Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 053

Wednesday, November 29 2000

• Re: Contacts
• Re: Contact lenses/shabbos
• RE: parts of psukim
• Re: Kol y'mei chayecha
• Re: Avos was : Women's education: the views of RYBS and RSYW
• Re: Maggid Meisharim and malachim who speak aramaic
• Re: Tefillin--T'nai
• RE: Women's Torah Study
• Re: Avodah V6 #52
• Re: Avodah V6 #52
• Yitzchak's response to Esav
• Living in Gaza
• Re: Living in Gaza
• Re: Living in Gaza
• RE: Living in Gaza e question)
• Re: Living in Gaza
• Borders of Eretz Yisrael
• Re: Borders of Eretz Yisrael
• RE: Living in Gaza e question)
• Re: Living in Gaza
• RE: Living in Gaza
• FW: Living in Gaza
• Re: FW: Living in Gaza

In my case (very nearsighted), I simply cannot see as well with glasses.
The opticians will not prescribe stronger glasses since they have a serious
chashash that they will cause my vision to worsen.  Wearing lenses
overnight, even if they are extended wear officially, increases  the risk of
infection significantly.  I don't know what the psak should be, but these
are relevant considerations.  Personally, I have always done the
disinfection on shabbos.

Daniel

In message , Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes
>> To reiterate: my chiddush here would be that because untreated Pseudomonas...

>Why put yourself in a situation of choleh when you can just wear glasses on 
>Shabbos?

I think the issue is more complicated than this. Numbers of people (OK, I
suspect more of them are women than men, but by no means exclusively) are
very self conscious about wearing glasses, and find/found the surrender
of their glasses for lenses a tremendously important experience. I know
of cases where, on being required to wear glasses (eg on getting an
eye infection), such a person will go into almost complete hiding until
the period is up. Vanity may not be a good thing, but it is a reality,
and it is an extremely powerful force (especially, but not exclusively,
if you are a girl of marriagable age).

If you were to forbid cleaning/soaking of lenses, I doubt very much that
such people would revert to glasses. What they are far more likely
to do is rather take risks with their eyes, by not cleaning, wearing
overnight when they should not etc. Compare this matter to the halacha
regarding women going out with tachshitim in places without an eruv,
tachshitim being far less critical to most wearer's sense of beauty than
lenses, the halacha being pretty explicit in the gemorra (a whole perek
in masechta shabbas is devoted to the subject) and yet the poskim go to
great lengths to justify or at least allow for the accepted practice of
women going out with tachshitim. Psak has to take into account not just
what theoretically could be done as an alternative, but what realistic
alternatives there are, taking into account certain known and accepted
human frailities.

Kind Regards
Chana

Sadya N. Targum:
> However, my question was not from the psukim of parshas bikkurim, but
> from Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah's quote of "l'maan tizkor." For this,
> neither answer suffices: it is not a pasuk first quoted in toto and
> then dissected, nor will "v'gomer" help when it is the beginning of the
> pasuk which is missing. The questions thus remain, unless we understand
> "kol pasuk v'chulay" differently.

FWIW, the 4 or 6 zchiros in most siddurim quote only from "lmaan tizkor"
onwards, IOW a partial passuk.

And the Ari's "harei ani m'keabeil..." quotes only v'ahavta lerai'acho
kamocha.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 10:03:41AM -0500, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
:> Even so, both minhagim would say YM at night. One would say it in shema,

: I don't see that at all, if REbA was sincere in what he said.  Yes, we
: talk about YM in Emet vEmunah, but to what extent does that just follow
: on from the YM in the 3rd para. of Shma?

As I state in the next paragraph:
:>     the other had a matbei'ah other than Shema just for that purpose as
:> per R' Yehudah bisheim Rav.

It's not about birchos shema.

Rav says that those who didn't say the third paragraph said "Modim anachnu
lach shehotzi'anu miMitzrayim ufdisanu mibeis avadim lehodos leshimcha".
In REbA's kehillah everyone was zocheir yetzi'as Mitzrayim (ZYM) at night. It
was just a question of how.

The little pshetl, which I'm less enamored with than when we started,
suggested that REbA questioned baleilos because otherwise it is harder
to explain tying ZYM to parashas tzitzis.

: No, I just checked.  In ever edition of the mishna I have, it's 1:5,
: except in the R' Kafih Rambam, in which it's 1:9.  Even in the Yerushalmi
: it's 1:5.

It's 1:6 on the Machon Mamrei disk, a searchable Y'lmi (among other
sefarim) that fits on my CD-less laptop. See Snunit's web site based on
their material, <http://www1.snunit.k12.il/kodesh/yer/brcu011d.html#0>,
which places it on 11b. Sorry for the confusion.

:>:             IOW is this halchic drush of ur'issem miSinai while the
:>: drush of Mazkirin YM balalylos is not?

:> They both are miSinai. (By which I do NOT mean halachah liMosheh miSinna;
:> one can be choleik on a derashah, but not on a HlMmS.) That doesn't mean
:> RAbE knew of or held of both.

: And how do you *know* it's misinai, and not just a manmade drush?

If it's a de'Oraisa, it's miSinai. It may have been later /discovered/
(like Moavi vilo Moavis, as per Rashi on Rus -- I wish I could find
it again). But if it came from the Oraisa, and the Torah was only given
once, at Sinai, one would think that's the only possible conclusion.

-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 11/27/00 4:45:33pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I would say, and I think this is just a rephrase of RRW's point, that
> your mistake is in considering classifying something as mussar to be
> a demotion.

Mussar as a concept is not a demotion. But Mussar as a category of Jewish 
Literature does not have the same Halachick Status as Mishna. The Mussar 
concepts contained within Pirkei Avos have a certain "Chalos Sheim" which the 
Seforim of the Ramcha"l , as important as they are, do not. To make believe 
that because the concepts discussed in Avos have Mussar-like implications 
Avos does not qualify as Torah SheBaal-Peh is sloppy thinking at best. While 
I understand that what R' Weinberg means is that women should not be taught 
Gemara and perhaps Mishna as well, if he is willing to make an exception for 
Avos and certain other literature, than he would be better served if he did 
not try to peg it on a Halachick proscription of Torah SheBaal Peh for women. 
As a Rosh Yeshiva, he is entitled to make pronouncements that he feels speak 
to the needs of Klal Yisrael. But it seems to make more sense to carefully 
distinguish which pronouncements are  based on strictly Halachick reasoning, 
and which are based on his personal assessment of the sociological needs of 
the Jewish People.

Either way, Steven Brizel's point is correct. Avos is part of the Talmud.

Jordan Hirsch  

IIRC, one of the reasons why we say kaddish in Aramaic is that malachim
cannot understand that language. If so, how do we explain the use of Aramaic
by the Maggid who appeared to Rav Yosef Karo (it seems to me like the
Aramaic of the Zohar?)

Daniel

In a message dated 11/27/00 4:46:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
nwitty@ix.netcom.com writes:

> Does anyone have any information or opinion or m"m concerning whether
>  tefillin--klafim for parshiyos, hides for batim, retzu'os (are these
>  different issues)--may be processed/prepared/made or should/shouldn't be
>  made/prepared with a condition allowing other uses?  (I suppose this has to
>  do with lishma.)
>  
>  If tnai is permissible, why isn't breira a me'akev, i.e. ain breira
>  be-de-oraisa, which tefillin certainly is?

A good starting point is the Daas Kdoshim on Y"D 271, in the Mikdash M'at # 
23 and Gdulei Hekdesh # 8.

Kol Tuv, 

Yitzchok Zirkind

>                                        After all, even according to the
> Rambam, does anyone hold that women can not learn halacha psuka??

First, the translation of what the Rambam said on the subject of women's
Torah study. Then, the an excerpt of the meforash the way that we learned
it from my teacher, Rebbetzin DF:

"A woman who studies Torah is rewarded, but it is not the same as the
man's reward because she was not commanded, and anyone who does that
which he is not commanded to do, his reward is not the same as the one
who was commanded, but rather less.

Yet even though she is rewarded, the Sages commanded a man not to teach
his daughter Torah because most women's minds are not attuned to being
taught, but rather they turn the words of Torah into nonsense according to
their poor minds. The Sages said, anyone who teaches his daughter Torah,
it is as if he taught her trivialities. What is this referring to? The
Oral Torah, but as for the Written Torah, he really should not teach her,
but if he taught her it is not as one who teaches her trivialities."

There is a very obvious question on this Rambam. If the Sages commanded
a man not to teach his daughter Torah, how can she then be rewarded for
doing something against the command of the Sages? What's more, the Rambam
himself says elsewhere that the Torah is for everyone, men and women,
rich and poor, young and old?

Answers: In Sota, (�"� ��) ���� �/�� ��� two opinions are brought regarding
the Torah learning of women. The first is the opinion of Ben Azzai "A man is
required to teach his daughter Torah." This is because a woman is rewarded
for Torah study. The second opinion, is the one quoted by the Rambam, " Rabbi
Eliezer said, anyone who teaches his daughter Torah, it is as if he taught
her trivialities". As we know, whenever there is a difference of opinions
among the Sages both opinions are correct but apply in different situations.

The Rambam is combining the two opinions. If the daughter understands
the Torah correctly and applies it properly, she is rewarded for this
Torah study, and therefore, one is required to teach such a daughter.
Although her reward is less than that of a man, because she is not
commanded in this study, nevertheless, the reward for Torah study is so
great that even this reward is immense. What's more, the fact that such
study is rewarded shows that Hashem is pleased with it and desires it. If,
however, the daughter "will turn words of Torah into words of nonsense,
according to her poor mind", then it is forbidden to teach her.

Because most women of the Rambam's period were of the second type,
(as the Rambam says, "since most women's minds are not attuned to being
taught") he takes Rabbi Eliezer's view as the one most often appropriate.
However, he starts off with Ben Azai's view to let us know, that when
it is appropriate, this view should be followed.

Some commentaries have pointed out the difference in the wording of the
Rambam. First, the Rambam is referring to the woman who studies Torah.
Later he is referring to the father who is teaching her. They therefore
conclude that what the Rambam is saying is that if the woman learns on her
own initiative, this shows that she is suited for Torah study and such
study is rewarded. If, however, the study is initiated by the father,
without any indication of the daughter's interest or capabilities in
this area, it is forbidden, because the rule follows the majority of
women who were unsuited to Torah study. (See P'risha, Perush LaTour,
Yorah De'ah 246:15)

It then follows logically, that in a generation where women are
interested in study, the opinion of Ben Azzai would have the more common
application. (We find that sometimes different opinions of the Sages are
more appropriate for different generations. At any rate, the advice of
Mishle, "educate the child according to his way" (i.e., temperament and
capabilities) would always apply.

As for the statement of the Rambam that Torah is for everyone, this refers
to practical knowledge of halacha, and holds true as well for talks
which inspire faith, love and awe of G-d, and good character traits.
Some societies made the mistake of not teaching girls Torah at all,
even of the type which is appropriate for concrete types, which led to
tragic results.

Many people will argue that the change in girls' and women's interest
and involvement in study resulted not from a change in their nature
and capabilities, but from the extra time and ease brought about by the
introduction of household conveniences, as well as by changing social
standards.

In reality, however, household conveniences appeared on the scene
only after the advent of girls' education. Appliances, such as washing
machines, were unknown in Poland when Sarah Schneirer started the Bais
Yaakov movement, and certainly before that, when girls were already
receiving secular education. What is more, this view contradicts the
statements of the Sages (e.g. Rambam) that most women were incapable of
understanding Torah properly because of "their poor minds". Nowhere is
any distinction made between wealthy women who had free time and poor ones
who did not, although during the periods of the First and Second Temples,
and Spain's Golden Era there were many wealthy women, with free time.
Furthermore, although the Sages required a man to provide his wife with
as much household help as his financial situation allowed, even to the
point of freeing her entirely from housework, they advised that she
use her ensuing free time for light, clean work, such as embroidery,
but never mentioned using it to study Torah. Since women are rewarded
for Torah study, the Sages would surely have advised her to use her free
time for Torah, had women been generally capable of this.

As for changing social standards, the question is, what caused this
to occur? While society certainly influences people's attitudes, it is
first and foremost changes in people which change society.

---Rena

> We say nothing. RSYW said he held RYBS was wrong.
...
> He is defining TSBP as process.

Again, regardlesss of our own feeble opinions, it is clear that RSWW and RYBS 
differed on this issue. History and socilology will decide which approach was 
correct for which community. IOW, the derech of RYBS was appropriate for New 
York, Boston and the intellectual challenge that Torahwas faced with in the 
1950s through the 1970s on the issues of mechitza , interfaith relationships 
and the chashivus of Talmud Torah. OTOH, RSYW's derech of Mussar and 
Chassidus worked for others. Who are we to say that either is passul, chas 
veshalom? BTW, I am sure that you are aware that RSYW has a daughter who is 
psychologist who wrote an excellent tribute to the RY in a recent issue of 
Jewish Action.
                                     Steven Brizel
                                      Zeliglaw@aol.com

> I would say, and I think this is just a rephrase of RRW's point, that
> your mistake is in considering classifying something as mussar to be
> a demotion.

The term mussar as used by RSWW and amplified by RYB is that Avos lacks the 
TSBP aspect of process. perhaps. However, the Rishonim wrote peirushim on 
Avos and the Rambam's peirush and Shemonah perakim seem more than the usual 
exhortations found in the classical sifrei mussar. the Ramabm includes Avos 
within Hilchos Deos as halachos. if we treat it as mussar ( I.e. nice for the 
next person, but not for me) , we demean its essence as the raison d etre of 
these chachmewi hamesorah and the halachic significance of the importance of 
developing midos.
                                          Steven Brizel
                                          Zeliglaw@aol.com

In reading this week's parsha, I am surprised by Yitzchak's reaction to
Esav when Yitzchak realizes that it was not Esav who was blessed. First
Yitzchak says that someone came and got the blessings. Next he says that
your brother came with trickery and took the blessings. And finally he
says I made your brother lord over you.  All of this seems only to be
pouring salt into an open wound.  Why did Yitzchak respond in this way?
In the end Esav got a bracha anyway!  Any thoughts or comments?

Kol Tov
Ezriel

      I've kept this to myself until now out of respect to the injured
in the Gaza school bus attack, but now that we've all been treated
[on Areivim] to a poetic hypothesis of what heaven was planning I feel
it would be wrong to ignore a problem which should be obvious to all
parents, if not all Shomrai Torah.

     I wonder what a posaik would say about taking children to live in
Gaza. The civil law term for it is reckless endangerment of a minor. I
wonder if the children would have recourse to 'recover' their losses
from their parents financially in an American court.

     I was recently reminded of a conversation between a ba'al habayis
and one of RM"F's, TZK"L, ZY"A, talmidim as to why RM"F was only machmir
for himself and not on his family regarding the use of cholov yisroel. The
rov responded that he did not understand the question. A person can only
be machmir for himself, not for anyone else. Wouldn't this be similar,
with deadlier consequences?

[MSB: In another email he clarifies....]

I was not insinuating that I knew RM"F's opinion on moving to particular
spots in EY. The story was illustrative of the fact that we may not
have the right to be machmir for our children even on small matters,
let alone where the decision may result in lose of life or limb.

From: michael horowitz [mailto:michaelh1@hotmail.com]
>> I wonder what a posaik would say about taking children to live in Gaza. The 
>> civil law term for it is reckless endangerment of a minor.
<snip>
> What would a posek stay to taking children to Hadera (in pre 67 Israel)
> which was bombed by PLO terrorists recently.

> What would a posek say to taking children to live in Gilo in Jerusalem, 
> which is under daily fire by the PLO.

These questions are not necessarily analogous to Gaza.  Poskim distinguish
between going into a situation that most people consider dangerous (e.g., a
war zone) as opposed to situation that most people don't consider dangerous
even though there is some danger involved (e.g., driving a car,
smoking--according to RMF, skiing).  In the latter situation, RMF says that
one is entitled to rely on "shomer p'saim Hashem." (See RJJ Journal article
on the topic)

If one believes like RYBS (as quoted in Nefesh Harav), against the Minchas
Chinuch, that yishuv haaretz does not overcome the din of pikuach nefesh,
then it stands to reason that one cannot enter into pikuach nefesh in order
to remain in those areas which are truly dangerous.  (If one believes that
holding on to *any* part of Eretz Yisrael causes sakanas nefashos, then it
is still possible that one should hold on to the part of Eretz Yisrael which
entails the least sakanas nefashos.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

As a mashal: While I could picture many poskim assuring crossing the New
Jersey Turnpike during rush hour, that doesn't mean they would assur
crossing the street in front of my house. Even though there's a chance
that drag racers might later choose to use it.

That said, I want to believe Simchah is wrong. I can't find halachic
grounds for asserting it, though.

-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: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> That said, I want to believe Simchah is wrong. I can't find halachic
> grounds for asserting it, though.

Here are halachic grounds (though I personally hold like RYBS):  If you hold
like Minchas Chinuch that yishuv haaretz is docheh the din of pikuah nefesh
(based on the concept of milchamah), then you would settle Gaza.  Moreover,
in the specific instance of Gaza, choosing to leave is not a mere private
decision; because there are so few mitnachlim in Gaza, if your decision to
abandon your home causes just a few hundred copycats, this could lead to the
abandonment of Gaza to the Arabs.

Certainly, during the late 19th cent. and early 20th cent., people risked
their lives to live in Eretz Yisrael and no one objected.

(RYBS would answer that there is a difference between (1) Am Yisrael risking
lives to have a portion of Eretz Yisrael and (2) Am Yisrael taking further
risks to retain additional parts of Eretz Yisrael.  Furthermore, settling EY
one hundred years ago actually caused the saving of lives because people
fleeing from Europe during the 1930's had a place to go.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 04:00:33PM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Here are halachic grounds (though I personally hold like RYBS):  If you hold
: like Minchas Chinuch that yishuv haaretz is docheh the din of pikuah nefesh
: (based on the concept of milchamah), then you would settle Gaza.

Even though Gaza isn't even within the gevul promised us, and there are
unsettled or undersettled areas that are?

:           because there are so few mitnachlim in Gaza, if your decision to
: abandon your home causes just a few hundred copycats, this could lead to the
: abandonment of Gaza to the Arabs.

Good argument against leaving. But what about going there lechatchilah?

-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: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Even though Gaza isn't even within the gevul promised us, and there are
> unsettled or undersettled areas that are?

This sentence made a good practice point for me to avoid Ka'as.

Gaza _IS_ within the promised gevul Even According to the
Minimalists!!!!!!!

The "shortest" gevul is "Nahal Mitzraim" identified as Nachal El Arish
which (drum roll please)

Is approx. 7 km SOUTH of where YAMIT was.  Yamit, btw is 40 min. drive
South of  Gush Katif.

For more exact maps, see the book published by Carta (they publish
most map-books in Israel) written by Rav Yisrael Ariel on the subject
of the borders of Eretz Yisrael.

Thank you.
Shoshana L. Boublil

On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 08:14:24AM +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: The "shortest" gevul is "Nahal Mitzraim" identified as Nachal El Arish
: which (drum roll please)
: Is approx. 7 km SOUTH of where YAMIT was.  Yamit, btw is 40 min. drive
: South of  Gush Katif.

The shortest gevul is Ashkelon, see Gittin 2a, 6a.

-mi

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Even though Gaza isn't even within the gevul promised us, and 
> there are
> unsettled or undersettled areas that are?

Somehow, I thought that the mitnachlim believe that although it wasn't
settled in Ezra's time (and hence is not chayav in trumos u'maasros), it is
considered part of Eretz Yisrael.

Shoshana (Boubil), did you once write something about this?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 06:22:56PM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: > Even though Gaza isn't even within the gevul promised us, and  there are
: > unsettled or undersettled areas that are?

: Somehow, I thought that the mitnachlim believe that although it wasn't
: settled in Ezra's time (and hence is not chayav in trumos u'maasros), it is
: considered part of Eretz Yisrael.

I repeat: but there are still places that pose far less danger, that are
chayavim in terumos uma'asros, that still are being underutilized. There
is what for mitnachalim to do in less disputed, and therefore less
dangerous, territory.

So I ask, are there halachic grounds for risking one's child to live
in Gaza?

And, IIRC, Simchah wasn't arguing what I was. He would possibly hold
the same about living in Shechem. I made it about giving less priority
to living beyond the gevul, he didn't. His criterion was merely yishuv
EY without placing your kids in extreme risk.

I think this touches on our perennial question of a taxonomy of
chumros. There is one thing to hold that mei'ikkar hadin I don't need to
do this, but I think one ought to. Then we could argue that one shouldn't
impose it on one's kids. But what about the p'sak lichumrah -- I hold it
is a chiyuv di'Oraisa, even though others don't. Given that the people
in question not only hold it a chiyuv but that it is also mei'ikar hadin
a higher priority than piku'ach nefesh, is it different in kind than
Simcha's example of RMF's children drinking chalav hacompanies?

-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: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> I repeat: but there are still places that pose far less 
> danger, that are
> chayavim in terumos uma'asros, that still are being 
> underutilized. There
> is what for mitnachalim to do in less disputed, and therefore less
> dangerous, territory.
> 
> So I ask, are there halachic grounds for risking one's child to live
> in Gaza?

When you say "underutilized" do you mean places like the Gallil which don't
have many Jews?  If yes, then I would distinguish between performing a
personal mitzvah of yishuv haaretz, which you accomplish by living in
Gallil, and the communal mitzvah of kibbush or making sure that certain
areas are under Jewish *sovereignty*.  If Jews would leave Gaza, it would no
longer be under Jewish sovereignty.

The Orthodox Forum put out a book (edited by Chaim Waxman, published by
Aronson Press--description of book available on their website
http://www.aronson.com/) on issues involving Eretz Yisrael.  There was an
interesting article there by R. Yoel Bin Nun viewing the issue of yishuv
haaretz in terms of Jewish sovereignty.  (There are some chiddushim in the
article.  I highly recommend it.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Here's another argument: If Gazan Jews were to leave Gaza, the Palestinians
would realize that their terrorist activities were successful.  That would
encourage them to target Yesha, and subsequently Jerusalem, and subsequently
Tel Aviv until there is nothing left.

This argument does not explain why the Gazan settlers had the right to go
there in the first place, just why they can't leave due to pressure.  With
regard to why they went in the first place, I think Carl is on target--it
wasn't considered dangerous then (certainly, that was my experience when I
visited Gush Katif in 1984).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 28 Nov 00, at 20:54, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> Here's another argument: If Gazan Jews were to leave Gaza, the
> Palestinians would realize that their terrorist activities were
> successful.  That would encourage them to target Yesha, and
> subsequently Jerusalem, and subsequently Tel Aviv until there is
> nothing left.

That's the reason that there is a consensus for *not* withdrawing. It 
is now widely recognized that one of the reasons the PA has been 
so aggressive is the way in which we withdrew from Lebanon six 
months ago. Somehow they missed that Yesha is not the Bekaa.

> This argument does not explain why the Gazan settlers had the right to
> go there in the first place, just why they can't leave due to
> pressure.  With regard to why they went in the first place, I think
> Carl is on target--it wasn't considered dangerous then (certainly,
> that was my experience when I visited Gush Katif in 1984).

But if you say they shouldn't leave (and I agree with your 
arguments - cf. MB 329 regarding a milchama on the border on 
Shabbos), do you then say that others can go there to be 
mechazek them? I think you probably do.

-- 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

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


[ 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         ]