Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 078

Wednesday, July 25 2001

• Re: Idealism
• Re: Idealism
• Re: question on tefila
• Re: perfect prophecy of parents in naming children
• Re: Dor Revi'i on eileh ha-d'varim asher di-beir moshe
• Re: question on tefila
• Re: Idealism
• mei meriva -shiur
• judging the avot favorably
• The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• Re: The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• RE: The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• Re: The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• Idealism and Tish'a b'Av
• Re: Rav Schwab on Tefila
• Mazal and Siyata diShemaya
• Re: Mazal and Siyata diShemaya
• Re: Mazal and Siyata diShemaya
• Re: Mazal and Siyata diShemaya
• Re: The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• RE: The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• RE: The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• Re: The Mitzvah of Aliyah

At 09:17 PM 7/23/01 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
>R' Saadia adds that "simchah" is the kind of happiness associated with
>laughter.
...
>R' Saadia Gaon continues by explaining that "yesharim" are those who see
>through to this inner truth. ...
>So I would like to suggest "yashar" as the term for idealism....

Actually, where I thought you were going originally is more interesting to me.

I have, in the past, related "samei'ach" to "shamah" (SMCh - SMH). And SMH 
to the Besht's famous: "B'mokom she'machshavto shel Odom shom hu he'Odom". 
Thus, one can relate simcha (besides all the other thoughts mentioned 
there) to idealism.

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

On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:02:44PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: I have, in the past, related "samei'ach" to "shamah" (SMCh - SMH). And SMH 
: to the Besht's famous: "B'mokom she'machshavto shel Odom shom hu he'Odom". 
: Thus, one can relate simcha (besides all the other thoughts mentioned 
: there) to idealism.

I also intended to make such a connection, but the thought slipped from me
while typing. RSRH makes /sh-m-h/ the shoresh from which we get "sheim".
By Hirsch's usual rules, /s-m-ch/ would be a more intensive/active form.
Understanding something's underlying reality fits that relationship to
naming it.

(Of course, Hirsch also relates "sham" to "sheim" as both refer to
an indirect entity.)

-mi

RGD writes:
> It occurred to me to ask (after how many times saying it??) why in
> birchas avos we say,  after zocheir chasdei avos,  >>umeivi go'el livnei
> veneihem<<. 

> How does this phrase fit into birchas avos?

Bpashtus, Meivee Goeil Livnei Vineihem is the logical outcome and expression 
of Zocheir Chasdei Ovos, Al Derech "Vzocharti Es Brisi..." Vayikra 26:42 (and 
see Rashi there).

RMB  writes:
> The Gra makes birchas Avos out to be an elaboration of "haKel haGadol
> haGibbor vehaNorah", which he takes to be a list of four nouns (the
> latter three could be adjectives or "the Great One, the Mighty One,
> the Awesome One").
<snip of URL>

> In short, there is no "haNorah" without "meivi go'el".

See Yuma 69b "Nochrim Mkarkirin Bheicholoi" is Nogeia to "Hanora", (and 
Bpashtus as Loshon Hakosuv "Mah *Noroh* Hamokom Hazeh...Beis E-lokim", 
likewise there is the Mitzvah of "Umikdoshee Tirou".)  While "Nochrim 
Mishtabdin Bivonuv" is Nogeia to "Gvurah". 

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/19/01 5:27:55pm EDT, cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> That should be 83b. The Gemara about the innkeeper with the 
> name that indicated a propensity to steal (I'm in the office with no 
> sforim...).

There are many Rayos to this, see i.e. the Mikor Chesed (R' Reuvein 
Margoliyas) on Sefer Chasidim # 244 (also brought in the Sefer Ziv 
Hasheimos), see also the letter from the L. Rebbe which was faxed and filed 
to Avoda.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

[I confess that I'm intentionally putting this email back-to-back with
the quote at the end of the previous one. I hope the digesting program
doesn't split the two. -mi]

From the Dor Revi'i website:
www.dorrevii.org

Eileh ha-d'varim asher diber Moshe: In the Midrash (D'varim Rabbah)
it is written:

    Until Moshe merited to receive the Torah, the Scripture writes
    about him (Exodus 4:10):, "I am not a man of words" (lo ish d'varim
    anokhi). But after he acquired the Torah, his speech defect was
    cured and he began to speak "words" (d'varim). From where do we
    know this? From the verse "These are the words which Moshe spoke"
    (eileh ha-d'varim asher dibeir Moshe).

Now it may be asked, were not all the Israelites cured of their ailments
when the Torah was given? What then was noteworthy about Moshe? And
our master explained that Moshe our teacher, peace be upon him, owing
to his extreme modesty, never wanted to be a ruler who would lead the
Children of Israel. Nor did he ever presume in his heart to become
one who reproves the people. And that is why he said "I am not a man
of words" who, in my own words, should speak harshly to the multitudes
and scold my people concerning their iniquities and the House of Jacob
about their transgressions.

However, after Moshe received the Torah, he was able to reprove them
without affronting them, for he could say to them: "This is what is
written in the Torah. This is what you should do and this is what you
should not do." As the Rabbis said in the Talmud, "if one's father or
teacher transgresses a commandment in the Torah" (so that it would be
disrespectful to reprove them directly) "he should say, ˇso has our
master taught us' or ˇFather, this is what is written in the Torah." By
speaking in such a fashion, he will not disgrace them.

So it was with Moshe. Before he received the Torah, its laws and statutes,
Moshe could reprove them only with words of his own choosing. And
because he was so modest, Moshe said "I am not a man of words that I
should raise my voice to rebuke others." But when he received the Torah,
he raised his voice like a shofar and he said to them, "such and such
has G-d commanded." And therefore it is properly written "These are the
words which Moshe spoke" (eileh ha-d'varim asher diber Moshe).

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:03:46 EDT Yzkd@aol.com writes:
<<Bpashtus, Meivee Goeil Livnei Vineihem is the logical outcome and expression 
of Zocheir Chasdei Ovos, Al Derech "Vzocharti Es Brisi..." Vayikra 26:42
(and see Rashi there).>> 

I posed this question to Rav Dovid Cohen who answered along the same
lines, but with reference to the bris bein habesarim; part of the havtacha
to the avos at that time was dor revi'i yashuvu hena; bechiras ha'avos
is inseparable from geulah.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:02:44PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: I have, in the past, related "samei'ach" to "shamah" (SMCh - SMH). And SMH 
: to the Besht's famous: "B'mokom she'machshavto shel Odom shom hu he'Odom". 
: Thus, one can relate simcha (besides all the other thoughts mentioned 
: there) to idealism.

I realize that in my previous reply I didn't explain why I disagree,
and to what small extend we differ.

Yes, simchah is related to idealism. But it's the feeling one gets from
knowing the underlying truth. "Ivdu es Hashem bisimchah" is to
serve Him while keeping the ideal in focus.

The person who is oveid besimchah is yashar. However, the person
who is still struggling toward that ideal and isn't there yet is
also an idealist and also yashar -- someone who is heading straight
toward the goal.

IOW, LAD, being bisimchah means having the ideal in sight. Yashar means
working toward that ideal -- whether or not you have it in sight yet.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                 - R' Binyamin Hecht

http://www.tanach.org/bamidbar/chukat/chukats2.htm
r leibtag's text analysis is always elegant...

[I prefer including an abstract, with a URL, here are the first two
non-parenthetic paragraphs.

> To test a new theory, I'd like to share with you a shiur concerning
> when the events at Mei Meriva took place, and I would appreciate your
> feedback. The theory may sound a bit 'radical' at first and I'm not at
> all convinced that its correct, but I'd like to share it with you since
> it's very interesting and maybe someone can help me prove or disprove it.

...

> Just about everyone takes for granted that the Mei Meriva incident takes
> place in the 40th year. The reason for this is quite simple - Mei Meriva
> takes place immediately after the death of Miriam (see Bamidbar 20:1),
> and Miriam died in the first month of the fortieth year - didn't she? (See
> Board #1.)

> Let's double check this assumption ...

-mi]

The gemora(sotah 36b) recounts the incident of Yosef and [eishes] potiphar
(he was about to sin when he saw dyokno shel aviv). The maharatz chiyut
refers to a sh"ut Ralbach 126 which discusses the question of why would
the gemora ever(eg here, david with avigayil etc) interpret an unclear
reference in a negative manner(for a tzadik) If anything chazal usually
bend over backwards to interpret fairly clear negative references in a
positive manner for tzadikkim.

AIUI the Ralbach answers that chazal would only do this when other psukim
pushed them in that direction and in any event there was no real sin,
only machshava which is not mitztaref to maaseh. In addition, since they
overcame the obstacle, it was really not a negative story.

I was left with the impression that chazal had no direct mesorah on
these issues. I'd be happy to share the tshuva and be interested in
other's take on it and it's efficacy.

On the same topic the Ben Yehoyada AIUI answers that they let their taavot
be inflamed in order to conquer them which is much more praiseworthy
then putting out the fire of a small taavah and not letting it get
bigger. (Seems to me I heard this as the reason why adam ate the apple
but that he was unsuccesful).

Any implications here for modern darshanim?

KT
Joel

From: Stuart Klagsbrun [mailto:SKlagsbrun@agtnet.com] on Areivim
> 
> You are of course assuming that Aliyah is a mitzvah chiyuvit.

I am.  AFAIK, only RMFeinstein posited that it's a mitzvah kiyumis,
explaining the Rambam's decision not to count aliyah as one of the 613
mitzvos.  (Of course, we know that there are many mitzvos deoraisa that are
not counted as part of the 613 count because of various technicalities.)  I
have heard it argued that the majority of Rishonim agree with Ramban that
aliyah is a clear mitzvah.  

In fact, I have heard it argued that there is no other case of mitzvah
kiyumis.  The classic cases of tzitzis and ma'akeh are not really analogous:
if you are wearing a 4 cornered garment or have a roof, you *must* perform
the appropriate mitzvah.  What example of mitzvah is there where you don't
have to perform it, but if you perform it, you get a mitzvah?  The only case
I can think of is mitzvos aseh she'hazman grama for women: they are aino
mitzuveh v'oseh, so if they do it, they perform a mitzvah, but they are not
compelled to perform it.  But in that case, at least men have a mitzvah.

Mitzvah means you are "commanded" to do it.  We don't have optional--if you
feel like it--mitzvos.  Halacha creates imperatives.  Effectively, some
mitzvos often get short shrift if they are preempted by others.  But if
there is no preemption, they must be done.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


_______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is
protected by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for
the sole use of the intended recipient.  If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying
or retention of this e-mail or the information contained herein is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please
immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail, and
permanently delete this e-mail from your computer system.  Thank you.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:21:18PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: In fact, I have heard it argued that there is no other case of mitzvah
: kiyumis.  The classic cases of tzitzis and ma'akeh are not really analogous:
: if you are wearing a 4 cornered garment or have a roof, you *must* perform
: the appropriate mitzvah...

Like shechitah, or eating a se'udah in a Sukkah (lirov shitos) or hamotzi
on Pesach after the first night (of their respective Yamim Tovim)...

It needn't be a chovas cheftzah.

But what about tzedakah? Or an olah or shelamim? Aren't these mitzvos
that aren't chiyuvim?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                          - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:21:18PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>: In fact, I have heard it argued that there is no other case of mitzvah
>: kiyumis.  

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> But what about tzedakah? 

I would think that there is a mitzvah of tzedakah (whether with money, or
simply to do chesed), just that there are limitations based on the person's
ability to give.  As I've noted on occasion WRT a related area, Rav
Lichtenstein argued (based on Ramban on the pasuk) that v'aseisa hayashar
v'hatov is a mitzvah to do l'fnim m'shuras hadin.  There's no inherent
contradiction: Hashem wants us to 612 mitzvos that are static and He added a
613 mitzvah kolleles which tells us to extrapolate from these mitzvos to
other situations (see also Ramban on K'doshim T'hyu).

> But what about ... an olah or shelamim? Aren't these mitzvos
> that aren't chiyuvim?

I am no expert in kodshim, but with a little intuition and my Bar Ilan
CD Rom I found the following: The pasuk in Davarim 16:17 (dealing with
olas ri'ee'ya) says "Ish k'matnas yado k'vircas Hashem Elokecha asher
nasan lach." Rashi on that pasuk alludes to the Mishnah Chagigah 8b which
says that whoever has more eaters and not that much property brings many
shlamim and few olos; one who has much property and few eaters brings few
shlamim and many olos; one who has many of each--on this it is written
"Ish k'matnas yado."

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 07:52:36PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:>: In fact, I have heard it argued that there is no other case of mitzvah
:>: kiyumis.  

: > But what about tzedakah? 
: 
: I would think that there is a mitzvah of tzedakah (whether with money, or
: simply to do chesed), just that there are limitations based on the person's
: ability to give....

I don't see how this touches on the matter at hand. When one sees a given
opportunity for tzedakah (assuming he wasn't approached by the ani and
asked) he can get a mitzvah by doing is, and is not oveir on any lavim if
he doesn't.

:> But what about ... an olah or shelamim? Aren't these mitzvos
:> that aren't chiyuvim?

:                                          n Davarim 16:17 (dealing with
: olas ri'ee'ya) says "Ish k'matnas yado k'vircas Hashem Elokecha asher
: nasan lach." Rashi on that pasuk alludes to the Mishnah Chagigah 8b which
: says that whoever has more eaters and not that much property brings many
: shlamim and few olos; one who has much property and few eaters brings few
: shlamim and many olos; one who has many of each--on this it is written
: "Ish k'matnas yado."

But again, someone who brings one or the other is yotzei a mitzvah, and 
someone who doesn't bring any isn't oveir on any lavim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

(As you can tell, I've really been fascinated by this train of thought.)

For three of the four occurances of the alef-beis in megillas Eichah,
the letter pei preceeds ayin. Why?

Chazal relate this to the first calamity of Tish'a B'av, the meraglim.
They put their peh before their einayim. But the meraglim didn't lie,
there actually were giants and strong walled cities and abnormally huge
fruit, etc...

What they lacked was simchah -- knowledge of the underlying truth.
Without that the meraglim reconstructed the evidence and reached a
conclusion totally opposite from reality. They saw, but they were blind.

The Sifri writes (as quoted in R' Leff's Sfas-Emes class posted here)
that Moshe Rabbeinu alone was able to say "*Zeh* hadar", other nevi'im
only had "koh amar Hashem" ("like this", not "this"). Note that nevu'ah
was only recieved besimchah.

Which brings us to parashas Devarim and megillas Eichah's cry "Eichah
-- Ei koh?" Without "zeh divar Hashem", without even "koh amar Hashem"
there can be no ish yashar. The pei preceeds the ayin. The cheit of the
meraglim survived down to the generation of Yirmiyahu.


"Venomar lifanav shir chadash al ge'ulaseinu vi'al pedus nafsheinu".

Who says Hallel? Hallel is reserved for the neis nigleh. The daily
miracles that are behester panim don't get Hallel -- aren't even /allowed/
to get Hallel. (Kol ha'omer Hallel bichol yom...) Hallel is said
besimchah, when one can clearly see the emes. "Ranenu tzadikim Bashem,
laYESHARIM navah sehillah." (Which is then elaborated in Nusach Ashkenaz,
"befi yesharim tishallal...")

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 03:56:24PM -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
: It seems that Rav Schwab follows the derech of Rav Hirsch in observing and 
: learning from nature / natural occurrences...

This is a very existential approach to things -- seeing the world not
"as-is" but as an encounter, defining it in terms of personal impact.

And I therefore wonder if it's related to RSRH's approach to mitzvos.
The point of his whole symbology system is that mitzvos are experiences
from which we can learn, and he defines what we learn from each din in
very concrete terms. Mitzvos as encounters.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:15:20PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote to Areivim:
: Moreover, level of income is min ha'shamayim in any event; 
: parnassa is supposed to be all mazal...

I agree with the first statement, but not the second. Mazal is possibly
the direct opposite of siyata diShemaya. Abandonment to the probabilities
or predetermination of teva.

Presumably the Rambam would hold that the "Yisrael" in "ein mazalos
biYisrael" is the same as that of "kol Yisrael yeish lahem chelek
li'olam haba". The community of ma'aminim, not all people who are
halachically Jewish. Because, as we've discussed numerous times before,
it is only the yedi'ah that builds the connection through which one
recieves siyata diShemaya.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On 25 Jul 2001, at 8:42, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:15:20PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote to Areivim:
> : Moreover, level of income is min ha'shamayim in any event; 
> : parnassa is supposed to be all mazal...
> 
> I agree with the first statement, but not the second. Mazal is possibly
> the direct opposite of siyata diShemaya. Abandonment to the probabilities
> or predetermination of teva.

Then how do you explain the Gemara at the end of Kiddushin (82b)? The
Gemara says that you should teach your son an umnus n'kiya v'kala because
neither aniyus nor ashirus comes from the umnus but from Shamayim. It
seems then that the umnus is just a kli to make a parnassa, and the
parnassa depends on what HKB"H gives you. Is that mazal or siyata
d'shmaya? The latter sounds like there's an element of success required
(if Hashem helps you, you will be successful), while the former seems
more in line with the Gemara's seeming assertion that the umnus doesn't
matter, so you may as well choose one that is n'kiya v'kala.

-- Carl
Carl M. Sherer, Adv. Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751 Fax 972-2-625-0461 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459
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.

In a message dated Wed, 25 Jul 2001  8:43:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:15:20PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote to Areivim:
>: Moreover, level of income is min ha'shamayim in any event; 
>: parnassa is supposed to be all mazal...

> I agree with the first statement, but not the second. Mazal is possibly
> the direct opposite of siyata diShemaya. Abandonment to the probabilities
> or predetermination of teva.

Does min hashamayim mean that no matter what level of hishtadlut you
exert(including 0) that you will have the same level of income that year?

KT
Joel

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 04:12:42PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: Then how do you explain the Gemara at the end of Kiddushin (82b)? The
: Gemara says that you should teach your son an umnus n'kiya v'kala because
: neither aniyus nor ashirus comes from the umnus but from Shamayim. ...
: Is that mazal or siyata d'shmaya?

The gemara actually says EXACTLY what I did.

Obviously if it's min haShamayim then it's siyata diShemaya. Nearly the
same words, different language.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 09:19:50AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
:> I agree with the first statement, but not the second. Mazal is possibly
:> the direct opposite of siyata diShemaya. Abandonment to the probabilities
:> or predetermination of teva.

: Does min hashamayim mean that no matter what level of hishtadlut you
: exert(including 0) that you will have the same level of income that year?

No, that would be mazal. Mazal is either a statement of "luck" or that
one's fortune is causally determined, depending upon how one believes
constellations effect what goes on down here. Which is why I sais
"probabilities or predetermination".

Using REED's formula, siyata diShmaya is proportional to bitachon, and
therefore the effect of one's hishtadlus is to fill in the gap left
over. However, relying on bitachon alone is for yichidei segulah. For
the rest, "lo alsa biyadam".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 07:52:36PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> In fact, I have heard it argued that there is no other case of mitzvah
> kiyumis.

How about nedarim, gittin, shechita, yefas toar?

David Riceman

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> I don't see how this touches on the matter at hand. When one sees a given
> opportunity for tzedakah (assuming he wasn't approached by the ani and
> asked) he can get a mitzvah by doing is, and is not oveir on any lavim if
> he doesn't.

Of course, the issue is whether he is mevatel an aseh, not violates
lavim. However, one can argue that tzedakah, unlike let's say mitzvos
aseh she'hazman graman, is a general requirement to be fulfilled over
one's life time. If you don't give to one ani, you'll give to the next.
Look at Dvorim 15:7-11 and in particular pasuk 9 (with Rashi) "v'haya
b'cha cheit" (though it is talking in particular in the case of "karva
sh'nas ha'sheva").

Compare to the well-studied case of pru urvu, which is clearly a mitzvah
chiyuvis. A person is not considered to be metavel the aseh every day
over the age of 13 that he's not married. We give him time, let him find
the appropriate zivug. If he purposely doesn't date his entire life,
presumably he will have been mevatel the aseh. If he purposely doesn't
date until 30 (because he wants to have fun), presumably he is not mevatel
the aseh. If he gets married and purposely doesn't have children until
the age of 30 (because he wants to have fun), presumably he is mevatel
the aseh. But if he feels to earn more money or complete medical school,
it's not proper but I don't know whether he's considered to be mevatel
the aseh (I have vaguely heard of "heterim"--can anyone elaborate?).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
> How about nedarim, gittin, shechita, yefas toar?

I think what I said applies to these too:
: The classic cases of tzitzis and ma'akeh are not really analogous:
: if you are wearing a 4 cornered garment or have a roof, you *must* perform
: the appropriate mitzvah...

If you want to eat, you must do schita; if you want to make a neder, you
must keep it; if you want to divorce you must give a get; if you want an
aishes y'fas toar, you must do it a certain way.

No one I know has decided to get an aishes y'fas toar so that they can
fulfill the mitzva kiyumis of doing the appropriate things to her.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

"Feldman, Mark" wrote:
> If you want to eat, you must do schita;

Really? I've eaten meat and I have never done shchita. Someone else has
not only done shchita, he's made a bracha. Admittedly, for him it's a
parnassah ...

> if you want to make a neder, you must keep it;

But surely making a neder and keeping it is a kiyum of an aseh (as is
being mefer a neder). Failing to keep it violates a lav.

> if you want to divorce you must give a get

This IIRC is a machloketh between the Rambam and the Smag (look at the
Smag's lashon).

> This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is
> protected by law ...  If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, ... is
> strictly prohibited.

I'm not an attorney, so this is probably a stupid question, but how did
you make the transition from "may" to "is"?

David Riceman

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


[ 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         ]