Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 041

Tuesday, November 14 2000

• Re: Bs"d et al.
• shemitta
• Re: kavod av
• RE: shemitta
• re: Kriyas Shema recitation
• kavod av
• RE: Kiddush intro and parts of psuqim
• Re: kavod av
• Re: Avodah V6 #40
• reconciling science and religion
• parts of psukim
• Re: Science and Torah
• Re: kavod av
• Re: Birthdays
• Science and Torah
• Re: reconciling science and religion
• Re: Science and Torah
• Re: kavod av
• Re: Kibud Av
• BS"D

Apparently some people misinterpreted my posting on this issue. I explained
why R. Hayyim Brisker refrained from using b'h to begin letters; I never
said that this is a clear issur from the Torah. Adrabba, I mentioned R.
Hayyim 'Ozer's name among the people who did use it (at least in some
letters that I have seen).

As far as R. Hayyim's source, which some have denied exists, see Rambam
Sefer haMitzvos, Mitvas 'aseh 5: "and so v'noqev shem haShem means
mentioning His Name alone without praising Him, and if you should say, what
aveira is there in that, the answer is that it destroys yir'ah. Because
part of yir'as haShem is that we may not mention His Name for nothing."
First of all, it appears that the mitzva deoraiso may only be mentioning the
actual name of haShem and not kinnuyim. Second of all, those who write b'h
or bs'd would probably argue that it is letzorekh. But R. Hayyim's position
is equally clear, that it is a hissaron in yir'ah to bring HQB'H into the
conversation or the letter unless it is necessary.

For those who are looking for more names: R. Borukh Ber (as would be
expected) did not use these in his letters, nor apparently did the Hasam
Sofer. The Orukh Laner did. R Itzele Peterburger did, R. Simha Zissel
Kelmer did not. It seems that only nowadays has it become the custom of
most rabbonim to use it. I therefore would have been tempted to say that
all the talmidim of Slabodka used it, and that is the cause; but, as noted
before, R. Moshe Mordekhai did not.

Seth Mandel

I recently attended a shiur of R. Abraham Yosef (RAY) chief sephardic
rabbi of Cholon on shemitta.

He indicated that he is part of a consortium that gives hasgachot to
shemitta stores as an alternative to that of Rav Efrati/Rav Eliyashiv.
The attitude of Rav Efrati is that whenever possible one should use
nonJewish produce to the exclusion of Jewish produce.

He has several complaints against the other hashgacha.

1. A number of recent gedolim have decided according to the Mabit that
produce of nonjews does not eliminate the kedusha of the land.
However, since the psak in Israel since the days of Rav Karo has been
in accordance with Rav Karo who gives these poskim the right to decide
against accepted practice.

2. If one accepts the Mabit and the produce was "finished" bya Jew in
the shemitta year then it requires terumot and maaserot (rishon,sheni)
which is not usually taken so this shita can lead to kulot.

3. Poskim worry about lo techonem in selling the land to Arabs for
shemitta purposes. Why is their not a problem in paying the Arab
much more than the produce is normally worth so that one can use
nonJewish produce.

4. Especially given the present circumstances why would one want to
support Arab produce?

Hence, this alternative provides fruit and vegetables according to
the following set of priorities.

1. Otzar Bet din when available for both fruits AND vegetables.
2. Produce grown below the 30th parallel (near Eilat)
3. Produce grown insoil not connected to the ground, eg there is
   a nylon piece separating the plants from the ground.
4. nonjewish produce

In their stores they try and state which fruits/vegetables
fit into which category each day.
On a personal basis I try and use Jewish produce as much as possible
and so avoid shemitta stores under Rav Efrati.


As an interesting aside RAY said that his previous job was in charge
of kashrut in Tel Aviv. He said that all the animals in the Safari
were sold to a Cohen (Rav Simcha Kook's brother) and so all terumot
were given to the cohen's animals. On a typical day this amounts
to 15 tons of produce!

He also complained about the lack of enforcement by the entire
Israeli justice system of any of the laws of kashrut including
outright fraud.

Eli Turkel

> Is this a mitzvah(rather than just perhaps a logical thing to do) for
> non-Jews?  The story in the gemora re: the nonJew who would not wake his
> father as well as the medrash that yaakov feared meeting esav because of his
> twin zechusim of having lived in eretz yisrael and kavod av seem to imply a
> mitzvah(with reward).  If it is a mitzvah, what is the source-is it somehow
> subsumed under the zayin mitzvot

The distinction of mitzva versus logical thing to do is rejected by a number
of sources. See Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon intro to Shas where he says that
anything that is logical to do is a full obligation and you are punished if
you don't do it. The Toras Avraham develops this in great detail. More to
the point the Netziv's Haskoma to the Chofetz Chaim's sefer Ahavas Chesed
says "even though honoring parents is a logical thing to do and non-Jews are
commanded to keep it as chovas HaAdam and they get reward for observing it
like bnei Noach and Dama ben Nessina as is known - nevertheless G-d
commanded us in the Ten Commandments that we should be commanded also from
the laws of Torah in addition to the chovas HaAdam....The significance of
whether something is obligatory from chovas HaAdam or Torah law is the
amount of reward...Therefore if a non-Jew had a child from a Jewish woman -
according to the Torah the child has a mother but not a father but would be
in fact obligated to honor both his biological parents but the obligation is
greater to honor the mother than the father....Another example is ribis -
which according to logic especially if the borrower desperately needs the
money is an act of kind but from the Torah it is prohibited for a Jew to do
this act of kindness...."

There are many other sources that a sevora or commonsense obligation is
considered a full obligation i.e., mitzva and failure to keep it results in
full punishment.

                                            Daniel Eidensohn

> He indicated that he is part of a consortium that gives hasgachot to
> shemitta stores as an alternative to that of Rav Efrati/Rav Eliyashiv.
> The attitude of Rav Efrati is that whenever possible one should use
> nonJewish produce to the exclusion of Jewish produce.

Not quite true -- Jewish produce from areas without kiddushat shvi'is are
perfectly acceptable to R' Efrati. It's only in the area of the Heter
Mechira that R' Efrati won't use Jewish produce.

> 1. A number of recent gedolim have decided according to the Mabit that
> produce of nonjews does not eliminate the kedusha of the land.

This argument actually goes back to the Gemara, rishonim, and achronim. It
is not an invention of the Chazon Ish.

> However, since the psak in Israel since the days of Rav Karo has been
> in accordance with Rav Karo who gives these poskim the right to decide
> against accepted practice.

This is a standard "political" argument Sephardim use against Ashkenazim.
Following the psak of R' Kro is fine -- for Sephardim, since that is their
mesorah. To criticise Ashkenazim for not holding like R' Karo is unfair.

>
> 4. Especially given the present circumstances why would one want to
> support Arab produce?

Good question -- without a simple answer. Since the general shita here is to
treat Shmitta as if it were D'orisa, you would have to show strong halachic
reasons, not just political, for using this as a justification for the Heter
Mechira.

>
> Hence, this alternative provides fruit and vegetables according to
> the following set of priorities.

I see no difference between this list and R' Efrati's, except for #1

>
> 1. Otzar Bet din when available for both fruits AND vegetables.

Assuming there is not a problem with sfichim, R' Efrati would seem to hold
like this.

> 2. Produce grown below the 30th parallel (near Eilat)
> 3. Produce grown insoil not connected to the ground, eg there is
>    a nylon piece separating the plants from the ground.
> 4. nonjewish produce

What's the big chiddush here?

>
> In their stores they try and state which fruits/vegetables
> fit into which category each day.

So do Shearit stores. Again, what's the chiddush?

> On a personal basis I try and use Jewish produce as much as possible
> and so avoid shemitta stores under Rav Efrati.

IOW you rely on the Heter Mechira? Or do you limit what you buy to only
produce that is Jewish?

Akiva

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

>Rabbi Gold, my fifth grade rebbe, told us to kiss our tzitzis after we had
>said the phrase "al tzitzis hakanaf" rather than at the word tzitzis, so as
>not to divide the phrase.  Anyone else do that?

Yup.
For me it was Rabbi Glenn, my 4th (and 6th) grade rebbi. He also would 
crack us up by singing popular songs with the proper dikduk. (That though,
didn't stick the same way...)

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

Daniel Eidensohn:
> the point the Netziv's Haskoma to the Chofetz Chaim's sefer Ahavas Chesed
> says "even though honoring parents is a logical thing to do and non-Jews are
> commanded to keep it as chovas HaAdam and they get reward for observing it
> like bnei Noach and Dama ben Nessina as is known - nevertheless G-d
> commanded us in the Ten Commandments that we should be commanded also from
> the laws of Torah in addition to the chovas HaAdam....

Would a non-Jewish child abandoned at birth have a "chiyuv" if he later
identifies his birth parent?  Why is kavod av "logical" according to the
shitah that we'd be better off not being born?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Seth Mandel:
>>How about the last line of kaddish Oseh Shalom Bimrmov? Did RYBS insist on
>>completeing that passuk too?

> This gets more to the meat of the issue. RYBS noted that the siddur is full
> of phrases from the TnaKh, and he said that they form the backbone of a lot
> of davening. After all, when we approach the Uneffable and Unknowable One,
> should we not take our lead from his prophets, who used their words bruah
> haqodesh? Some phrases are quoted as is (e.g. haMelekh "hayyoshev 'al kisse
> rom v'nisso," and "rom v'nisso shokhen 'ad" marom "v'qadosh sh'mo," the
> words in quotations are phrases from two psuqim in Yesha'yo). Others are
> slightly altered (as in Shmone 'Esreh: r'fo'enu haShem v'nerofe, changed
> from singular ("refoeni") to plural. It is clearly not the intention of the
> halokho to outlaw all sentence fragments and phrases in davening. BUT there
> is a clear distinction that I don't think has been made here. It is only
> psuqim QUOTED or read AS PSUQIM that should not be broken up.

I have always assumed that since Oseh Shalom Bimromav is from Tanach (Iyov
25:2) therefore it was superior to use it over the proposed alterante Oseh
HAshalom Bimromov used by some during the 10 days of Thsuva

Similarly, I assumed that since Zecher Tzaddik livrocho is from Tanach,
therefore  it is superior to using Zecehr Tzaddik V'KADOSH livracha.

Now this thread calls into question my assumptions. And if half-psukkim in
NACH are a problem; then it would follow that the opposite formulation is
superior.  We should now say oseh HAshalom all year and Zecher Taddik
v'KADDOSH all the time? 

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 12:04:59PM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Would a non-Jewish child abandoned at birth have a "chiyuv" if he later
: identifies his birth parent?  Why is kavod av "logical" according to the
: shitah that we'd be better off not being born?

There are two issues: hakaras hatov for existing, and hakaras hatov
for being raised. And, since nimnu vigamru ashrei mi shelo nolad,
your question about the former is a good one.

As to what to do lihalachah, R' Dovid Cohen holds that a child who was
adopted and nisgayeir has a rishus, not a chovah, to sit shiv'ah for
his birthparents. A child who was born Jewish has a chiyuv to sit both
for his birthparents and for his real parents (the ones who raised him).

I realize this is a slightly different issue, since in this case the
parents are non-Jews, not the child, and there's the question of whether
or not the parental relationship exists post-geirus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> If two things are irreconcilable, and one is emes, then the other must be
> sheker.

There is  a basic misunderstanding that exists when considering these
issues as the following sentence examples:

> When, infrequently, I read the Science Times (I am not a science
> aficionado, as you all know by now), I note how phrases like "evolution
> endowed" or "nature designed" are used in order to exclude MM"H HKB"H from
> the picture - to me, it seems evident that Science is desperate to sweep
> Hashem under the rug, and that there is no irreconcilable issue - only
> recalcitrant scientists.

Science is not "desperate to sweep Hashem under the rug" b/c science
cannot deal with Hashem at all.  By definition, modern science (as
opposed to "magic" etc.) deals _only_ with what can be measured in a
lab.  Hashem cannot be measured in a human lab and until a scientist
figures out a way to do so -- science has nothing to say about Him.

All science can do is examine what it can measure and draw to
conclusions based on this.

What a religious scientist can do is see Hashem's footprints where the
secular scientist sees theories and definitions.  When we realize that
the presence of all kinds of particles are "proven" b/c we have seen
their "footsteps" we have an example that can be used to teach how
despite not having Nevu'ah -- we can see His footsteps in our lives --
when we look for them.

I've always liked Prof. Aviezer (a religious physicist and Talmid
Chacham's) explanation for Rashi 1:  How in the 1960s a type of light
was discovered that has existed since the creation of the world but
was hidden till now (microwave background radiation).  For those who
are not scientists -- radiation is another word for light.

Shoshana L. Boublil

> Harav Y.B. Soloveitchik was said to have concluded that it is futile to
> try to reconcile Torah with scientific findings.  I assume that he meant
> that traditional teachings about Torah events and established scientific
> data are irreconcilable.  RYBS was well qualified to make such an
> assessment since he was both an outstanding talmid chacham and had been
> trained in math and physics as well as philosophy.  The reason for the
> above assessment is clear enough. It is a very difficult task to try to

In a significant footnote to The Halakhic Mind, he implies that too much
energy has been expended on some of these issues and that it would be
better if people worked harder on understanding what religion is all
about.

In another footnote, he states that, in principle, religion may make truth
claims in the scientific realm, whether or not scientists are inclined to
accept them. (This does not imply that there are many, or any such claims,
just that in principle this is something that can happen.)

Likewise, in Lonely Man of Faith, he asserts that the many "science and
religion" questions never bothered him.

I would recommend that anyone interested in the Rav's thinking on these
matters consult the printed record rather than relying on word of mouth or
on my off the cuff paraphrase.

From: sadya n targum <targum1@juno.com>
> How do we learn the Mishna, and say in the Hagadah, "l'maan tizkor es
> yom tzescha," without the beginning of the pasuk? If, however, the use
> of a pasuk fragment as a proof, rather than a reading, is permitted,
> there is no problem.

	I once heard that this is the reason the Gemara often "telescopes"
psukim, as in "venasan hakesef vekam lo".

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
: If two things are irreconcilable, and one is emes, then the other must be
: sheker.

Or they are not reconcilable because they are on totally different
topics. This would require asserting that any contradictions
between them are illusions created by trying to compare to uncomparable
things.

See below for more clarification

On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:08:27PM +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: Science is not "desperate to sweep Hashem under the rug" b/c science
: cannot deal with Hashem at all.

Of course not. Science is a methodology and a set of conclusions reached
through that methodology. Ideas are "desperate" for anything. I assumed
RYGB was speaking of the "scientific community", the community of people
who do science for a living and/or do it better than the rest of us.

And yes, if they want to presuppose that there couldn't possibly have been
a miraculous mabul, or k'ri'as Yam Suf or the nissim and nevu'os at Har
Sinai, then they do desire to sweep G-d under the rug. The assumption that
the question is one for science is the very assumption we're questioning.

: What a religious scientist can do is see Hashem's footprints where the
: secular scientist sees theories and definitions.

He can also know when the topic is physics, and when it's meta- or
paraphysics. And they wouldn't expect the study of the former be
a meaningful tool in a situation that involves the latter.

: I've always liked Prof. Aviezer (a religious physicist and Talmid
: Chacham's) explanation for Rashi 1:  How in the 1960s a type of light
: was discovered that has existed since the creation of the world but
: was hidden till now (microwave background radiation).  For those who
: are not scientists -- radiation is another word for light.

You are assuming that light is radiation. In hilchos Shabbos, light
is visible light, only radiation with a wavelength around 380 - 700
nanometers. I have not seen a teshuvah that assurs radio waves, for
example, because of "lo siva'aru eish".

Second, the big bang happened before the creation of space. The original
radiation therefore precedes "vichoshech al p'nei sehom". "Vayhi or", and
the light place in genizah for tzadikim is too late to be the background
radiation caused by the big bang.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In a message dated 11/13/00 9:21:42am EST, JRich@segalco.com writes:
> Is this a mitzvah(rather than just perhaps a logical thing to do) for
> non-Jews?  The story in the gemora re: the nonJew who would not wake his
> father as well as the medrash that yaakov feared meeting esav because of his
> twin zechusim of having lived in eretz yisrael and kavod av...

Actualy the Gemara (Kidushin 31a) clearly says that he was an "Einoi 
Mtzuveh", and see E"T Erech Ben Noach (page 358), for opinions on obligation. 
Note Rashi Breishis 11:32, in addition to Yaakov being punished for the 22 
years, (however this could be Tolui in what Din the Avos had).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/13/00 4:39:00AM EST, sba@blaze.net.au writes [to
Areivim]:
> Would I be correct in saying that celebrating
>  birthdays was only introduced (at least publicly) in
>  Chabad, the last 10-12 years of the late rebbe's life?

That a birthday is a special day is allready recorded in Hayom Yom (on
11 of Nissan), however to make a Farbrengen (party) on that day was made
public in 5748.

As to some of the Mkoros the Rebbe brings WRT Tzadikim, Tanchuma end
of Pkudei (WRT Yitzchok), Megila 13b (WRT Moshe) Tos. D"H Omar Kmoshe
Nazir 14a (WRT Moshe), Shmois Raba 15:9 (a Ben Melech), Rosh Hashana 11a
(month the Avos were born), Yerushalmi Rosh Hashana 3:8 (the power of
ones birthday). Also based on the Arizal on the Possuk vHayamin Heilu
Nizkarim Vnasim. In any case it has been the custom from the BSH"T down.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

RYGB:
> When, infrequently, I read the Science Times (I am not a science 
> aficionado, as you all know by now), I note how phrases like "evolution 
> endowed" or "nature designed" are used in order to exclude MM"H HKB"H from 
> the picture - to me, it seems evident that Science is desperate to sweep 
> Hashem under the rug, and that there is no irreconcilable issue - only 
> recalcitrant scientists.

RRW:
> I think that they are sweeping a "religiously oriented G-d" and simply
> taking no sides.

RAA said something similar - one can't write from a God-existing 
persepective and still be taken seriously as a scientist.  Actually,
it's not so similar: there's a difference between being neutral and
explicitly writing God out of the picture.  Perhaps it's necessary
in technical material, but is it strictly necessary in popular
material?

Charles Pellegrino wrote a book called "Return to Sodom and Gomorrah,"
which attempts to reconcile Bible stories with biological and geological
reality.  Mostly he draws parallels: mitochondrial Eve vs. Adam & Eve,
which demonstrates that we are all descended from one common female 
ancestress; re-dating the plagues to the time of the Thera expolsion
in 1625 BCE, and showing how many of the plagues then follow as natural
consequences of that disaster; explaining the "4 rivers coming out of Eden"
by changes in the elevation of the Tigris-Euphrates river basin (there
are ancient riverbeds that are dry today); showing how Sodom and Gomorrah
make more sense being in Iraq, which is more seismically active than
the Aravah valley.

Towards the end, he describes the crossing of Bnei ysrael over the Jordan,
and tells us that there is a rock outcropping upstream from the crossing
point, where every few centuries some rocks fall down and temporarily 
block up the river.  he uses this to "prove" that God does not exist, 
saying that Joshua just took advantage of the happy accident that the
river had stopped flowing.   I see this as quite a stretch - how did Joshua
know to come to just this place at just this time?  Obviously: God told
him to.  But it gives evidence that [some] science-minded authors have a
conscious agenda to discourage a belief in God.

                          *        *       *

There's a song, "The Moon is Also a Satellite", by Bob Kanefsky: a priestess
has a recurring argument with her goddess: technology is bad, we should 
"return to nature". The goddess tells her over and over (it's the chorus):

The moon is also a satellite
Nature is chemistry too
And locked in every gene
A finite state machine:
Not all your science is new.

Science and Torah cannot be incompatible (per Rambam), since they are both
ways to describe the universe.

There is no inherent necessity for the scientist to disprove God's 
existence, nor is there an inherent necessity for the Torah-minded
person to disprove science.  One does what one chooses to do.

From: "Shalom Carmy" <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
> In a significant footnote to The Halakhic Mind, he implies that too much
> energy has been expended on some of these issues and that it would be
> better if people worked harder on understanding what religion is all
> about.

"...the problem of evidence in religion will never be solved. The believer
does not miss philosophic legitimation; the skeptic will never be satisfied
with any cognitive demonstration. This ticklish problem became the Gordian
knot of many theological endeavors. Philosophers of religion would have
achieved more had they dedicated themselves to the task of interpreting
concrete reality in terms and concepts that fit into the framework of a
religious world perspective" [page 118 note 58]

On the same topic the Chofetz Chaim is quoted by Rav Elchonon Wasserman,
"Without faith there are no answers and with faith there are no questions."

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
: If two things are irreconcilable, and one is emes, then the other must be
: sheker.

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Or they are not reconcilable because they are on totally different
> topics. This would require asserting that any contradictions
> between them are illusions created by trying to compare to uncomparable
> things.

Unfortunately, due to the constraints of time I have been unable to
participate in this thread, which is one of my favorite subjects.

But I would like to add what I consider to be a definitive clarification
to the Torah/Science dichotomy.

As the great "Indiana Jones" told a "pupil" in his "archeology class":
(paraphrasing) "We deal here in facts. If you want Truth, go down the
hall to Dr. .....'s philosophy class. He deals in Truth."

The difference between science and religion, it seems to me is
exactly the same. Science deals in "Fact", more or less observable
data presented in the laboratory, proven, and replicable, through the
scientific method. Religion deals with how "Belief" impacts with "Fact",
as philosophy presented in RYBS's Halachic Man. It deals with behavior
based on a Truth which is largely based on an ultimately unprovable
"Belief". That does not make "Truth" fact or not fact. It is just that
religious belief in Truth is not subject to scientific inquiry. But,
religious belief does not, indeed cannot, deny scientific fact. As
Micha indicated, they are on two seperate realms. And as RYBS indicates,
one impacts on the other, therefore, synthesisizing the quintessential
purpose of creation, Halachic man.

HM

From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@segalco.com>
> Why is kavod av "logical" according to the
> shitah that we'd be better off not being born?

The term logical or sevora is perhaps better translated as commonsense. The
Toras Avaraham  - basing himself on Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon - states that to
the degree that something like honoring parents is universal and obvious to
mankind the more it is obligatory.

The theological issue of whether it is better to be born is explained by the
Shaloh HaKodesh and others in the following way. The whole purpose of
creation was to allow Man the opportunity to receive G-d's goodness which is
obtained by keeping mitzvos. However since most of mankind does not keep
mitzvos properly it would have been better for most people not to have been
born. However for those who do keep mitzvos it is better to have been
created. The conclusion that it is better not to have created can not be
reached for a particular individual during his lifetime. Therefore it is
important for everyone to try and keep mitzvos as best as possible
especially  such mitzvos as honoring one's parents which is viewed by the
whole world as obvious.

                Daniel Eidensohn

RJR:
>Is this a mitzvah(rather than just perhaps a logical thing to do) for
>non-Jews?  The story in the gemora re: the nonJew who would not wake his
>father as well as the medrash that yaakov feared meeting esav because of his
>twin zechusim of having lived in eretz yisrael and kavod av seem to imply a
>mitzvah...

I don't have the answer to this, but I do have a tangental observation: I
remember hearing a shmuz years ago in yeshivah by some guest Gadol (forget
who - maybe RMAS, but maybe not) noting that there is no way the Gemara
meant to complement a goy, and to think so is incorrect peshat. I forget
what peshat he did give, but he was very clear on this point. Can anyone
expand on this?

Eli

From: "Shlomo Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
>>This is false.  The Rambam only requires that we bless Hashem.  This is
>>satisfied with the letter "bais".  See the Reb Moshe quoted that there is no
>>other issur.  That means no violation of even a positive mitzva.

From: sethm37@hotmail.com <sethm37@hotmail.com>
>Just one other thing.  I think it behooves all of us to try to avoid
>judgment labels like "false."  The Torah is wide minni eretz, and there are
>and have been differing opinions among talmidei hakhomim from the time of
>the Mishna and continuing up to the present day.  We may disagree with
>somebody's sevoro or his psaq, but all of us should try to do it politely....

Dear Rav Mandel,

I didn't mean to offend.  I don't think "false" when correct should be
considered insulting.  See Rashi in Kesubos that a machlokes trei amorai
bshem oto chad, one is saying SHEKER.

I quoted your 1st letter that "Rambam clearly rules".  Now you say R' Chaim
ruled.  Such a retraction is acceptable.

Shlomo Goldstein

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


[ 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         ]