
been carried out since then have been carried out in the name of 
the Church in one form or another.

-- 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

In a message dated 3/19/00 12:27:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< 
 > Putting the shoe on the other foot, in the 50+ years since ww2 has ended, 
 > there has been numerous pogroms, civil wars, ethnic cleansings, etc., that 
 > did not involve Jews  When did any Rabbinate officially protest these 
issues 
 > (and attempt to have them cease) in the same way they feel the church 
should 
 > have?
 > 
 > How can we condemn the church if we do not live up to at least the same 
 > standard?
 
 There's a fundamental difference. We as a people have never 
 (AFAIK) carried out a pogrom against anyone. The Church called 
 for the Crusades. Most of the pogroms against Jews that have 
 been carried out since then have been carried out in the name of 
 the Church in one form or another.
 
 -- Carl
  >>
While there may be a fundamental difference, it doesn't address the root 
question - does klal Yisrael have a chiyuv to speak out on issues not 
"directly" affecting us?  This may be related to some earlier discussions 
regarding whether  "or lagoyim" means we perfect ourselves and the nations 
will notice or is there an affirmative responsibility to be mashpia on the 
outside world.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Carl Sherer wrote:
> And, if Moshe had divorced her, wouldn't that have been a maaseh 
> beis din that would have been publicized? Why isn't it mentioned in 
> the Torah? Wouldn't Miriam have known about it?

He presumably divorced her before matan Torah, after the incident in the
"malon". As bnai Noach (and in Huts la'aretz), No ma'aseh bet din was
required to effect the divorce. Yitro brings her and the Children Back
after matan Torah, but there is no concilliation. Everyone knew that
tsippora was not in Moshe's tent - they may not have known that it was
permanent.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0027_01BF913A.8A2B7DE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Several thoughts are going through my head about the word "Shushan", =
which appears in the Megilla numerous times and in "Shoshanas Yaakov" =
once (Shoshan-as).=20

Shushan has the same letters as "Sasson." The root of the word Sasson is =
"Sos". When you line up the letters in Sos (Shin, Vav, Shin) you get a =
seven pronged menorah.=20

The gematria for Sos is 606, that is six times 101. "'V'shavtem =
u're'isem bein tzaddik la'rasha; bein Oved Hashem l'asher lo avado - =
eino domeh me she'shana pirko me'ah pe'amim l'me shana pirko me'ah =
ve'achas pe'amim."

Six, according to the Maharal, represents the sides of a cube. Thus, the =
ultimate perfection in all directions, in disunity, is represented by =
six - sevens harmonize and unite (thus, the six days of the week are =
united by Shabbos, the six words in Shema by Am Yisroel's recitation =
thereof, the 600,000 by Torah, etc.).

In the Maharal the letter Shin is described as the ultimate measure of =
Olam Ha'Zeh matters (Olam Ha'Bah matters are represented by Tav. =
Guzma'os in Chazal that pertain to Olam Ha'Zeh are represented with =
300's; the Olam Ha'Bah ones by 400). The Vav is always the "Vav =
Ha'Chibbur" - the tzinnor of hashpo'oh between Olamos Elyonim and =
Tachatonim. "Sos" is the ultimate tikkun of Olam Ha'Zeh - chibbur of two =
Shins to a Vav, creating a Menorah, connnected to the Tzinnor.

One who achieve perfection in all directions - as an "Oved Hashem" - =
achieves not just the "Sos" but the Sasson" - the addition of the Nun =
Chamishim Bina. This is alluded to in the nevu'ah of Zechariah where the =
menorah is connected to the zayis - the sign of chochmo itself.

The seforim say Haman made an "etiz gavoha chamishim amah" because he =
too wanted - b'derech ha'tumah - to be zocheh to chamishim sha'arei =
binah (I believe the Gro discusses this in his bi'ur of the Megilla). =
Needless to say, Amalek thinks they can usurp the role of Am Yisroel - =
with pirud ("mefuzar u'mefurad") betwen Hashem and His nation, and their =
overtaking that role of "Reishis Goyim". But, of course "hein am =
l'vadad" yishkon - "k'shoshana bein ha'chochim".

The aveira in Shushan was not a true one - the meal at Se'udas =
Achashveirosh was glatt, mevushal, yashan, the works. But "suga =
ba'shoshanim" - Am Yisroel must be separate - "Al tismach Yisroel el gil =
ba'amim" - our sasson is "sasson yish'echa" not the sasson of Shushan. =
This is the midda of Ya'akov - as R' Zevin writes, Ya'akov is me'lashon =
akeiv - because "ragleha yordos maves", the heel is the only part of the =
body that comes in full physical contact with the ground and must =
therefore be the thickest and toughest part of the body. So too Ya'akov =
is the techunas Yisroel to rebuff negative influences and retain the =
"suga ba'shoshanim" that comprise the segula of "shoshana bein =
ha'chochim".

Ultimately we were the ones that were zocheh to Chamishim Sha'arei Bina =
and true sasson in Shushan - by restoring the knowledge of "v'lo yikalmu =
lo'netzach kol ha'chosim bach". That is the true nature of simcha (which =
is internal happiness, as opposed to the external joy of sasson) - =
"Yismach leiv mevakshei Hashem." A sasson de-linked from our form of =
simcha is the sasson of Shushan, but ours must be comprised of "Orah =
v'simcha v'sasson v'yekar" (according to the derosho of Chazal there). =
Then we are zocheh to "Hadar kibbluha b'yemei Achashverosh."

Please feel free to communicate your hosafos to my ramblings!

May we be zocheh be'meheirah to the ultimate "Sasson v'Simcha Yasigu!"

A most freilichen Purim,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

------=_NextPart_000_0027_01BF913A.8A2B7DE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>Several thoughts are going through my =
head about=20
the word "Shushan", which appears in the Megilla numerous times and in=20
"Shoshanas Yaakov" once (Shoshan-as). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>Shushan has the same letters as =
"Sasson." The root=20
of the word Sasson is "Sos". When you line up the letters in Sos (Shin, =
Vav,=20
Shin) you get a seven pronged menorah. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>The gematria for Sos is 606, that is =
six times 101.=20
"'V'shavtem u're'isem bein tzaddik la'rasha; bein Oved Hashem l'asher lo =
avado -=20
eino domeh me she'shana pirko me'ah pe'amim l'me shana pirko me'ah =
ve'achas=20
pe'amim."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>Six, according to the Maharal, =
represents the sides=20
of a cube. Thus, the ultimate perfection in all directions, in disunity, =
is=20
represented by six - sevens harmonize and unite (thus, the six days of =
the week=20
are united by Shabbos, the six words in Shema by Am Yisroel's recitation =

thereof, the 600,000 by Torah, etc.).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>In the Maharal the letter Shin is =
described as the=20
ultimate measure of Olam Ha'Zeh matters (Olam Ha'Bah matters are =
represented by=20
Tav. Guzma'os in Chazal that pertain to Olam Ha'Zeh are represented with =
300's;=20
the Olam Ha'Bah ones by 400). The Vav is always the "Vav Ha'Chibbur" - =
the=20
tzinnor of hashpo'oh between Olamos Elyonim and Tachatonim. "Sos" is the =

ultimate tikkun of Olam Ha'Zeh - chibbur of two Shins to a Vav, creating =
a=20
Menorah, connnected to the Tzinnor.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>One who achieve perfection in all =
directions - as=20
an "Oved Hashem" - achieves not just the "Sos" but the Sasson" - the =
addition of=20
the Nun Chamishim Bina. This is alluded to in the nevu'ah of Zechariah =
where the=20
menorah is connected to the zayis - the sign of chochmo =
itself.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>The seforim say Haman made an "etiz =
gavoha=20
chamishim amah" because he too wanted - b'derech ha'tumah - to be zocheh =
to=20
chamishim sha'arei binah (I believe the Gro discusses this in his bi'ur =
of the=20
Megilla). Needless to say, Amalek thinks they can usurp the role of Am =
Yisroel -=20
with pirud ("mefuzar u'mefurad") betwen Hashem and His nation, and their =

overtaking that role of "Reishis Goyim". But, of course "hein =
am&nbsp;l'vadad"=20
yishkon - "k'shoshana bein ha'chochim".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>The aveira in Shushan was not a true =
one - the meal=20
at Se'udas Achashveirosh was glatt, mevushal, yashan, the works. But =
"suga=20
ba'shoshanim" - Am Yisroel must be separate - "Al tismach Yisroel el gil =

ba'amim" - our sasson is "sasson yish'echa" not the sasson of Shushan. =
This is=20
the midda of Ya'akov - as R' Zevin writes, Ya'akov is =
me'lashon&nbsp;akeiv=20
-&nbsp;because "ragleha yordos maves", the heel is the only part of the =
body=20
that comes in full physical contact with the ground and must therefore =
be the=20
thickest and toughest part of the body. So too Ya'akov is the techunas =
Yisroel=20
to rebuff negative influences and retain the "suga ba'shoshanim" that =
comprise=20
the segula of "shoshana bein ha'chochim".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>Ultimately we were the ones that were =
zocheh to=20
Chamishim Sha'arei Bina and true sasson in Shushan - by restoring the =
knowledge=20
of "v'lo yikalmu lo'netzach kol ha'chosim bach". That is the true nature =
of=20
simcha (which is internal happiness, as opposed to the external joy of =
sasson) -=20
"Yismach leiv mevakshei Hashem." A sasson de-linked from our form of =
simcha is=20
the sasson of Shushan, but ours must be comprised of "Orah v'simcha =
v'sasson=20
v'yekar" (according to the derosho of Chazal there). Then we are zocheh =
to=20
"Hadar kibbluha b'yemei Achashverosh."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>Please feel free to communicate your =
hosafos to my=20
ramblings!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>May we be zocheh be'meheirah to the =
ultimate=20
"Sasson v'Simcha Yasigu!"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>A most freilichen Purim,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D5>YGB</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D5><FONT face=3DArial>Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila">http://www.aishdas.org/baistef=
ila</A>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
<A=20
href=3D"mailto:ygb@aishdas.org">ygb@aishdas.org</A></FONT></FONT></DIV></=
BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0027_01BF913A.8A2B7DE0--

Chana writes
> 
> I thought the reference would be clear, but since it isn't - in the
> early periods of the Zionist movement, it was felt by the dominant non
> religious sector that the period of galus was a shameful period in our
> history, and best forgotten in building the new Jew/Israeli.  For that
> reason, the first history chiloni textbooks went from Bar Kochba to the
> founding of the Zionist movement.  
> 
> This approach was fiercely fought by the religious elements within the
> Zionist movement (who are presumably the same Zionist Rabbis to whom you
> refer).  In fact, some of the matters to which I refer were used in the
> argument by such rabbis and others for the value of that period.
> However, the religious were not dominant in the Zionist movement as a
> whole, and hence, when I use the term Zionist, without modification for
> religious Zionist, I would assume people would understand non religious Zionist.

I wish to apologize to Chana for misinterperting her remarks and for any
inappropriate personal remarks.

Since this topic does not seem to have invoked wide spread interest I shall
make some final notes and leave the discussion to others.

Again referring to the first volume of haTorah veHamedina
there is an article by R. Waldenberg justifying the use of prisons both before
trial and as a punishment. He also has a second article justifying rules by the 
Knesset without resorting to a public plebiscite and that is considered a majority.
There is a nice article by R. Lipkin going through the various opinions on
takanat haKahal. There is also a debate in the volume whether Rabbenu Tam's
opinion severely limiting takkanot is a minority opinion or not. There are
also several articles on Dina demalchuta and Din Melech. 

Surveying these articles would severely tax the patience of most people on the
list and I will forgo it.

> 
> I think problem here is that you are understanding the term ho'raas
> sha'a as used by the Tur here as something unusual, uncommon and exceptional. ...
> The answer is given by the Tur in Siman 2 - and much of that answer is
> linked to hora'as sha'a.  ...
> Otherwise you would have the scenario of beis din  goes
> around taking away property in an indiscriminate manner.  
> 
> Because of this  many of the Zionist rabbis involved with the foundation
> of the State (generally those without a messianic bent) saw  this (tried
> and tested) model as the appropriate one for the state.  As I think I
> indicated, Rav Herzog (the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of the State of
> Israel) was a strong proponent of this, and you can see his discussion
> of these questions in his work "t'chuka l'yisroel al pi hatorah". 

Nevertheless, Tur stresses very strongly that Horaat Shaah cannot be legislated 
which leads to the problem that different courts will react differently and is 
not the basis for ruling a large society. Again, in Eastern Europe it was not 
a great problem if the courts in Vilna would apply horaat shaah differently
than in Warsaw. However, it is inconceivable that the courts in Jerusalem and
Tel Aviv have their own interpretations.

> 
> I do not see Dina D'malchusa Dina as a cop out.  It is a logical
> outgrowth of a position which did not support the Zionist enterprise (eg
> the Aguda prior to the founding of the State) but then has come to
> terms with its reality.  
> I believe the argument goes that since Israel was really set up by the
> United Nations, the Knesset is in fact a form of non Jewish government
> that happens to be staffed by Jews.

I do not know of any Agudah rabbis who use Dina Demalchuta in the state of Israel.
Yes they explicitly state that 
"the Knesset is in fact a form of non Jewish government that happens to be staffed 
by Jews." But conclude that therefore knesset rules are meaningless and one is
prohibited from going to secular courts.
I find the argument that we can base on halacha on a UN decision to be far fetched.

> >
> >For a sefer with a full discussion of kinyanim I would suggest "dinei mamanot"
> >by Rav Batzri. As one sees from his sefer all modern takanot are severely limited
> >when they contradict issues in the Gemara and shulchan Arukh. Thus, for example
> >one cannot legislate that one no longer needs a kinyan. 
> 
> This is pure din Torah.  We are not discussing din Torah, which, as
> indicated needs Eretz Yisroel and Smicha as a precondition.
> I am not familiar with this particular rabbi or his work.  So it is not
> clear to me whether he is in fact ignoring large slabs of our history or
> saying that people like Rav Hertzog and others involved with Mishpat
> Ivri are making things up, or deliberately restricting his discussion to
> the limitations of din Torah (on the grounds that hopefully soon that
> will become operative).  

This book is written by a dayan on the rabbinical courts (as many such dayyanim
he is probably nonzionist). As such he is applying the halacha to present day
situations. It is a 4 voulume work and it would be difficult to claim that
he avoids large slabs of history as he is quite encylopedic.

As I indicated several times there is an argument of whether a kahal can
introduce new rules that harm individuals. Almost no one claims that the kahal
can introduce rules that explicitly go against the Shulchan Arukh
eg in kinyanim or davar shelo be-alom etc.

Rabbinic gezerot like exporting during shemittah is even more of a problem
even though the reasoning of the gezerah no longer applies and in fact exports
instead of hurting the locals is an important part of the economy.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

On 19 Mar 00, at 8:17, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:

> Carl Sherer wrote:
> > And, if Moshe had divorced her, wouldn't that have been a maaseh
> > beis din that would have been publicized? Why isn't it mentioned in
> > the Torah? Wouldn't Miriam have known about it?
> 
> He presumably divorced her before matan Torah, after the incident in
> the "malon". 

I assume then that you understand "shiloocheha" in Shmos 18 as 
divorce. Other than the fact that the Torah uses the same term in 
describing a get (which I acknowledge) any other source that 
interprets it that way? Also, at least accoring to the m'an d'amar 
who holds that Yisro came before matan Torah, on what basis do 
you say that Moshe did not take Tzipora back at all? And how do 
you explain the pashtus of the Medrash of Tzipora's conversation 
that was overheard by Miriam?

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 19 Mar 00, at 9:41, Eli Turkel wrote:

> I do not know of any Agudah rabbis who use Dina Demalchuta in the
> state of Israel. Yes they explicitly state that "the Knesset is in
> fact a form of non Jewish government that happens to be staffed by
> Jews." But conclude that therefore knesset rules are meaningless and
> one is prohibited from going to secular courts. I find the argument
> that we can base on halacha on a UN decision to be far fetched.

Dina de'Malchusa doesn't permit turning to the secular courts 
anyplace else in the world either. If the Israeli courts are those of "a 
form of non-Jewish government that happens to be staffed by 
Jews," then treating Israeli courts as arkaos and saying it is assur 
to use them is totally consistent. See Choshen Mishpat 25:1.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

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


[ 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         ]