Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 083

Wednesday, August 28 2002

• Re: amira le'akum x 2
• Re: amira le'akum x 2
• re: Machshavah vs Ma'aseh
• RE: liDovid Hashem Ori....not universally recited in Ellul-Tishrei holiday season
• Ger as president
• elu v-elu
• RE: TShN and Dan LeChaf Zechus
• Re: TShN and Dan LeChaf Zechus
• Re: TShN and Dan LeChaf Zechus
• Chilonim and Tinokos sheNibe'u
• Re: Chilonim and Tinokos sheNibe'u
• Re: Chilonim and Tinokos sheNibe'u
• Re: Chilonim and Tinokos sheNibe'u
• Re: TshN
• Re: TshN
• Re: TShN
• Re: TShN
• Re: chataim v'lo chotim
• Re: Machshavah vs Ma'aseh
• Gerim as shul president
• Re: "halachik intuition"
• Re: Hahkel bulletin
• 'learning every minute' - meaning of 'Vihagiso'
• Afar va'eifer
• Re: Afar va'eifer
• Ger - shul president
• Re: amira le'akum x 2
• Re: Kotel Kam on Shabbos
• Teaching goyim Torah

On 23 Aug 2002 at 14:22, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Does anyone have a mar'eh makom for the idea that telling an akum to
> tell another akum makes it a shevus dishevus?

See SSK 31:20 et seq.

-- Carl

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Does anyone have a mar'eh makom for the idea that telling an akum to
> tell another akum makes it a shevus dishevus?

Mishna Berura 307:24

R' Micha Berger asked <<< Anyone have a rationale for why planning to
do a mitzvah, without even acting on it, gets sechar, but planning a
cheit and not doing it gets no onesh? Yes, it's middas Rachamim that
set things up that way, but what's the mechanics of it? >>>

I like your choice of words. "Mechanics" reminds me of once when I tried
to develop a concept of "metaphysical machines" such as mida kneged mida
and shomea k'oneh, which form the mechanics of shamayim, much as the
wheel and lever are among the basic "simple machines" of this world. To
be continued in another thread someday, if I can find my notes...

Back to R' Micha's question. As I see it, this "machshava mitztaref
l'maaseh" is one of the fundamental "metaphysical machines" such as
those above. Perhaps it has something in common with "chatzi shiur":
Most machines operate according to "cause leads to effect", but these
two are more like "partial cause leads to partial effect".

But then why does it work only for mitzvos, and not for aveiros? Machines
are supposed to be amoral, right?

Perhaps the answer lies with the oft-quoted Rambam about the recalcitrant
husband: He really *does* want to give his wife the get, but he simply
has trouble acting on that ratzon.

So too here. A person planning to do a mitzvah really does want to do
it, and machshava mitztaref l'maaseh works like it is supposed to. But
a person planning to do an aveira does *not* truly want to do it. Or,
if you prefer, he does want to do it, but that desire does not meet the
requirements for the sort of ratzon which would make machshava mitztaref
l'maaseh operative.

According to the above, machshava mitztaref l'maaseh is *not* based
on rachamim, but on din (which in this context, I translate not as
"justice", but as fair, balanced, or mechanical). If you can show that
it *is* based on rachamim, as you wrote in your post, then I'll have to
withdraw or amend my theory. Your turn!

Akiva Miller

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
>: Siddur Eizor Eliyohu ('al pi nusach HaGR"A') says that it is not said -
>: that it is an addition al pi the Ar"i and not a part of the original
>: nusach Ashkenaz. So nusach haGR"A would not say it.

> So what if Ashkenaz weren't nohagim to say something? Does that make
> saying another kapitl Tehillim wrong? 

Isn't there an inyan not to say an extra kapitl Tehillim at the end of
davening when that causes an extra kaddish to be said?  [Could someone please
provide the source for this?]  (My shul doesn't have l'dovid Hashem ori cause
an extra kaddish, but in most shuls it does.)

> To the point where one would
> poreish min hatzibbur over it?

If one doesn't say something said by others by shul, I don't think that
constitutes poreish min hatzibbur so long as the person is not very obvious
about it (e.g., he draws out the shir shel yom, so people see him davening at
the time that they're saying l'dovid).  This often comes up when you daven in
a minyan which davens a different nusach than do you.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Igros Moshe (Y.D. IV #26) "Concerning appointing a ger to be rosh yeshiva
and mashgiach"
...L'maaseh you should know that the mitzva of loving the ger obligates us
to bring them close and to be lenient in all these matters. Therefore after
careful consideration it would appear that these types of positions in
modern times are not to be considered as serarah because the major purpose
of the yeshiva is to teach to students who want to learn. And this that the
director and rosh yeshiva have the power over the students to kick them out
or not to accept them in the first place etc., that is only the authority
that a boss has over his workers and is not considered to be in the category
of appointing to serarah at all....And these positions are not comparable to
someone being a mashgiach in kashrus which is serarah. The mashgiach is
appointed to do things against the will of the owners ....to make sure that
the laws of Torah are fulfilled...The issue mentioned in Igros Moshe C.M. II
#34 concerning firing a rabbi is also a different type of authority than the
one concerned with being a king and is concerned with the issue of kavod
rather than power which would be prohibited to a ger. Furthermore concerning
your question whether it is prohibited for a ger to accept serarah - it
would appear there is absolutely no issur at all even if it is real serarah.
In truth this is possibly what happened in the time of Shemaya and Avtalyon
and Devorah - that their authority came spontaneously because of the
awareness of their greatness that they became respectively Nasi, Av Beis Din
and Shofet and there was no need to appoint them at all. Tzorech Iyun in
this point.

In the recent daf yomi Rebbi Eliezer calls someone who removes thorns
from the field a "rasha" even though the chachamim allow it.
Though he considers it kilyaim it seems strong to consider one a rasha
who goes along with another opinion. Why would it not have been enough
for him to say that he prohibits it?

Shana Tova,
Eli Turkel

On 23 Aug 2002 at 14:13, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> >From Micha:
> >> If the CC was also excluding the tinoq shenishba from the issur.
> 
> From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> > Whether or not he was is not explicit. I have to believe that he was
> > excluding a TshN. 
> 
> You mentioned that the CC is based on Shaarei Tshuva 3:218-19. The ST
> requires one to be dan lkaf zchus a tzadik and a beinoni, but not a
> rasha, based on the pasuk "b'tzedek tishpot *ami'secha*." He also
> quotes Mishle 21:12, which specifically deals with a "rasha."
> 
> I would therefore assume that the CI would read the ST as not applying
> to a TshN if RSB is correct that the CI considered TshN as part of
> klal yisrael. 

I still didn't find the CI. YD 18 was incorrect. 

In any event, just because you don't have an obligation to judge 
someone l'kaf zchus doesn't mean that you have to judge him l'kaf 
chov (as you would with a rasha). It could just mean that you look at 
his actions as they are, without a l'kaf zchus or a l'kaf chov 
interpretation. 

And I'm not comfortable with the idea (implicit above) that anyone 
who is not "amisecha" is not part of Klal Yisrael. I think there has 
to be a middle madreiga, where you're still part of Klal Yisrael but 
not necessarily entitled to the special privileges of l'kaf zchus. 

> (I wonder also whether the CC was as likely as CI to
> consider the issue of TshN. At the time that the CC published the CC
> in the latter part of the 1800s, weren't most of the nonfrum people
> not in the class of TshN?)

I'm not sure that's historically correct. You'd have to be at least a 
generation (maybe two) away from a period where most people were 
fruhm. 

> Also ST refers to people in the rasha category as either (1) "rov
> maasav la'ro'a" or (2) "ein yir'as elokim bilvavo." I don't know
> whether a TshN who believes in God is properly described by these
> appelations. After all, (1) his aveiros are b'shogeg while his mitzvos
> count 100%, and yisrael milayim mitzvos k'rimon and (2) if he believes
> in God, he may have basic yiras elokim.

But that would make the TshN beinoni, not a rasha not a tzadik. 

And there's another issue that is raised by the source of this
conversation (which RMB may want to summarize for the Avodah-only people):
what of an instance where there are two parties to a dispute and judging
one l'kaf zchus means judging another l'kaf chov. It seems to me that
in that instance we should be judging the one that is closer to being
a tzadik l'kaf zchus first.

-- Carl

RCS quoting me and responding:
//(I wonder also whether the CC was as likely as CI to
> consider the issue of TshN. At the time that the CC published the CC
> in the latter part of the 1800s, weren't most of the nonfrum people
> not in the class of TshN?)

I'm not sure that's historically correct. You'd have to be at least a 
generation (maybe two) away from a period where most people were 
fruhm. 
//

You're agreeing with me.  I was saying that in the CC's time the nonfrum
people did not qualify as TshN but were considered reshaim.

/snip/

RCS wrote in response to my claim that a TshN is not categorized as a rasha:
//But that would make the TshN beinoni, not a rasha not a tzadik. 
//

Exactly.  And my claim is that a beinoni is entitled to the benefits of
"havei dan es kol ha'adam l'kaf zchus."

Kol tuv,
Moshe
-------Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)

On 24 Aug 2002 at 21:24, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> RCS quoting me and responding:
> //(I wonder also whether the CC was as likely as CI to
> > consider the issue of TshN. At the time that the CC published the CC
> > in the latter part of the 1800s, weren't most of the nonfrum people
> > not in the class of TshN?)
> 
> I'm not sure that's historically correct. You'd have to be at least a
> generation (maybe two) away from a period where most people were
> fruhm. //
> 
> You're agreeing with me.  I was saying that in the CC's time the
> nonfrum people did not qualify as TshN but were considered reshaim.

There is virtually no one in EY who is more than a generation or two 
away from a fruhm ancestor. And that's without even considering the 
impact of living in a Jewish country (the court system may not be 
based on halacha, but the calendar sure is). 

> /snip/
> 
> RCS wrote in response to my claim that a TshN is not categorized as a
> rasha: //But that would make the TshN beinoni, not a rasha not a
> tzadik. //
> 
> Exactly.  And my claim is that a beinoni is entitled to the benefits
> of "havei dan es kol ha'adam l'kaf zchus."

But there's a difference between the kaf zchus to which a beinoni is 
entitled and that to which a tzaddik is entitled. 

-- Carl

The CI that  I have been referring to is CI:YD:2:28. Please read the 
following language:
    "It is a mitzvah to love the wixked... because nowadays [all persons
    are considered] as is they have not recievd rebuke, since we do
    not know how to reprimand [properly] and therefore all siunners are
    considered to be like those who are coerced [into doing evil]-i.e.,
    they are not responsible for their actions] "

see also Mharam Schick O.H. 303-313; Binyan Tzion 2:23, Mlamed Lehoil
1;29 Sereidei Eish 2:156. Igros Moshe : A. H. 2: 20 and O. H. 1: 33 and
Yabia Omer, 6:14. These and other sources are cited in an article entitled
"Protest Demonstrations" in the Spring 1993 RJJ journal.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com.

On 25 Aug 2002 at 10:36, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
> The CI that  I have been referring to is CI:YD:2:28. Please read the 
> following language:
>     "It is a mitzvah to love the wixked...  because nowadays [all persons are 
>         considered] as is they have not recievd rebuke, since we do not know 
> how to  reprimand [properly] and therefore all siunners are considered to be 
> like those 
>     who are coerced [into doing evil]-i.e., they are not responsible for 
> their actions] " 
> see also Mharam Schick O.H. 303-313; Binyan Tzion 2:23, Mlamed Lehoil 1;29
> Sereidei Eish 2:156. Igros Moshe : A. H. 2: 20 and O. H. 1: 33 and Yabia 
> Omer, 6:14. These and other sources are cited in an article entitled " 
> Protest Demonstrations " in the Spring 1993 RJJ journal.

None of which gives them the halachic status of "amisecha." 
Particularly where judging them l'kaf zchus means judging people who 
ARE clearly Shomrei Torah u'Mitzvos l'kaf chov! 

See Reb Josh's post. 

-- Carl

In a message dated 8/25/02 11:09:09am CDT, cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
<< Particularly where judging them l'kaf zchus means judging people who
ARE clearly Shomrei Torah u'Mitzvos l'kaf chov! >>

Not at all. It requires us to love all Jews. WADR, the CI states that you 
must love all Jews. IMHO, this is a " CI Chumrah" that we all shouyld think 
about accepting upon ourselves.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

On 25 Aug 2002 at 12:17, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
> << Particularly where judging them l'kaf zchus means judging people who 
>  ARE clearly Shomrei Torah u'Mitzvos l'kaf chov! >>

> Not at all. It requires us to love all Jews. WADR, the CI states that you 
> must love all Jews. 

Ain hachi nami. That does NOT make them amisecha, and it certainly 
does not give you the right to judge other Jews who are Shomrei Torah 
u'Mitzvos l'kaf chov. Even if you don't agree with the opinions of 
those other Jews on a host of issues. 

-- Carl

On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 09:10:48AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: But they know it's assur to live with a woman who is married to 
: someone else. 

: They know it's assur to eat chazir.

They know it, but do they feel it? After all, "everybody does
it", how assur can it be?

Again, assuming a cultural rather than cerebral definition of TshN.

I know other definitions exist, and probably were the normative pesaq
fdor much of our history. (c.f. the Rama). But the current situation
has convinced a number of gedolei haposqim of the past 50 years
lequlah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

[Half of a post sent to Areivim. I'm not bouncing the metzi'us issue that
lead to this discussion.. -mi]

On 26 Aug 2002 at 0:38, Micha Berger wrote:
> They know it, but do they feel it? After all, "everybody does
> it", how assur can it be?

> Again, assuming a cultural rather than cerebral definition of TshN.

> I know other definitions exist, and probably were the normative pesaq
> fdor much of our history. (c.f. the Rama). But the current situation
> has convinced a number of gedolei haposqim of the past 50 years
> lequlah.

But even l'shitasam, does that mean that where we have to judge one 
party or the other l'kaf zchus (judging both l'kaf zchus is tartei 
d'sasrei) that we can cavalierly take the position of those who - for 
whatever reason - are not Shomer Torah u'Mitzvos? I just don't see 
that.... 

-- 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.

On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 09:10:20AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: You've just turned everyone who's not fruhm into a TshN. Somehow I 
: don't think that was the CI's (or anyone else's) intent. 

Again, we've quoted the CI and RMF's understanding thereof at length on
Avodah. If you want to repoen the conversation, read the discussion and
comment there.

But yes RMF said that all but their rabbis qualify as TshN. And his son,
R' Re'uvein, is allegedly meiqil WRT this generation of JTS and HUC grads
as well. That his father's contemporaries might have learned enough to
qualify as apiqorsim, but not anymore.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

A few comments on Tinok SheNishbah. First, R. Chaim Rapoport has informed
me that he is publishing a book on this subject with a full discussion
of the mekoros.

There is a machlokes among rishonim regarding whether Karaites are
tinokos shenishbu. The Rambam holds that their children are but others,
such as the Radbaz (OK, not quite a rishon, but there are rishonim),
hold that they are not. The key issue seems to be how much knowledge
of Judaism one can have and still be a TShN. Karaites knew about what
we would call traditional Judaism but held that they were correct.
According to the Rambam, the children of those who left traditional
Judaism are still considered TShN.

The Binyan Tzion's teshuvah was specifically placed (by the publisher,
maybe?) in the section of "Shelo LeMa'aseh".

The Chazon Ish (YD 2:16) and in CM (regarding moridin velo ma'alin)
writes that anyone who lives in a generation in which there are no nissim
geluyim, which would probably go all the way back to the first Churban,
cannot be a kofer or apikorus. Rather, we must be mekarev them back with
"avosos shel ahavah".

That means that even a Rosh Kollel who knows gantz Shas and goes off
the derech is still, according to the CI, a TShN. The Minchas Elazar is
much more machmir in one teshuvah but RCR told me that there is another
teshuvah that is soser.

Gil Student

Bruria's statment, contrary to popular opinion, is not really the law. In
fact there are numerous examples both in Tanach and in Hazel that people
do daven for the death or destruction of wicked people. For a complete
list and a discussion on this point see Divrei Torah by R. Elezar of
Munchatch vol. 2 no. 56.

In a message dated 08/26/2002 7:53:27am EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> Perhaps the answer lies with the oft-quoted Rambam about the recalcitrant
> husband: He really *does* want to give his wife the get, but he simply
> has trouble acting on that ratzon.
 
> So too here. A person planning to do a mitzvah really does want to do
> it, and machshava mitztaref l'maaseh works like it is supposed to. But
> a person planning to do an aveira does *not* truly want to do it. Or,
> if you prefer, he does want to do it, but that desire does not meet the
> requirements for the sort of ratzon which would make machshava mitztaref
> l'maaseh operative.

IIRC R'YBS tied this notion to the prenatal torah we all learned.  Perhaps(I 
don't recall him saying this) this would explain why it doesn't work for 
nonJews.
KVCT
Joel Rich

From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
:My chavrusa (not, as far as I know, a ger) just finished a year as
:shul president. He views it as a form of avdus, not of leadership.
:In which case the halachic discussion is irrelevant.

The fact that (most) office holders view the job as avdus does not
obviate the halachic implications.

I believe it was RSRH who said that the word Adon/master was related to
the word Aden/base (of the mishkan). So it comes with the territory,
but it's still (possibly) serara.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n120.shtml#09

Gil Student

Gershon Dubin wrote:
>One may, IIRC, teach Torah shebichsav to a nonJew. Rabbi Reisman tells
>the story of a prospective ger who started coming to his Navi shiurim,
>since someone told him it was OK since it was Torah shebichsav. Obviously
>(to anyone who's been to one or heard tapes) that is not the case.

The Maharatz Chajes and Netziv held that it is mutar to teach Torah
SheBiChsav to a Gentile. Most others disagree.

As to whether teaching Torah in a university is mutar, see the Avodah
thread titled "Teaching Torah to Gentiles in an Academic Setting".

Gil Student

Learning does not necessarily have to be in front of / with a sefer.

I believe the more correct translation of 'Vihogisa' (bo yomom volayla)
is 'you shall meditate (think)'. Such can be done even when involved in
other things (at least to a degree).

Why do so many people think Vihogiso means davka / only in front of a
printed work (as important as they are / that is) ? OTC, I find that
sometimes deep and profound thoughts come to people more, davka when
they are not in front of printed works !

Comments ?

Mordechai

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
:Afar has no value. However, potters can make things out of it and give
:it value.

:Eifer has no value. However, it is often the remains of something that
:once had value.

Are you quoting the Beis Halevi?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 05:30:50PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: :Afar has no value. However, potters can make things out of it and give
: :it value.
: :Eifer has no value. However, it is often the remains of something that
: :once had value.

: Are you quoting the Beis Halevi?

Perhaps. But only if I saw/heard it too long ago to remember I saw it.

I reposed those vertlach to Avodah because I was under the impression
they were my chiddushim, and therefore could use some scrutiny.

-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.

 From Andy Levy-Stevenson on Areivim:
> Is anyone familiar with the idea that a ger (convert) may not
> be a shul president?

From: Akiva Atwood [mailto:atwood@netvision.net.il]
> I've also heard that a ger
> couldn't take leadership positions in a community.

My question, what if the choice is between a Ger Tzeddek - shomer Torah
umitzvos and a Mechalel Shabbos - who was born a Jew?

According to the SA a MS is considered an Akum Lechol Dovor - therefore
a Ger must be preferable - LAD.

SBA

In a message dated 8/23/02 3:04:16pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Does anyone have a mar'eh makom for the idea that telling an akum to
> tell another akum makes it a shevus dishevus?

Shu"t Chavos Yair #'s 46 & 53, see # 49 for the position of the Avodas
Hageirshuni. the Chasam Sofer O"C # 60 makes distinction if said prior
to Shabbos then it is Muttor on Shabbos it is Ossur, and see in C"M #
185 (from E"T Erech Amirah Lnochri).

Ksiva vChasima Tova v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 06:07:20PM -0400, Yaakov Ellis wrote:
: To clarify the question: Is it permissible for a person in the US (or
: anywhere else in a time-zone west of Eretz Yisrael) for whom it is not
: yet Shabbos, to view pictures automatically taken and posted to the
: Internet by the kotel kam in Yerushalayim after it is already Shabbos in
: Yerushalayim?

I can't see a reason it would be assur.

There is no shevisas keilim, and there are no human beings involved
who have an issur melachah at the time.

Even amirah le'akum by web or phone ought be okay, as long as the akum
doesn't then repeat the message to someone in the other timezone, so
that the other person got hana'ah a melachah an akum did on Shabbos.

-mi

[A two-topic email that I took the liberty of splitting. -mi]

From: Turkel Eli <turkel@icase.edu>
> 1. <teaching Torah to non-Jews-what about Chumash? 

My husband, R. Michael Katz, taught classes to Bnai Noach (Noahides)
for several years when he was rabbi of a shul in Chattanooga, TN.
There were two Noahide congregations in nearby towns. The pastor of
one of those congregations, a former Baptist minister, had the most
unbelievable library you could ever imagine a goy having. Wall to wall,
floor to ceiling, every ArtScroll and Feldheim book imaginable.

I don't know which posek(im) my husband consulted, but I do remember
some discussion along the lines of, whatever was available in English and
they could read it themselves, you could teach them. It seems to me that
this would apply to the Chumash going all the way back to the Septuagint
(Targum haShivim), and that necessarily, if you could teach them Chumash,
you could teach them at least pshat (Rashi) i.e., basic Torah ba'al peh,
because how else can you teach it? Targum Onkelos often not literal
translation but rather interpretation, bec. otherwise there would be a
falsification of the meaning. Long-winded way of saying, I think you
can teach goyim Chumash with Rashi.

My husband also concluded/was told you can teach them parts of Torah
that apply to them, and you would be surprised how much that covers.
He should really be in on this discussion.

> The actual cases brought in hakhel have occurred to me several times
> where colleagues have asked questions about Chumash.
> I remember in particular being asked about fish during the flood. It
> seems strange to me that one can't answer such questions. 

I know my husband holds you can answer such questions.  

> In the pro-Darwin play _Inherit the Wind_ there is a scene in which the 
> pro-Bible protagonist is asked, "You believe that the Bible is true?"

He says yes. "You believe G-d created Adam and Eve and they had two
sons?" Again he says yes. (Note: don't bother me about the third son,
it's just a play.) Then he is asked, "And who did the sons marry?"
He is totally flummoxed by this question, and the audience roars with
laughter, as I know (es chata-ai ani mazkir hayom) because I once saw
a live performance of this play.

I concluded when I saw this play that as long as there are goyim who read
and believe in the Bible, and as long as atheists/pagans get their licks
in by mocking the Bible, it is a kiddush Hashem to explain Bible basics
to goyim. I do acknowledge that my personal impression is not a psak,
but I am certain there are poskim for me lismoch alayhem. I also realize
that a careless person can cause more harm than good (there was a fast
day after Torah t ranslated to Greek), so let's be careful out there.

Toby Katz

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


[ 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         ]