Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 055

Tuesday, July 2 2002

• Re: masorah
• Re: kavana in shma
• pinchas/moshe/forgot
• The MB and psaq
• Re: Sharkskin, sturgeon and kosher caviar
• Re: Amazing Piaczesner
• RE: kavana
• RE: Do we still need to stop working at hatzos on eruv shabbos?
• Re: Tefila al haniftar
• Re: Tefila al haniftar
• Re: The/A mesorah
• Re: Derashah and Sevarah
• avenu malkanu
• Re: Halacha as Experiential Reality
• RE: Resolving Igun Through DNA (was Re: Black Jews)
• Re: OU and Israeli produce
• Re: Tur organization
• RE: Pledge of allegiance
• Re: mesorah
• Do we still need to stop working at hatzos on eruv shabbos?
• Re: Black Jews
• Re: Black Jews
• Re: Tur organization
• Administrivia: Bouncing posts

On Sunday 30 June 2002 02:26, S Goldstein wrote:
> RAF> In conclusion, reb Eldad's story has little to do with parallel
>> messorot, unless you consider only the reactions of then contemporary
>> authorities. However, you'd first have to separate all those authorities
>> in sceptics and believers in Eldad.

> If no one rejects Eldad HaDani because his masorah is not the exact same
> lineage as ours, lichora there is a rayah about considering the validity of
> an alternative masorah.

Interesting point. However, I believe that it is incorrect, because
before discussing parallel mesorot, the poskim would have had to believe
him. Having said that, you are probably on to something, if we consider
only those poskim who really believed him (unlike the Mordechai I quoted
who rejects his psak), and see whether they even dealt with the issue.

Arie Folger

On 28 Jun 2002 at 16:37, Brown, Charles.F wrote:
> Excuse my ignorance in asking this - Is there a makor (other than sevara)
> for mitzvos tzerichos kavana of the type in pesachim 114?

What about the Mishna in Brachos 2:1?

-- Carl

The medrash tells us that Moshe "forgot"(nitalmah) the halacha of kanaim
pogin bo and that pinchas "remembered" (nizcar). Later in the medrash
it refers to Moshe as having experienced "rafu Yadav"(not forgot?) and
that he was "nitatzel"(lazy?) he was punished - this is why no one knows
moshe's burial spot.

If Moshe literally forgot the halacha (as it seems to me is the universal
understanding), why was he punished?

If he had remembered it, could he have carried it out given his personal
involvement (zimri questiones his ability to marry bat yitro). If he
couldn't carry it out, would he have been permitted to reteach it at
that point?

Why had everyone else also forgotten?

The medrash elsewhere mentions nitalma by moshe but always as a result
of his own actions(kaas or gaavah at some level). Here it seems he
forgot only so pinchas could get schaar?(In fact at least one commentary
questions why didn't moshe act when pinchas reminded him of the halacha
and answrs that Moshe assumed his forgetfullness was Hashem's way of
telling him that Pinchas should do it. Given Moshe's ongoing communication
with Hashem, is this a reasonable answer?

HELP!

KT
Joel Rich

R. Moshe Feldman: <Does that mean that the CC intended for his sefer to
a sefer of limud for ba'alei batim, not a sefer psak?>

R. David Finch: <Second, the CC was personally too modest to attempt
to rewrite large chunks of halacha in a form that might purport to be
a ruling psak.

As far as I can tell, the CC intended the MB to be a useful guidebook
for those who didn't have the opportunity to learn Jewish law through
more formal and demanding sources. Other Jews took the MB and used it
for their own communitarian purposes.>

I would like to remind people that the CC himself told us what the
purpose of the MB was. No need for conjecture. He went to the trouble
of writing an introduction, which was not necessary.

The practice of reading introductions seems to be a lost art. Among
the dozens of modern yeshiva leit who believe that halokho always
follows the MB that I have queried innocently about what the CC says in
the introduction, I have drawn only blank stares. I have not run across
anyone (yes, lo ra'inu einu ra'aya) who had read it; all they could tell
me was that everyone knows that we follow the MB. I therefore think that
R. Akiva Atwood and others can save frum printers hundreds of thousands
of dollars over the course of the years by advising them to remove the
introductions of the authors to all the old books they reprint. No one
reads the introduction of the BY or the SA either.

For those corrupt souls among us who think mistakenly that it might be
nice to pay attention to what the CC says to us, below is a condensation,
sticking to his words as much as practical. The purpose is not to
believe me and my summary, but go read it yourself and see. [Warning:
the following material should be kept from impressionable eyes...]

The CC spends the first page stressing the importance of learning and
doing the mitzos, that that is the way that Jews earn the Olam haBo, as
it says hayyei 'olam nata' b'tokhenu. On the second page he continues
that "even though everything that a person learns, even in qodoshim
and taharot, he is m'qayyem therebye a mitzvas 'aseh of Talmud Torah,
nevertheless, the 'iqar of what a pershon learns should be in limmud
hamevi lidei ma'aseh... And therefore it is clear that Orah Hayyim should
be the first part of the SA to learn of the four sections of the SA,
since even though they all are necessary l'ma'aseh, nevertheless it
comes first since knowledge of it is necessary every day... However,
ba'avonotenu harabbim if we look, we see that only a small number of
people set a seder for learning it, even people... who hold fast to the
stronghold of the Torah and observing the mitzvos... So I set about to
understand the reason for this, and I concluded that there are two.

First is that the SA by itself without learning the Tur is not
comprehensible, because when he wrote the SA it was the BY's intention
that people should first learn the sources of the halokho in the Tur
and the BY, so that he would understand the reasoning and logic of each
shitta and the practical differences between each... Many times it happens
that the SA combines in one s'if something that is only l'khat'hilla
with another that is b'di'eved and l'iqquva, something that is d'orayso
with something d'rabbonon, and there will be a difference if there is
a safeq etc... But learning every din in the SA with its sources and
reasons from the Tur and the SA is too great a task for most people
nowadays... since in this way one medium siman may take several days
and sometimes a few weeks...

The second reason... is that it is difficult to know the halokho l'ma'aseh
because of the multiple disagreements brought by the acharonim... and
even if he would want always to be mahmir in the matter, that is also not
a safe way, because sometimes it will be a chumra that leads to a kula.
I also see that from the time the B'er Heitev summarized the Taz and
the Mogen Avrohom and others and responsa about 150 years have passed,
and in the meantimes there have been very many famous g'onim who have
dealt with the matters, such as the Elya Rabba, the Matteh Y'hudah,
and many others, and the Sha'arei T'shuva only brings a little bit of
this in some places. In particular, the Pri M'godim, which is a great
work and deals in each siman with new questions l'ma'aseh, and whose
conclusions have been accepted is almost not quoted almost at all in
the Sha'arei T'shuva... and similarly many many other famous g'onim
whose views have been accepted after the Sha'arei T'shuva was printed,
such as R. 'Aqiva Eiger, Derekh haHayyim... So that now if a person
wants to understand some halokho l'ma'aseh that is not fully discussed
in the SA, he will have so search in many acharonim... Therefore I have
strengthened myself with the grace of G-d to fix these matters. I have
written an explanation to the SA that is sufficient in my opinion... and
explained each din in the SA with its reasons and logic from the g'moro
and posqim... and in each matter where there are disagreements among the
posqim I have presented the conclusions of the acharonim (gathered from
the BaH, the D'risha, the Elya Rabba, the G'Ro the P'ri M'godim...)"
Notice that nowhere does he mention presenting his conclusion about the
halokho as one of his intentions. Of course, in a work of this kind it is
inevitable the some of the CC's own views would work their way in, but
that clearly was not part of his plan. Nor was deciding in each halokho
which of the opinions that he brings should be followed. Contrast this
to the introduction of the Beis Yosef, who explicitly states that his
work is intented to pasken halokho for all Jews so that the Torah will
no longer be like "two Torahs."

The other conclusive proof that the CC did not intend his work to be a
book of psaq is that in numerous places we know from his talmidim and
from his family that he himself did not follow what is claimed to be
"the view of the MB." What possible reason could there be for him not
following his own views, except that he himself did not conceive of them
as his own views? Virtually all non-chasidic frum Jews in Europe at the
beginning of the century viewed the CC as the greatest living tzaddiq,
yet none of them in Europe considered him a poseq, nor, as others have
recounted here, that the MB was intended as a book of psaq. I believe that
the very Jews who think they are paying respect to the CC by following the
MB are causing him 'ogmas nefesh in the 'Olam Ho'Emes by distorting his
own views and using his own book against the purpose that he intended. I
have no doubt that he would be horrified to see talmidim studying the
MB thinking in their ignorance (as many that I have spoken to do) that
they can pasken halokho from the MB without even understanding the SA
and without studing the BY. No graduate of Radin ever got s'mikha from
anyone on the basis of his knowing the MB.

Seth Mandel

R. Josh Backon wrote: <What the Noda B'Yehuda was referring to was the
dried bladder of a treif fish used in making some kind of a drink. In
NO way was he saying that sturgeon is a kosher fish... There is no posek
in 300 years who ever stated that sturgeon is kosher.>

My esteemed friend R. Josh is a boqi in many areas that I will never
be. He indeed is not making things up: the Noda' BiYhudah was referring
to the dried bladder of a treif fish used to make isinglass... in Noda'
BiYhudah Qama Yoreh De'ah #26.

However, I don't make things up in subjects I have looked into either. In
Mahadurah Tinyana Yoreh De'ah #28, he states that the sturgeon is kosher.
His son, after his death, is forced to defend his father's view from
scurrilous attacks in #29 and #30. There is absolutely no question that
the Noda' BiYhudah was referring to the sturgeon. Details about the
matter as well as some comments about the t'shuva on isinglass I shall
post b'n to Avodah in one of my sleep-inducing long posts, where I shall
repeat my question why the Noda' BiYhudah's view is completely ignored:
for the sake of truth in Torah, at least let people assert that they do
not pasken like him.

Seth

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> A correspondent noted to me last week that in the Bnei Machashava Tova the
> Piascezner justifies those whom the Ra'avad defends as having conceived
> G-d in bodily form as having done so in order to facilitate kavanah in
> tefilah - the P. says that if all else fails, it is still permissible
> to visualize Hashem as a merciful father sitting on a throne and one
> supplicating before Him , in order to focus properly during davening
> (p. 19)!!!

Amazing! 

One danger in attributing earthly qulities to G-d in order to facilitate
Kavanah is that that visualization becomes relative to one's own
particular bias.

I would, for instance visualize G-d to look like my uncle Seymour.
Others may pick George Burns as their visual image! Some, OTOH, might
pick the image depicted on the Cistene Chapel. But even more dangerous
is the image becoming G-d Himself! Isn't this a form of Avodah Zarah?

HM 

> What about the Mishna in Brachos 2:1?

Ain hachi nami, and the sugya in Pes. 114, Eiruvin 95. But in all
these cases the gemara assumes there exists according to some opinion
a requirement for kavanah. The question I was raising is what is the
Mishna/gemara's source for such an idea - is it a sevara, or is there
a derasha, or some other limud? What't the makor?

After trying to be mechalek between lishma and kavana, found the
following Shibolei HaLeket - the reason tefilah does not require kavanah
(except in Avos) is because since tefilos k'neged temidim tiknum, and a
korban olah is kosher b'stama w/o kavanah, the same applies to tefilah.
Mefurash that he is comparing the din of lishma from Zevachim to the
din of kavana by tefilah.

2 notes on the R' Chaim by tefilah - 1) R' Chaim assumes three kavanos:
the regular din of mitzvos tzerichos kavana, a din of kavana meaning
awareness of one's actions and not being a mitasek, and a third kavanah
of understanding what you are saying which only applies to Avos.
The second din is peculiar - why davka by tefila does the Rambam bring
a din of kavana l'afukei mitasek?  This should be a din by all mitzvos. 
2) The Rambam in ch. 10 explains that only by Avos is there a requirement
for kavana l'ikuva. Chakira: does this din of kavana apply only to avos
and not to the rest of tefila, or the din of kavana applies to all of
tefila, but once you have set yourself with kavana in the first beracha
m'meila all of tefila has a "shem" tefila b'kavana (see Igros haGRI"D
p. 30 written before the Rav heard R' Chaim's pshat)? If you assume
the secomd tzad, there is no kashe from ch. 4 where the Rambam says all
of tefila needs kavana. That is true - with the caveat in ch. 10 that
the necesseary kavana is established in the 1st bracha.

-Chaim 

> 2. In the past, it took a lot longer to prepare for shabbos. Now, one
> can shave, shower, iron, etc., in under 30 minutes.
> 3. With that, should one still lechatchilo stop working at hatzos on
> eruv shabbos?

The way that I understand it, it doesn't have to do with how long it takes
one to shower and shave. It has to do with the fact that Shabbos does not
fall on our heads like a lead ball on the second that we light candles,
it slowly seeps into our day from hatzot on. The emanations of Shabbos
start slowly and become stronger until we are totally enveloped in that
space in time called Shabbos. Therefore, we stop work when Shabbos starts
coming in, not when it is finished arriving.

---Rena 

In a message dated 7/1/02 10:27:34am EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
>> Isn't the whole theory behind saying Kaddish for twelve months that
>> during those twelve months the niftar/eres will have their din, will
>> serve whatever time they need to serve in that other place and then
>> (if they are ever going to) make it to Gan Eden?
 
> Agreed. If so, what's a year and what's 50 years? (IOW al harishonim
> anu mitzta'arim <g>. You've added to the problem. However, the 12
> months has a makor in the Gemara, at least.

Yet we understand that the sifrei metim and chayim are open every year
and that the meitim are judged as well based on the after effects of their
lives. I have a feeling this is a case where alternative approaches have
been "reconciled" yet, as always, leave jagged edges.

KT
Joel

On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 01:35:30PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: 2) For those murdered al kiddush Hashem, do they bichlall need such
: tefilos?
: Don't they get their just rewards - for being Kedoshim?

Is reward an all-or-nothing? Wouldn't a qadosh who had sufficient
hashpa'ah to cause people to say tefillos in their memory still be on
a higher madreiga than one who didn't?

-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 Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 12:43:09AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: 1) It is clear to me that Ezra made various Takkanos to distinguish
: Jews from Samaritans, etc. It would be hard to see a non-Ezra versoin
: of Judaism as being Judaism as we know it. {Probably would not be even
: termed "Judaism"

Of course not! Technically, Judaism is the religion and culture of the
survivors of Judaea. But I think your reponse is overly focussed in
this direction.

The real question is whether such a kehillah is observing the beris Sinai,
and if so, if their observance can/ought have any impact on ours.

: Think about this: Let's say a community followed some combination of
: Tanach and Josephus, how would you view them?

But we're talking about one that didn't break from TSBP. Rather, one whose
TSBP evolves differently than ours. And yet evolved entirely within the
rules of pesaq.

-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 Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 01:54:48PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Ribui and Miut and Es etc. are from the Rabbi Akiva School The 13 middos
: WE know and love are from the Rabbi Yishmael School
...
: Remember many rules are formulations of categories that can be grouped
: together differenly...

Even ribui umi'ut vs kelal uperat?

Ribui imi'ut are syntactic. Certain key words are ribu'im, other mi'utim
-- even if the context is a negative clause so that a more inclusive
word actually reduces scope.

Kelal uperat are semantic. Does the Torah mean something that is more
inclusive, or more limiting? You can describe a kelal without quoting
or translating. Not so a ribui.

Li nir'eh it's related to the machlokes of dibra Torah belashon benei
adam. If it doesn't, then each word is mined for meaning, and derashah
inheres in the word. If it does, then the meaning of the phrase is
more relevent, even for derashah.

: All of the above begs the more fundamental question, which came first
: the Halachah or the Midrash?

Both are from Sinai, no?

I think you're asking whether derashos are used to prove halachos that
are already yadu'ah, or used to derive new halachos. This question has
been debated here repeatedly.

-mi

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

I have been unable to locate the source or the reason why in most shul's
they do approx ten verses in Avenu Malkanu responsivly. Does anyone know
where this comes from?

D. Rabinowitz

In a message dated 7/1/02 9:34:21 AM, Micha Berger writes:
<< Halachah is about reality as people can and do experience it. Not
scientific principles that can't be directly experienced. >>

Your distinction certainly would simplify things. One can experience
fire, but not minute electrical currents running through microscopic
circuits embedded on silicon chips. So, cell phones and computer games
for everyone on Shabbos, right?

Also, the difference between glatt vs. standard kosher sort of disproves
your point. Under the laws of kashruth, one can manipulate the internal
organs of a flawed but properly slaughtered animal and conclude, perhaps
erroneously, that the animal is free from disease. Glatt says no, as a
scientific matter these manipulations aren't scientific enough to be truly
predictive of disease. So glatt declares the entire animal treif. As the
disease itself really isn't the issue -- the diseased meat itself would
never be edible -- glatt seems to be designed to add a non-experiential
scientific component to the laws of Kashruth.

David Finch

From:	Carl and Adina Sherer [SMTP:sherer@actcom.co.il]
> AIUI, DNA was only used to resolve questions of which body was which and
> none of the igun cases was resolved based on DNA. AIUI the igun cases
> were all resolved based on the NbY's tshuva involving the man who fell
> into the furnace, once proof was available that someone was in the WTC
> (which I understood existed because of the register kept at the entrance).

who worked in the WTC signed in every day??? 

On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 11:35:33PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: I don't think anyone mentioned anything about d'Oraisa vs d'Rabanan. The
: reason that <<< one *would* have to give the Maaser Ani to a real ani in
: such a case >>> is not because its d'Oraisa, but because it's a *vadai*.
: Only by a safek can we fall back on Hamotzi MeChavero Alav Haraaya.

I was barking up the wrong tree, thinking the heter was based on safeiq
derabbanan, not hamotzi meichaveiro.

-mi

On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 02:48:13PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: In a message dated 6/19/02 4:11:36pm EDT, yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU writes:
:> Why is Hil. Nidah in Tur/SA Yoreh De`ah when, one would think, it more
:> properly belongs in Even ha-`Ezer?

: In addition one could add why he places Hil. Ribis in YD and not (as the 
: Rambam) in CM.

Efshar this is a very deep statement. Perhaps because ribis isn't dinei
mamunos, but rather a din of "achicha".

-mi

[Moved over from a discussion on Areivim about the Pledge of Allegiance
(in the US) and the role of teaching morality in the PS system. RAA is
replying to myself, who in turn was replying to RAA. -mi]

>: It's clear that man has no *inate* instinct for moral behavior -- therefore
>: it must be taught.

> This argues against a literal definition of yeitzer hatov.
> I have no problem with that, but I want to point it out.

Well, IIRC Chazal say that children don't get a "yetzer haTov" until
Bar/Bas Mitzvah. I might be wrong about the age -- but there is a definite
idea that we aren't born with a YhT.

They DO consider us as being born with a Yetzer HaRa, OTOH. (Which I
would equate with man's "baser" instincts -- not neccessarily "Evil")

Akiva

In a message dated 6/30/02 6:40:06 AM, Shlomo Goldstein writes:

<< Psak is psak. But we're still free -- even obligated -- to think about the
issues implicated by psak through whatever intellectual tools that promote
emes. Emes is broader and more elusive.

I think the Ramban, for one, would agree with me.>end of RDF

Where does the Ramban explain halacha as not being definitive emes?  It
seems to me very non-Brisk to have a hashkafa against halacha.

Shlomo Goldstein
 >>

Where did he not? If halacha were "definitive emes," why would have Ramban 
have  searched the texts for hidden Kabbalistic meanings and existential 
truths? Why would he have resorted to such concepts as a "pre-Torah" that 
preceded the creation of the world?

The existential notion of halacha-as-emes does currency on the very 
difficult, very rarified terms written by RYBS. Most of us don't hold by 
RYBS, mainly because (i) we don't understand him, and (ii) Agudah doesn't 
like him. Beyond RYBS's ontological musings, halacha is law. Emes is the 
foundation of law -- but emes takes some searching to find.

David Finch

David

Somebody wanted to know:
> 1. The halacha states that one should stop working at chatzos on eruv
> shabbos. Is that halacha still germane today?

I can't find such a halocho. SA OC 251 mentions not working from Mincha
time. Either 6:30 or 9:30 on a sundial.

> 2. In the past, it took a lot longer to prepare for shabbos. Now, one
> can shave, shower, iron, etc., in under 30 minutes.

The examples you mention (amongst others) are explicitly excluded from
the abovementioned halocho. (Who says you needed more than 30 minutes in
"the olden golden" days?)

> 3. With that, should one still lechatchilo stop working at hatzos on
> eruv shabbos?

No. But from Mincha time YES, as per OC 251. BTW: The MB in (3) mentions
a fascinating halocho about salaried workers that probably should not
be made public. :-)

- Danny

I wrote:
>> Just FYI, RYSE will definitely disagree with you (but plenty of poskim
>> are very upset at his "gezeirah"), as he explicitly prohibits using DNA
>> to determine halakhik whatevers, out of fear that it will prove many
>> people to be mazeirim. Instead he promulgated a ban on use of DNA in
>> psak.

Reb Joel Rich replied
> Was this the specific and only reason RYSE gave in his tshuva?

I read the letter, and indeed this is the only reason, other than technical 
issues which the rabbanut would have no problem ironing out (adequately 
trained rabbanim who can check whether the medical examiner is doing valid 
work). Outside of EY it should be even easier to iron out the side issues.

>> Some poskim were hoping that RYSE would change his mind after the WTC
>> attack, but I think that all (all but one?) 'igun cases have been
>> resolved through traditional evidence, so that the discussion didn't get
>> too far.

Let me rephrase: rav Willig is one of the "some poskim", along with the
other members of the Beit Din of America. Other rabbanim, not on the
BDoA also are upset at rav Elyashiv's "gezeirah". Nonetheless, since we
are talking about matters pertaining to lineage, rabbanim are rightly
loath to go it alone, and instead seek consensus.

> From what I heard locally, 1 case did require DNA(but I can't vouch for
> sure).  Would RYSE require that this young lady be treated as an aguna and
> that she broadcast the DNA basis or may she rely on the others who were
> matir and not broadcast the DNA basis

RYSE would indeed require that the woman remain an 'agunah, and one reason
I had for posting this is because I have too little information on the
WTC 'agunot to figure out whether they ultimately relied on DNA. More
info welcome.

How do I know whether RYSE opposes other poskim being lenient here? Well,
his letter was a request for comment on a public policy matter. I don't
remember exactly whom it was addressed to, (although I must have a copy
of the letter in my file cabinet) but it very well may be the national
police headquarters. If I get around doing it, I will send Micha a copy
to post in the faxes directory.

Arie

RCS wrote:
> AIUI, DNA was only used to resolve questions of which body was which and
> none of the igun cases was resolved based on DNA. AIUI the igun cases
> were all resolved based on the NbY's tshuva involving the man who fell
> into the furnace, once proof was available that someone was in the WTC
> (which I understood existed because of the register kept at the entrance).

Care to share more details? Shortly after WTC attack, at a special
RIETS yom 'iyun on the topic, rav Willig said that the register kept
at the entrance was not, in and of itself, enough, as only those that
can be shown to have been stuck above where the planes hit, or to have
been there the moment the towers collapsed, can be assumed dead without
further proof. Since the register didn't show on what floor somebody was
when teh planes hit (it registered at the bottom floor, not for every
floor separately), it was not considered a siman muvhak.

Arie Folger

On 1 Jul 2002 at 18:22, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 02:48:13PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
>: In a message dated 6/19/02 4:11:36pm EDT, yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU writes:
>:> Why is Hil. Nidah in Tur/SA Yoreh De`ah when, one would think, it more
>:> properly belongs in Even ha-`Ezer?

>: In addition one could add why he places Hil. Ribis in YD and not (as the
>: Rambam) in CM.

> Efshar this is a very deep statement. Perhaps because ribis isn't
> dinei mamunos, but rather a din of "achicha".

AIUI you're classifying Ribis as a bein adam l'chaveiro. I would
understand it differently. I would understand it as a din in issur
v'heter, which would explain its placement in YD. The money of Ribis is
assur just like tarfus or basar b'chalav or nida.

-- Carl

Numerous posts were misdirected (IMHO, KNLAD, etc...) to Areivim when
they really belonged here. I'll be bouncing them with the current batch
of approvals. My apologies if I didn't always find the cleanest switch-over
point, and left some context information out. Or for any other errors.
(Sequencing has been an issue with previous bulk moves like this one.)

If you feel your post requires elaboration in order to be understood
by the Avodah-only audience please feel free to do so.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

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


[ 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         ]