Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 044

Friday, November 17 2000

• beis halevi
• Re: kamatz be-zakef (formerly kiddush Intro)
• re: parts of psukim
• Re: Achronim ignoring Rishonim
• Re: kavod av
• Re: faith
• More from Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky
• Al sheim ha'asid
• Hoshei'a 1:1
• Re: More from Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky
• Re: More from Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky
• Pesukim fragments
• RE: kamatz be-zakef (formerly kiddush Intro)
• RE: Kriyas Shema recitation and tzitzis
• changes in nusach and minhagim and Re: saying the yom
• RE: Achronim ignoring Rishonim
• Re: Bs"d et al.
• RE: More from Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky
• Re: intermarriage/shiva

> Eli Turkel wrote:

>> In the case of shemitta there was an argument over the heter mechira that
>> goes back 150-250 years. Some rabbis like bet halevi in fact claim that
>> shemitta is a Torah obligation today.

> Not the Beis HaLevi.  Maybe you meant the Netziv or the Aruch HaShulchan?

Yes it is bet halevi. See Rav Zevin's article om shemita in his Leoor
Hahalacha

Eli Turkel

R'RichW:
> what makes the two yelid bOYis instead of yelid bAYis in Lech 
> Lecha when both are on zokei katan?

In my posting I mentioned that it is quite common to have pausal forms
with a zakef katan, often footnoted as "kamatz bezakef". They are so
common that I never investigated them further. I simply accepted that
the zakef, a melekh, is a strong mafsik. If there is something special
or unusual about the two you mention, I think R'SethM is the one who
might have an explanation.

K"T,
David

At 10:38 PM 11/11/00 +0000, you wrote:

>Two further points: (a) Why isn't the rule of "Kol pasuk" mentioned
>lahalacha in the Rambam or the Shulchan Aruch?  (b) Why are we so
>concerned with this rule, and not with its counterpart in Brachos 12b,
>"Kol parsha d'lo paskey Moshe anan lo paskinan"?  If the first rule
>dictates to begin Kiddush from "Vayar Elokim," shouldn't the second
>require starting from "Vayomer Elokim totzay ha'aretz"?
>
>Sadya N. Targum

Our definition of the SA includes the nos'ei keilim, so this is included, 
of course, in the MA 51:9. Nevetheless. the TE 19:7 (hitherto uncited in 
our discussion - who is, indeed the source of the tzu shtell to sirtut) 
brongs that the Teshuvos R"E Gutmacher claimed that since the Rambam and SA 
left Kol pasuk (KPDLPM) out, we may infer that dos iz nisht l'halacha. The 
TE rejects this opinion, as he is a da'as yochid with many, many Poskim 
davka reckoning with KPDLPM. In the section there "B'Shulei ha'Teshuvah" 
the TE notes the many hetterim that Poskim have offered through the years. 
In 20:9 the TE says that "v'gomer" or etc. eliminates the problem as well.

The klal of KPDLPM is brought elsewhere: Kol parasha is not: See for 
example Megilla 22a. Perhaps the dichotomy is rooted in prevalence. Tzorich 
iyun.

Tosafos evidently held l'halacha of KPDLPM - in the sugya of Hallel in 
Lulav He'Gazul.


KT,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:29:52PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
:> I don't think they disregard the words of Rishonim.

: I think they often disregard what the rishonim DID NOT SAY.

I think this nafka mina goes to the core of the inyan.

: The models for tefillah, nusach and minhagim have changed  -with some
: justifications no doubt. But with the exception of a Kehilla like KAJ, I
: don't know anyone who asked, how can we do this when this changes the way
: it's been done?  (the Aruch Hashulcahn is a sometime exception.)

Doesn't the fact that these are exceptions tell you that we are supposed
to be doing things this way?

As was pointed out to me when I posted that taxonomy of Rabbinic
authority, a custom isn't a minhag if no rabbanim endorsed it. IOW,
what the "rishonim did not say" can't outweigh a solid sevara.

BTW, even in KAJ it's not that consistant. For example, did they never add
"B'rich Shemei" to davening, or did they drop it during/after Shabbatai
Zvi? Do you know anyone who knows?

-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

On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:52:50PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: The distinction of mitzva versus logical thing to do is rejected by a number
: of sources...

According to Nefesh haRav, RYBS did the inverse: he assured being "stupid"
(spelled in NhR as samech-tes-vav-pei-yud-dalet). The two examples sited
in the seifer are hypnotism for non-medical reasons, and bowing to the
teacher in a Jewish-run karate dojo. (Presumably if the teacher was raised
in a culture where such was a natural show of respect, it wouldn't be
stupid to do it. But why would YU's dojo [the probable case in point]
need to emulate such sh'tuyos?)

-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 11/15/2000 1:49:38pm EST, yadmoshe@bezeqint.net writes:
> If sociology indicates that
> women today don't feel the need for marriage while Chazal assert they do -
> neither would entertain that the halacha has changed [Rav Soleveitchik
> indicated it was apikorsus to entertain such an idea].

From: <Joelirich@aol.com>
> on the tape I heard where the RYBS discussed the above, it was pretty
> clear that he felt that the woman's needs were inherent in the bria and that
> "sociology" in this case was "bad."  I think this is a much differnet thrust

Denying the law of gravity or any other law inherent in the briah is not
labeled as apikorsus. My source for the above was I believe Rabbi Bleich's
article on Kiddushei Ta'ut in Tradition 33:1 Fall 1998 which unfortunately
has been lent out and so I can't verify it directly.

Regarding a recent comment about anecdotes I'd like to relate two more. The
first is the well known story about the visit of the Chofetz Chaim with the
government official. The lawyer accompanying the Chofetz Chaim tried to
explain to the official who the Chofetz Chaim was by telling him the story
of how he ripped up the postage stamps on a package which was hand
delivered. The official said, "you don't expect me to believe that story do
you?" and the reply was, "I don't know if the story actually happened but
they don't make up stories like that about you or me".

More directly to my point about Rav Soleveitchik view of Judaism as a closed
system is what I heard from R' Freddy Horowitz who was one of his students.

"The Rav said many times that a question that is not raised in the classic
sources is probably not a valid question. Once at the beginning of the year
he found a very strong question on the Rambam that was not mentioned
anywhere. He was greatly concerned about this but could not find an answer.
The following summer he issued an emergency call to the entire class which
was scattered all over the mountains to return for a special shiur. He
started the class by saying 'I found the answer to the question.' Of course
no one knew what he was talking about since we had all forgotten about the
issue. He said someone who had been working in the Vatican library had found
a manuscript which resolved the problem of the Rambam and thus it was in
fact not a question. He felt vindicated and wanted to share his discovery
with his students. I don't remember the question but I'll never forget the
principle that he defended and his passion for truth."

                               Daniel Eidensohn

Are you there,  RYGB?

        Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky says "Besides all the halachic problems
associated with an eruv with a tzuras hapesach around the city,  even if
we grant that a solution could be found for all the problems,  still it
appears that in our times,  the whole idea of an eruv around a large city
is not desirable.  It is not comparable to previous times,  when they
were required to find a way to fix so that they could cook hot foods, 
etc. (NB food was kept hot in the community bakery,  not in each home 
GD) but nowadays making eruvin is a stumbling block which leads to bitul
Torah,  mixing between men and women, and lack of respect for Shabbos and
more and more.  Therefore it is proper to refrain.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Quick question: In last week's parashah (Lech Licha) we found mention of a
place called "Dan" -- "al sheim ha'asid". Similarly, this week we have
Yitzchak living in "Pelishtim" before the Pelishtim got there.

So why is Y'laim just "Shaleim"?

-mi

Micha raises a number of questions on the chronology of the beginning of
Hoshea based on Rashi.  First, why is Yeravam ben Yoash, the only king
of Israel who is listed as having lived during Hoshea's prophetic
career, when 4 Judean kings are listed - most of whom came after
Yeravam?  Second, how can Rashi say that Yeravam overlapped the reigns
of the Judean kings Azarya = Uziah and Yotham when Uziah became king
after Yeravam and had a longer reign (52 vs 41 years)?

The second question is easier to answer.  Kings II 15 mentions that
Uziah was struck with leprosy and his son, Yotham became the de facto
ruler (the 52 years of Uziah's reign includes those leprous years).
Chronicles II 26 states further that the leprosy came suddenly upon
Uziah when he attempted to offer incense in the heichal of the bet
hamikdash.  Therefore Yeravam ben Yoash ruled contemporaneously with the
earlier part of Uziah's reign and the latter part when Yotham was the
practical ruler.

Concerning the first question, one can say that the prophet only
mentions those kings whose reign was significant.  Although the Judean
king, Ahaz, was a miserable monarch who suffered repeated defeats, he is
mentioned because there were prophesies directly addressed to him (the
famous, " to us (meaning Ahaz) a son (Hezekiah) is given who will have
authority..").

The question of chronology is dealt with at some length by the Malbim in
Hoshea 1 and Kings II 15.  He doesn't resolve all the problems, however.

Yitzchok Zlochower

On 15 Nov 2000, at 21:03, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>         Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky says "Besides all the halachic problems
> associated with an eruv ...

From where are you quoting? Emes l'Yaakov?

-- Carl

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.

> From where are you quoting? Emes l'Yaakov?

Emes leYaakov has been used as the title for all of the seforim which are
being published based upon RYK's kesovim. This is from the one on Shulchan
Aruch, and comes from a footnote mipi hashemuah. The introduction to the
sefer describes the efforts which were put in to verify these, so they
are definitely NOT in the class of "I heard that Rav Ploni said so and
so". Also, I bought the sefer (OK, my father bought the sefer and I have
it on indefinite loan <g>) from RYK's son, who urged me to look at those
mipi hashemuah notes particularly (the editor is his son in law IIRC).

Gershon

Why is it that when we say shelosh esrei midos,  we don't say the entire
posuk?  When HKB"H showed Moshe Rabbenu the seder tefila,  did He stop after
venakeh?

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

R'RichW:
> what makes the two yelid bOYis instead of yelid bAYis in Lech 
> Lecha when both are on zokei katan?

David:
> In my posting I mentioned that it is quite common to have pausal forms
> with a zakef katan, often footnoted as "kamatz bezakef".... I simply
> accepted that the zakef, a melekh, is a strong mafsik....

Dear David,

My point was the Zokeif katan in and of itself rarely causes a kamatz
b'zokeif.  It WOULD - according to my source - if the Zokeif were the
biggest mafsik - IOW in a passuk w/ a zokeif and w/o an esnachto.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Stein, Aryeh E says:
> Finally, RSZA only held the front two sets of tzizis in his hands (not all 
> four),

On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:56 Wolpoe, Richard wrote
> AIUI this is al pi the Gra who held that since the 4 corners should remain 
> in the 4 corners, therefore one should not gather up the 4 corners and place 
> them in front.
...
> I don't understand the chshash or the hakpada of the Gra that requires that
> the 4 corners remain in place all the time. The phrase vaha'avieinu ma'arbo
> canfos ha'aretz is the signal to gather up these 4 corners and they are
> restored follwoing the shma...

And Gil.Student wrote:
> Precisely during kerias shema, when we are trying to make sure that we are 
> mekayem the mitzvah, it seems very sensible to have tzitzis surround us.  
> Especially since we are concentrating on the meaning of the pesukim which 
> include the kavanos of the mitzvah of tzitzis.

The issue is that the mitzva of tzitzis is properly performed with two in
front and two behind. This halokho lekhathilla is brought down in SA 8,
and agreed to by all. That is why the SA says you hold just the two front
tzitzis during qriyas shema'; this is not just the Gra' or RSZA, it is
both the mehabber and the Rmo'. The early mequbbalim brought significance
to holding the tzitzis during shema', but it was specifically the two
front tzitzis, see on that the Rikanti brought by the Beis Yosef in Tur
s. 24 (where the note of the Darkhei Moshe is). What's even worse, the
RMo' brings the opinion that this is le'iqquva. See the Darkhei Moshe in
the Tur s. 10 sq. 6, and I believe he quotes that in the SA, although
I don't have it here. So according to R. Student's reasoning, during
qriyas shema' "when we are trying to make sure that we are meqayyem
the mitzvah" it would make sense to hold only the front two. AFAIK,
the idea of holding all four was first brought in the name of the Ari,
and not immediately accepted. Lest someone misunderstand me this time,
I am not saying that all aharonim held this way; there were many that
followed the Ari and held all four. What I'm saying is that custom was not
based on halakhic considerations, where the SA is right, but on the Ari.

Seth Mandel

On 14 Nov 2000 19:12:01 Herschel Ainspan wrote:
sethm37@hotmail.com wrote:
> Saying of "the yom" as a reenactment of what they Leviyim said every day 
> began in the 17th and 18th centuries. Since saying "the yom" was recognized 
> by all at that time as a hiddush, it was put at the end of the whole 
> davening by Ashkenazim

> What about minhag Frankfurt and minhag sefaradi to say the yom on Shabbos 
> after shacharis?  Is that only from the 17th-18th centuries?

Yes indeed. Look at Minhagei Worms and Bamburger's notes. Look at Yosef
Ometz. This is one of the changes that were accepted even in Frankfort,
like qabbolas shabbos or more than 40 qolos on rohs hashono, that I
alluded to in an earlier posting.

As far as the Sefaradim were concerned, I mentioned the testimony of R.
Yaaqov ba'al haTurim regarding what Sefaradim did in his day. Sefaradim
may have adopted the custom of saying the "yom" a little earlier, since
it was strongly recommended by the talmidim of the Ari. See the aharonim
that the Ari held that by starting off by saying, for example, "hayom yom
hamishi beshabbos," rather than just saying the kapitel, as the Leviyim
did, one can be meqayyem the mitzva of zakhor yom hashabbos every day.

Once the idea came about that this was a reenactment of what the Leviyim
did in the beis haMiqdosh, it would make sense to say the yom after
shaharis, as the Hasam Sofer discussed. But once you understand the
history you understand minhag Ashkenaz, which otherwise is very shver.

> Also, what about the MB there OC 133 (?) that explicitly says when the Rema 
> writes "hashir shehalviyim om'rim b'veis hamikdash" he means the kapitel 
> itself, not the mishna as our siddurim have it.

The MB there is quoting the MA, who was one of the reasons the yom was
adopted in Ashkenaz. Nb. that the MA said "nir'eh li" since he knew
this was not the common custom. As I said before, see the Darkhei Moshe
for what the custom in the time of the RMo' was, and see R. Hamburger's
notes cited.



On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:29, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> The models for tefillah, nusach and minhagim have changed -- with some
> justifications no doubt. But with the exception of a Kehilla like KAJ, I
> don't know anyone who asked, how can we do this when this changes the way
> it's been done?

As I have said before, I agree with your basic point. I have only wished to
add that even the Breuer's qhilla in Germany (and KAJ continuing that)
allowed changes to come in. Qabbolas shabbos, more than 40 qolos are the
egregious examples, although KAJ does make a shinnui in where the ShaTz
stands. But there are numerous other examples. As a matter of fact, RSRH
was CRITICIZED by some his contemporaries for allowing changes to come in
too easily. RSRH felt that it was more important to save Torah and frumkeit
than to preserve old minhagim, although I don't think he ever said the
minhagim weren't important, just that they were not of the same priority.
I have been told by a friend who grew up in Strassbourg, where they still
keep many of the old Ashkenaz minhagim, that the shuls who preserve the most
of the old minhagim in that area nowadays are the shuls where most of the
members are not frum. Sort of like the lox and bagel Jews in the United
States, preserve the outward form (a meal at the seder, for instance, with
gefilte fish and chicken soup) but ignore the Torah and the mitzvos (drive
to the seder, eat it in a nonkosher restaurant or house, etc.).

All of your examples above are old minhag Ashkenaz, but the changes come
from opinions by other rishonim and reflect the minhag there, like the 2
matzos and tefillin on hol haMo'ed. I am not sure what you meant by
"restructure of Kedushah." But in many cases, the Gra was trying to hold
onto the old minhag Ashkenaz, e.g. not saying mizmor.. hanukkas habayis
before Barukh Sheomar, not saying qabbolas shabbos, not saying kapitlakh
before blowing the shofar and numerous others.

Seth Mandel

Daniel Eidensohn:
> More directly to my point about Rav Soleveitchik view of Judaism as a closed
> system is what I heard from R' Freddy Horowitz who was one of his students.

> "The Rav said many times that a question that is not raised in the classic
> sources is probably not a valid question. ...
>        He said someone who had been working in the Vatican library had found
> a manuscript which resolved the problem of the Rambam and thus it was in
> fact not a question...

AIUI some gedolim objected to changing the siyyum of hamervoreich during 10
days of Teshuvah to Oseh Hashalom and poisted that it was a taus Sofer from
oseh HAshalom bimoromov...

But the Aruch Hashulchan mentions iirc an old ksav yad that shows the
validity of Oseh Hashalom as an alternate siyyum bracha. (and iirc it was
stam w/o any mention of 10 dyas of Teshuvah)

So Can faith indeed trump Sevara? or was it the documentary evidence
that did it? And what to do in the meantime? Assume a resolution will
be forthcoming or go with the sevara in the meantime?


MSB:
> As was pointed out to me when I posted that taxonomy of Rabbinic
> authority, a custom isn't a minhag if no rabbanim endorsed it. IOW,
> what the "rishonim did not say" can't outweigh a solid sevara.

Let's say a minhag w/o any haskamah of rabbonim is indeed not authoritative
in and of itself.

Now benidon didon, (i.e. partial psukim)  the fact that as far as we can
tell virtually all risihonim DID this practice of saying partial psukim w/o
registering any protest - is that any worse than chezkas habatim?  Doesn't
there acquiescense to the prevaling custom imply a concuring opinion?  So
how "dare" we change that practice based upon our Kushiyos?  At worse
shouldn't we simply apply a "Tzarich Iyyun" w/o going so far as to revise
the nusach hatefillah? 

If one rishon gives a pshat that "seems" easily disproven by a "solid"
svara, we give that Rishon a Tzarich Iyuun.  But when Rishonim DO something
virtually unanymously - yet since it lacks a textual soucre -  therefore are
we allowed to dismiss this based upon a "solid" svara?  



MSB:
>BTW, even in KAJ it's not that consistant. For example, did they never add
>"B'rich Shemei" to davening, or did they drop it during/after Shabbatai
>Zvi? Do you know anyone who knows?

I've asked that many, many times and I get contradictory anwwers.
Better question, what about Ana bechoach in Kabbalas Shabbas?

Let's say that Shabtai Zvi is an exceptional case.  The sevara to REMOVE
kabbalah due to a bad experience is quite different than saying it was done
wrong the whole time! 

OTOH saying that we cannot say partial psukim but Rishonim could, implies to
me taht ater all WE know better.  

It's one thing to say we know better based upon an unfortunate experience,
it's another matter to  attribute to the previous generations such gaping
over-sights.  Doesn't saying WE have a sevara implies that Rishonim did not?


If that were the case, how about tov me'at tachanunim bkavnanah.  Why can't
WE use that as a svara to be mekatzier Psukei d'zimra?

Or how about overturning sevaras re: women's aliyos??  Isn't it mistavra
that since the status of women has changed bizman hazeh and therfore is it
not mistavra to allow women aliyos since it was never assur, only not kavod
hatzibbur?

Or isn't it miztavra to introduce English vernacular into the davening?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com 

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:36:53 Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> What surprised me is the contrast to Islam where expressions like Ya'aleh
> dvak invoke "Al-lah" as frequently as possible. (source: A freind of mine
> who studied Arabic in college) It seems that Islams it's a good thing to use
> "al-lah" frequently while in Judaism -- out of deference to Hashem's kavod -- 
> we...refrain from using Hashem's name except when neceesary.

I believe that there was a misunderstanding somewhere with your friend and
you.

AFAIK, Muslims observe the following (I do not intend to discuss the Islamic
religion here, but a comparison in this regard is instructive, as indeed R.
Wolpoe felt):

a) at the beginning of a religious speech or article they say/write
"bismillaahi r-Rahmaani -- r-Rahiim" (using double letters to indicate long
vowels), "in the name of G-d, the Merciful, the Benificent." This is
analogous to saying "b'ezras haShem" at the beginning of a letter, except
the Muslims do it only in a religious context.

b) when talking about the future, they say "in shaa lLaah" "G-d willing."
This is exactly analogous to the Jewish "im yirtze haShem" or "b'ezras
haShem."

c) when parting they say "ma'a s-salaama," "with peace," analogous to "lekh
lesha-lo -- m," to which the response is "alLah yesallem fiik," "May G-d give
shalo' m to your mouth." This is a play on words; with the response
invoking alLah. Similar responses are used commonly to any good wishes or
blessings that you might say, like "Have a good trip" among Muslims would
call for a response that invoked G-d to bless you.

d) it is common practice -- BUT not mandated or recommended by Islam -- that
when someone is hurt or impatient or surprised he will say "yaa l-Lah" "Oh
G-d." This is no different to Americans (and even many not-careful frum
Jews) saying "My G-d" in all sorts of common situations. This is not part
of the Islamic religion any more than saying "ribbono shel 'olam" when
surprised is mandated by the Torah.

IOW, invoking the name of G-d in Islam is not that different than what many
Jews do.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:37:31 Micha Berger raised the following:
> I can see three takes on the name "Al-lah":
> 1 - Culturally, we ought to hyphenate it if we're going to be consistant
>     with the way we write "G-d", but there is no halachic necessity to do so.
> 2 - Al-lah may be cognate to E-loah, and therefore more than just stam a
>     kinui.
> 3 - Alternatively, it is suggested Mohammed took the word from Arab pagans
>     who still worshipped a descendent concept that traces its name back to the
>     Canaanite "El", and related to the Babylonian Ellu (the god the month of
>     Ellul is named for). This might make it worse than "G-d" (or maybe it's
>     another point of similarity).

There, of course, is halakha here. The Rambam in Hilkhos Sanhedrin 26:3
says specifically that "all the names used by Goyim (i.e. in foreign
languages) for HQB'H are the same as any kinnuy." One might argue that that
is only for names in non-Semitic languages, but names in Semitic languages
that are exactly cognate to one of the shiv'a shemos are different. That is
the case with Arabic alLah, which is the EXACT equivalent of Aramaic
'elo-ho, and the cognate of Hebrew "E-l-oak." But there is a tshuva from
the Rambam that says "and the name used in Arabic, namely alLah, is like any
other kinnuy, and it is permitted to erase it and to say it in the
bathhouse." So the Rambam clearly holds that "alLah" not to mention "G-d"
are names that can be erased and as such can be written without hyphens etc.
I once heard from R. Avrohom Farbstein zt'l the rosh yeshiva of Hevron that
some aharonim hold otherwise, that "elo-ho" in Aramaic should not be erased,
but that was only because Aramaic was descended from or related to Hebrew,
and so the names of HQB'H were like mispronunciations of the names in
Hebrew.

Which brings me to the last point. As Micha said, culturally most people
use "G-d" in English because apparently they feel that it should not be
erased. This is clearly not the opinion of the Rambam, nor of any other
rishon that I am aware of, nor required by the opinion I brought in the name
of R. Farbstein. Does anyone know, then, a halakhic basis for why people
don't just write "God" when referring to HQB'H? If it is just a kinnuy,
then it is no worse than "G-d," which is also a kinnuy.

Gershon gershon.dubin@juno.com:
>         Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky says "... the whole idea of an eruv around
> a large city is not desirable.  It is not comparable to previous times, 
> when they were required to find a way to fix so that they could cook hot
> foods, etc.... but nowadays making eruvin is a stumbling block which leads
> to bitul Torah, mixing between men and women, and lack of respect for
> Shabbos and more and more....

Aiui the most fundamental impetus for an eruv nowadays is to avoid shutting
in those (mostly Mommies) with infant babies at home.  Being shut in on
Shabbos is considered a hardship.  This might apply also to ederly who need
wheelchairs, etc.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

I was reading an article concerning the recent AJC study on intermarriage.  A 
Rabbi was quoted as saying that "Intermarriage is so serious that a family is 
compelled to sit shiva when one of its members , g-d forbid, marries out".

 I''ve heard of this but does anyone know of the source?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

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


[ 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         ]