Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 080

Tuesday, December 26 2000

• Re: 'HaMakom'
• Re: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP
• Another Important Meshech Chochmo
• Re: Tamar and Aishes Potifar
• "yisa Faro es roshecha
• CHIDA
• Covering hair
• Re: Uncovered Hair
• Mincha on Erev Shabbos Chanuka
• Re: zemer l'chanukah
• zemer lechanuka
• Re: (Fwd) Tfillin on Chol HaMoed (was Minhag Avoteynu Beyadeinu)
• Tfillin on Chol Hamoad in Yerushalayim?
• Re: Get of a mumar
• Re: Badekin
• Davening Mincha Late- Some Halachic and 'Avodic' Issues
• Connection Between Daf Yomi and Chanuka
• Chanukah--Al haNisim
• Re: Tzelem Elokim
• Re: Tzelem Elokim
• Re: Covering hair
• Re: Sei'ar beIshah

On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 12:38:01PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: Panentheism is the belief that G-d includes, but is more than, the
: universe. (As opposed to pantheism...
: Chassidus is panentheistic.

Much like the L Rebbe's vort on "ein od milvado" -- not only that there are
no other deities, but there is mamash nothing else but him.

Which also takes us back to Gila Atwood's signature file, about being
pixels in the divine imagination.

-mi

On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 10:51:32AM -0500, David Glasner wrote:
:                 how do you explain the existence of perek clal gadol in
: masekhet Shabbat?  There were obviously extensive disputes 
: concerning the definition of the avot m'lakhot and the conditions for
: incurring liability for violating them.  According to you such disagreements
: should never have existed.

There is also a second grounds for doubt -- not only machlokesin but also
forgetting. Or, never needing to formalize and study the precise definition
of the each melachah until then.

:> In hilchos mamrim 2:2, that Rambam is discussing dinim derabbanan.
:> This all seems very clear to me.

: Mamrim 2:2 is not, as Rabbi B. would say, nidon didan

I disagree, since the overwhelming majority of machlokesin since the
writing down of TSBP had nothing to do with derashos.

BTW, when does the Dor Revi'i date the writing down of TSBP. We noted on
Avodah a while back that according to a number of Rishonim (including
the Rashbam and Tosafos), Rebbe's compilation of mishnayos may not have been 
physically written down until the Savora'im.

Since the Amora'im didn't create any new derashos, only presented disagreeing
mesoros about pre-existing ones, Mamrim 2:1 would not have every applied
during the period in question.

-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 Ruach Shtus, today's DY - see the Meshesh Chochmo Bamidbar 2:5 on
Nitzmadim l'Ba'al Pe'or - very "Maimonidean."

IMHO, another, not as important Meshe Chochmo, but nevertheless
interesting - on Zivug Rishon being from the Mazal vs. Bnos Tzelofchod,
"ahf en ohrt" - Bamidbar 36:2.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On 22 Dec 00, at 7:48, Micha Berger wrote:
> I've seen a number of divrei Torah comparing Tamar's quest to build malchus
> David with aishes Potifar's knowledge that her line would include Yosef's
> children. The two moshiach's will ome from these two women.

Rav Nebenzahl discusses this at length in his Sicha this week. He 
says that the difference is the l'Shem Shamayim of Tamar and the 
chisaron in the l'Shem Shamayim of Aishes Potiphar. 

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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.

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gdubin@loebandtroper.com>
>  Rashi in vayeshev explains, during Yosef's interpretation of the sar
>  hamashkim's dream, that "yisa Faro es roshecha" means that he will
>  count you in the number of servants. Then, when it actually happens,
>  Rashi gives what is apparently the same explanation. Why?

The Peirush Leket Bohir bring from Maskil Ledovid that because in another
posuk (19) those words have a completely different meaning,
Rashi again explains it here.

(IIRC RYZ wrote similar - I am just bringing a rayo to him...)

SBA

From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
> 3)   The Yosef Ometz (from the Hida) siman 103, brings a she'ela from a
> community that had an ancient agreement with a herem hamur not to dance men
> with women except a man with his wife a brother with his sister and
> similarly, and then some 15 youths asked that the heskem be nullified, and
> that there were indeed youths who were dancing with nochriyot and forbidden
> women.  The hida discusses the problem, and is concerned about negia between
> arayot.  However, he never raises an issue about the original takkana, or
> any concern about a man and his wife dancing.

I have before me the sefer "Shem Hag'dolim Hasholem Migdolei Hungaria"
(first published in Hungary in 1913) p.355:- v'zeh leshonoh:

"Reb Shimon Weinstock wote to me b'shem HGH"K Rav Yisochor Dov of Belz
shlit'a (the 3rd Belzer Rebbe), ...ma dekosuv b'Avodas Hakodesh leHaChido
(Moreh Bo'etzbah 308): "Lo Tehei Kozos lis'chok im noshim....im einon bnei
beyso ukrovosov, ach ein lehachmir leteil im krovosov ubilvad shelo yehei
bederech chibuk zro'oseihem kanohug, ki issur histaklus benoshim ukrovoson
hu otzum midina v'lo mitoras chasidus - uch'siv yad leyad lo yinokeh ra."

k'fi hanireh yad zorim sholtu kan, v'kach tzorich lomar: "Lo sehei
kozos lischok im noshim afilu bePurim uletayel imohen ki issur histaklus
benoshim ukrovoson vechulei..."

It adds that that is the loshon in sefer Avodas Hakodesh d'fus Zalkov.
UMitzvah Lehodia Zos Berabim. AK"L.

My informant for this piece - an impressive Talmid Chochom said - mimeno
yiru - that the others may also have suffered this problem.

SBA

Where is the Maharatz Chayes that permits uncovered hair, where most act
that way?

SA was badly misquoted.  Bais Shmuel was explaining and not changing the
nusach at all.  SA does NOT rule that uncovered hair is only das yehudis.
Rather hair covered with a mitpachas and not also a r'did is asur because of
das yehudis.  See Tur that a r'did is a shawl over the head and shoulders
like is worn today in Iran.  ROY is lenient that today mitpachas is enough.
See also Rav M Sternbuch in favor of the sheitel.

Shlomo Goldstein

RSBA wrote:
>> 10 poskim who OK'd  uncovered hair?
>> Any that are known to us?

On 22 Dec 00, at 10:28, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
> The only I've seen is the Maharatz Chajes who actually forbade uncovered
> hair. However, he clearly stated that in a place where most women do
> not cover their hair, it would be mutar (and quoted some rishonim to
> back himself up).

Cite? Also, who are "most women?" Most fruhm women, most Jewish women
or most women generally?

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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.

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gdubin@loebandtroper.com>
> Per Rabbi Neustadt's Halacha page this week, the shitas haPri
> Megadim is that if you can't get a minyan before, daven with a minyan
> after hadlaka rather than biychidus before.

Here- where we have a mixture of Oberlenders (n.Ashkenaz) and Chassidim
- the O's davven mincha earlier (some beychidus, but many at a special
early Mincha minyan in Shul - remember Shabbos only comes in here at
around 8.20 or so) whilst the CH light and then davven mincha at the zman.

SBA

At a bar mitzvah I recently attended, a pamphlet with birchath hamazon
was entitled "Seder Chanukah Hashalem" and included the zemer. Its
introduction reads: "BShu"t Mahar"i MiBruna Siman 137 hirher al hazemer
hazeh, l'fi shes'udath Chanukah einah mitzvah, aval b'hakdamah lizmiroth
Shabbath "Shlosha S'farim Niftachim" yishev zeh. U'r'eh od ma shekatav
bazeh b'sefer Imrei Pinchas (Koritz) Shaar 4 Ot 217.

Unfortunately, both sfarim referred to are not exactly household items,
but obviously the zemer was discussed.

From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
> It basically talks about spending Chanukah, not drinking water but
> shikerring...

Perhaps in the context of a s'udas mitzva (compare and contrast with
s'udas Purim).

> And although it mentions Shabbos Chanukah, it also talks about going
> to the pub (beis hayayin) twice daily (throughout Chanuka).

As I noted to Avi, the mentions of Chanukah IMHO are a bit strained --
the theme seems to rather be one of recreating a [chanukas] Bais Hamikdosh
atmosphere, ...

I did a search on "Beis Hayayin" and got many peirushim on what it refers
to including: Torah, Beis Tefilah, Sinai, Doro shel Moshiach, Ohel Moed,
with the Ibn Ezra saying it is the Beis Hamikdosh.

Now as the zemer itself is alleged to be from the Ibn Ezra - and being
Chanukah etc some charif could start to put together a pshetl which may
begin to make some sense of this pizmun.

SBA

PS I have been told that RY Emden has some togh comments about
th words. However it is not in his siddur but some other sefer of his.
If and when I am shown, I'll pass on the details.

PPS: It seems that this post came back -during the problems Avodah was
having - so I am resending it.

Meanwhile - the only new info I have on this - someone showed me a siddur
- published by Slonim Chasidim which includes this zemer but with some
minor changes and an additional verse which I can't=20 quite remember -
but mentions eating....."Matzos"!

Curiouser and curiouser....

And what about the abovementioned 'b'veis hayayin nolin- b'chol yom
paamayim.." - how can one 'nolin' twice daily???

SBA

On 22 Dec 00, at 7:49, Micha Berger wrote:
>          R' Carl Sherer replied:
> : IMHO the answer begs the question.  It essentially says that because 
> : the minhag of those who settled in Eretz Yisrael in the 18th and 19th 
> : centuries had a different minhag, that minhag is followed.  If that 
> : is so, why do we still see many different nuschaot (versions) of 
> : davening in Eretz Yisrael?
> 
> Actually, on points that all three groups (Sepharadim, Chassidim and
> Granikim) have the same nusach, E"Y DOES follow that nusach. For example,
> the longer version of "Yechadsheihu" for birchas hachodesh.

What I was questioning was how minhag is established. EY may have had
other minhagim which predated all three groups. That's why the minhagim
of those groups may not be binding, at least when it's not b'farhesya
where there is an issue of lo tisgodidu. Yechadsheihu is b'farhesya.

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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.

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> 2.  Was RSZA referring to someone who visits Israel or makes Aliyah?  I
> thought that those who make Aliyah are bound to accept all the psakim that
> are universally accepted in Israel.  After all, presumably most Ashkenazim
> came from homes in Europe which laid tefillin during Chol HaMoed.

I understand that the Rav of Jerusalem, Rav Y Z Dushinsky z'l (who in
some matters was noheg Minhag Ashkenaz) and his talmidim (obviously
only the Ashkenaz variety) - v'talmidei talmidov - ad hayom - all leig
tefilin at home b'tzina.

SBA

From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
>>                That is, in the case of the mumar, the overruling
>>presumption of l'datei d'nafshei avid would seem to work in favour of
>>lishma for his particular marriage, >

In message , S. Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il> writes
>It seems your clarification of Reb Micha's post is against the SA which
>prohibits a mumar writing a get.

Sorry? I think you are not understanding my explanation.  My explanation
was written in order to explicitly reconcile the fact that the SA does
not allow a mumar to write (ie be the sofer) on a get with the fact that
it does allow a mumar to  give a get (written by somebody else). Since
both of these explicitly require lishma, and that seems to be the
critical factor from the gemorra in gitten causing the problem as to why
a goy (and hence a mumar) cannot write a get, you need to find some way
of reconciling these two.  What you might infer from my explanation, is
that *in the case of his own get* maybe a mumar could actually write it
- however, in that context, one would expect the halacha as brought down
in the SA to posken lo plug.

>> However, then I started searching around for the ratzon
>>pasuk by get, but I could not find it, while the gemorra seemed to refer
>>me back to the korbanos pasuk for ratzon in gitten (See Yevamos 106a)....
>>Where is the pasuk of ratzon by get?

>See Rambam Geirushin 1:2 im lo timtza chen beinav

I know the Rambam - but all he says there is "elu min HaTorah" without
saying where.  So ask deeper than the Rambam. Where in the Torah is this
to be found (or is this actually a halacha Moshe m'Sinai)? The Magid
Mishna refers you to the Mishna in Yevamos 112b, which just states the
halacha (ie no psukim).    However, if you look at the Gemora in Yevamos
106a, which is the one I quoted to you, you will see that there it
brings a pasuk on precisely this inyan - except that the pasuk it brings
is Vayikra "yikarev" ie relating to korbanos and then follows with a
statement "and so it is by gittei nashim" (the gloss at the side there
refers to Vayikra 24, which has both yikarev, and concepts of ratzon
throughout, but the parallel sugya in Kidushin 50a and Baba Basra 48a as
well as in Rosh Hashana 6a and Arachin 21a, refers to Vayikra 1 where it
is easier to see, but again the pasuk relates to korbanos).

So I ask you again as I asked you previously, where is the pasuk that
makes it clear that ratzon is min haTorah in relation to Get?



On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:30:28PM +0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
>: a) the requirement of lishma - ie that a get must be given with the
>: intent for this particular woman....
>: b) the need for a get not to be given b'ones - ie the requirement for
>: ratzon ...
>: c) a requirement of belief in Torah.... And such a question may make sense,
>: give than a mumar l'avodah zara cannot bring korbanos ...

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes:
>(a) and (b) imply a need for kavanah. One can't be acting lishmah nor acting
>biratzon without consciously deciding to act purposefully. Without thinking
>"this is the way you divorce someone", you can't get to "I'm doing this to
>divorce someone", nor (a) "I'm doing this to divorce this particular woman",
>nor (b) "I want to divorce her by doing this".

But why are you assuming that he needs to think he is "divorcing"
someone?  I would imagine he uses that term to mean the termination of
the secular marriage he entered into.  What he would understand he was
doing was terminating the kiddushin - or if you like the Jewish marriage
(you know, the thing he only did because the parents wanted it with that
canopy and all the rest).  But given that in the secular world there is
a concept of entry and dissolution of marriage (it is just done in
different ways), so he would understand that a Jewish marriage has a
method of entry and a method of exit. He may only be doing it because
the wife or parents want, or somebody is nudging him, but that is likely
to be no different to the reason he had chuppah kiddushin in the first
place.

Regards
Chana

Chana Luntz:
>> Our m'sader kedushin required it - although in retrospect I think it was one 
>> of the things we should really have taken up with him and objected to.  I 
>> believe it is based on a mordechai holding that badeken is the real
>> kiddushin, and that RYBS was in favor of insisting on this.

Wolpoe, Richard <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes
>I am surprised that the rabbi here did not follow the nusach and minhag of
>the Sefardim. AIUI the guiding principle is to conform with local minhag,
>e.g. when I daven as a Shatz for Edot hamizrach I used havarat Sefardit,
>as well as the proper Sefardic Nusach, as best as I can.

I think the concern of the Rabbi, to be fair, was that a marriage is a
tricky halachic business - and it gets trickier if you are dealing with
minhagim whose basis you may not fully understand or be comfortable
with.  From his point of view, if we wanted a Sephardi wedding, we
needed to find a Sephardi Rov who knew what to do vis a vis such
minhagim. And, he is right it is a much more serious business than
merely davening as Shatz.

Regards
Chana

It is widely known that mincha in Skver on Erev Shabbos doesn't begin until
close to an hour after the shkia.

There are several lenincies they rely-on which permit them to daven mincha so
late.

First of all, they obviously rely on the shitas Rabeinu Tam: that there are two
shkias, the second one occuring 58 1/2 minutes after the conventional one, and
that tsais hacochavim  is 13 1/2 minutes later. [1]

Additonally, they rely on the opinion that one may daven mincha during bein
hashmoshos.

Finally, they rely on the opinion that as long as one begins the shmoneh esrai
before whatever the applicable deadline is, one may continue davening after it.
Therfore, they hold that as long as one starts shmoneh esrai before 72 minutes
after the shkia, one is okay.

The obvious question is why, l'chatchila, they rely on all of these kulas.

One reason may be an inyan of connecting the day to the night through tefilah.
If anyone knows of a mekor for this, please post it. I recall hearing one but
cannot recall what it was.

Another possible reason I thought of is that since the level of kedusha
increases as Shabbos approaches, they want to take advantage of the greatest
possible level of kedusha that one can still daven mincha of erev Shabbos at.

I thought of another possibility for at least one of part of the reason. Most
often, erev Shabbos is extremely hectic, busy and pressured right up until the
last minute. Therefore, by davening mincha so much later than licht bentching,
they are giving people a chance to relax and get in a better frame of mind for
davening mincha, preferably utilizing the time to learn, be marbeh sedra or
recite Shir HaShirim. In light of the explanations given for davening after
z'man tefilah, this would seem to be very plausible.

It seems to me like it can also be a good time to have a _light_  refreshment
[2]  or even take a short nap [3] in order to be rested and focused for mincha
and Shabbos.

The question still remains, though, why in Skver they are careful to finish
mincha _before_ shkia on Shabbos afternoon. I had thought that perhaps it was
one of the same reasons I proposed above for davening mincha so late on erev
Shabbos but in reverse. That is, that they want to daven mincha when there is
absolutely no safek that is Shabbos (with all of the kedusha therein). However,
the fact that the rebbe does not wash for shalosh seudos until much later would
seem to contradict that. (Unless the primary reason for that is that he wants to
recite or learn certain things _davka_ between mincha and shalosh seudos, which
would seem quite possible.

Lest anyone doubt it, let me make it clear that Skverer chasidim and
all others who daven mincha late, are careful not to do any melacha
after the first shkia. In fact, if I recall correctly, the minhag Skver
is to tsind licht 30 mins. before shkia, instead of the more common 20,
18 or 15 minutes.


[1] R' Moshe held that in the U.S., Rabeinu Tam's calculation was equivalent to
45 and 58 minutes after the first shkia,  respectively. Nonetheless, there are
many kehilos in the U.S.  who rely on the full calculation of Rabeinu Tam.)

[2] I don't recall whether or not they are mapkid not to eat after shkia but
being that the issur of eating before kiddush is only d'rabbonin and that they
obviously rely on R' Tam for davening mincha, it would make sense to me that
they would also eat or at least drink after shkia.

[3] Providing of course, that one has someone to make sure that he will get up
in time.

Just to prove that there is (almost) always a connection between Daf Yomi 
and the season....

This morning, I listened to the Dial a Daf shiur by R. Fischel Shechter, which 
was made at least one and maybe two cycles ago. The shiur today (Sota 5) 
dealt with gaava. Rav Shechter said that when a person R"L becomes a baal 
gaava, he forgets that there is anyone else in the world and that some things 
in the world don't belong to them. This is why a baal gaava is likely to be 
nichshal with an aishes ish - because he forgets that there are things that 
belong to someone else bichlal. 

He then brought a question from the Kdushas Yom Tov. The Medrash in 
Parshas VaYishlach says that when Yaakov went back by himself to his 
encampment, after he had split his family, he forgot "pachim ktanim." 
Lichora, why did Yaakov Avinu have the right to endanger himself to go back 
for pachim ktanim? The Kdushas Yom Tov explains that it was the first time 
in his life that Yaakov Avinu ever forgot anything. Yaakov Avinu feared that if 
he could forget even the smallest thing, he could R"L even forget the biggest 
thing - HKB"H. Because of that, Yaakov Avinu was moser nefesh (and was 
allowed to be moser nefesh) to go back to his previous encampment to 
retrieve the pachim ktanim. 

Chazal tell us that in the zchus of the pachim ktanim of Yaakov Avinu, his 
children merited the neis of the pach ha'shemen of neir Chanuka. What's the 
connection? The connection is obvious - the Greeks tried "l'hashkicham 
torosecha," to make us R"L forget the Torah. In the zchus of Yaakov Avinu's 
vigilance against shikcha, his children were zocheh to a miracle that saved 
them from shikcha.

May all of us be zocheh to remember all of our learning in the coming year, 
and to always feel the shefa of HKB"H around us.

-- 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.

The Rama writes that if one forgot Al Hanisim in either Shmo-ne Esray or in
Bentching, that he should say a Yehi Ratzon or Harachaman ya'aseh lanu
nisim, etc. kmo she-'asa la-avoseinu.

Rav Hershel Schachter would usually point out that this is problematic
because one should not ask Hashem for a miracle because one must pay for it
with ze-chuyos (along the lines of the3 several stories found in Maseches
Ta'anis).

In a conversation that had nothing to do with the above, Rav Yosef
Scheinberger of Yerushalayim and Boro Park pointed out to me that the
Mahrsha
on Kiddushin 40a (?) staes that if one davens for a miracle the gemara in
Maseches Ta'anis does not apply.  This would seem to be in opposition to the
previous paragraph.

N. Witty

See Or HaChaim, Bereishis 1:26 and Midrash Shmuel, Avos 3:18 in the name of R. 
Chaim Vital.

I wrote something up on this from many different philosophical approaches at 
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/image.html.  However, I'm not sure that I 
presented the Rambam's approach correctly.  I based my understanding on the 
Abarbanel's in his peirush al haTorah.

Gil Student

See Or HaChaim, Bereishis 1:26 and Midrash Shmuel, Avos 3:18 in the name of R. 
Chaim Vital.

I wrote something up on this from many different philosophical approaches at 
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/image.html.  However, I'm not sure that I 
presented the Rambam's approach correctly.  I based my understanding on the 
Abarbanel's in his peirush al haTorah.

Gil Student

Shlomo Goldstein wrote:
> Where is the Maharatz Chayes that permits uncovered hair, where most act
> that way?

Shu"t Maharatz Chajes (in Kol Sifrei Maharatz Chajes vol. 2). IIRC the
teshuvah is in the 60s.

Carl Sherer wrote:
> Also, who are "most women?" Most fruhm women, most Jewish women or most women 
> generally?

Presumably, frum Jewish women. In the Maharatz Chajes's day, gentile
women did not cover their hair.

Gil Student

>From: "Moshe Feldman" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>) BTW, I believe #2 and that is how I explain the phenomenon of sheitels
>) today.  I believe that R Ovadia Yosef proves pretty convincingly that
>) sheitels violated daas yehudis in the time of the gemara--the Aruch says
>) that Kapaltin (the word used in the Yerushalmi instead of Kalsa, used by the
>) Bavli) means a wig in Latin (lashon Romi).

Although note that when the gemorra in Nazir 28b wanted to explicitly
refer to a wig, it has a different term "pe'ah nochris".

>(My father told me that
>) capilitium means little hair, or something like that.)  The Shiltei
>) Hagiborim is shver (and I've read lots of the tshuvos--both pro and con
>) dealing with the SHG).

>) My chiddush on what ROY says is that because sheitels are in the realm of
>) daas yehudis, society can decide to be meikel against the gemara's
>) standards.  See my previous post about R. Willig's position re Shok b'isha
>) erva.

And earlier:
>Yet R. M Willig claims that the gemara of "shok b'isha erva"
>refers to the bottom of the foot (compare to hilchos sh'chita),

I am somewhat mystified by this discussion being based on hilchos
sh'chita.  Hilchos sh'chita is a discussion about behamos.  Now I could
understand it if the term shok were used only in these two contexts, a)
shok b'isha erva and b) by references to behamos, you might perforce
have to learn one from the other.  But the shok in a human being is
discussed elsewhere eg Mishna Oholos 1:8 on listing the different bones
in the human body which are metamei and Nazir 52b which brings the
tosephta that rov binyan (one of the tests for tumas ohel) is m'shnei
shokiim v'yerech echad.

Surely that is enough data to have the machlokus about what constitutes
the shok without needing to resort to discussions about cows?

Regards

Chana

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


[ 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         ]