Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 093

Thursday, February 12 2004

• Re: New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet
• Teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet -- Gemora Shabbos 75a is not a proof for Murex
• Re: New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet
• Call for Papers: Mesukim Midevash
• RE: Direction of Tefillah
• Re: Direction of Tefillah
• Re: Great Circles
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Sefiros according to REED
• Admin: Teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet
• Re: Sefiros according to REED
• Re: teshuva
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Giyur

R' YG,

You certainly make some interesting points, though some certainly have
me puzzled - which may not take much :)

At 09:21 PM 2/10/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>>"Surely there are greater problems" is a remarkably low threshold for
>>when to address an issue. By this logic only the most pressing issue
>>of the day can be addressed and all others ignored. Obviously that is
>>not your position. I believe this is actually a very important issue in
>>Orthodox Jewry today for reasons that will be made clear below.

>I am not sure how you know that is not my position,

I was trying not to insult you by seeming to imply that you hold that
all of Klal Yisroel should only be concerned with *the* most pressing
need of the day. If you do indeed hold that, that might make for an
interesting discussion, albeit a different discussion.

>>This is completely wrong. Radzyners were banned from mikvehs,
>>invalidated as witnesses, not allowed to be buried in some places
>>and physically attacked. In those days people took their arguments
>>seriously! Murex followers have gotten a largely free ride. Until my
>>article I hadn't even seen anything written against their position,
>>save for a few letters in response to their articles. Granted, this
>>may be largely due to indifference (hardly a positive), but the main
>>response I saw was to ignore the murex techeiles. The attitude was
>>mostly "their arguments are quite impressive they are probably right,
>>but the olam isn't mekabel". Since I live in Cleveland where things are
>>generally tame, it could be that I am missing the onslaught against
>>murex followers. Besides, even I am not attacking the people who wear
>>murex indigo. In fact, until recently I used to help people who were
>>interested to obtain it. I am often impressed with the love of a mitzvah
>>these people have.

>I am willing to accept that they were persecuted, but you understand
>that it is news to me - could you please tell me where this persecution
>is documented?

Yes, I would imagine the response to Radzyn at the time would be news for
most people. As to the documentation, I have pieces of it from different
places. Some of it is from the sefer HaTecheiles, some from older people
(no longer living) who were told by their fathers/grandfathers what had
happened, some from P'til who quoted from writings of R' Gelbshtein
who wrote so vehemently against the Radzyner (in the Avodah archives
- should be late 2001) - IIRC, he said that he himself had publicly
burned Radzyner techeiles. There was the case where the Chofetz Chaim was
consulted about whether they could bury someone with Radzyner techeiles on
(he did say it was OK).

>>Hardly. There doesn't seem to be ANY support for the murex theory al
>>pi Torah. There is no reasonable way to understand how Chazal could
>>possibly have made the statements in Menachos about murex trunculus. P'til
>>basically acknowledged that in their reply to my article by saying that
>>it can be dismissed as homiletic. How convenient. They then presented
>>4 new criteria, 2 of which aren't even true, and only one is from the
>>Gemara. The one sugya they hold by is the one where Rav Miller shows that
>>it cannot be understood as applying to the murex trunculus snail. What's
>>left? The overwhelming evidence of science and archeology? That only
>>shows murex was used for purple dyeing (argaman?), despite the fact
>>that P'til said, incorrectly, in their brochures (at least they used
>>to) that they found shards of blue dye from murex trunculus. Now,
>>Dr. Ziderman has informed me that Prof. Zvi Koren has tested ancient
>>indigotin samples with a technique that can pick up trace amounts of
>>bromine and distinguish between snail indigo and plant indigo. None of
>>the blue samples came from shellfish. How is murex a far more likely
>>candidate than virtually any other candidate species?

>Didn't we just say there is no test?

>Let me say that having read Rav Herzog's thesis on the topic, I do not
>know how you can assert that they have no evidence - Rav Herzog himself
>declared that m. trunculus was the most likely candidate, but that he
>had not been able to produce a blue dye from it.

I have read his thesis several times. As a PhD thesis, he concentrates
primarily on secular evidence first, then introduces Torah sources. I
quote (page 65):
"The inquirer equipped with a knowledge of the experiments of
Lacaze-Duthiers, of the discoveries of Wilde, deSaulcy, and Gaillardot
and of the conclusions arrived at by Dr. Dedekind will go to the Talmud
only for a confirmation of the identification of the tekhelet-species
with Murex trunculus. ** but there is a surprise in store for him **."
He then introduces the sugya in menachos, concludes that murex fails
to meet these criteria. His rejection of m. trunculus is not predicated
solely on the color of the dye extracted. Thus, Rabbi Herzog's objections
to murex trunculus were many. I understand that some believe they have
adequate answers to Rabbi Herzog's objections and believe that surely if
Rabbi Herzog were alive he would acknowledge his errors and agree with
the identification of murex trunculus. While I believe I have shown that
these arguments make Chazal's statements in Menachos meaningless, you
and others are of course free to think otherwise, and perhaps consider
me foolish for being unable to accept the truth.

>L'ma'aseh, I do not think that there is a chilluk which shellfish is used.

>>Surely you can't be serious. P'til isn't aggressively promoting? What
>>do you call lecture tours, speaking at schools, videos, unsolicited
>>distribution of materials all over the world (such as during daf yomi time
>>last November)? P'til has been extremely aggressive. It is precisely this
>>reason that Rav Perr attacked P'til for taking advantage of an unexpert
>>public and using marketing to establish minhag/halacha. They have also
>>frequently taken the opportunity for gratuitous, baseless attacks on
>>Radzyn, though this has subsided a lot since their early writings. I
>>don't think this is a good lesson to follow.

>I know the people involved and their methods. I do not think educating
>people to what you think is a harbinger of the geulah is wrong - even
>if they are wrong - I do not understand the vehemence of the attacks on
>people who perceive themselves as fulfilling ratzon Hashem.

Jews for J also believe they are doing ratzon Hashem. Some Lubavitchers
feel they are hastening the geulah by convincing others to join in chants
of Yechi as a daily ritual at the end of shacharis every day. I feel sorry
for them, but it doesn't mean we don't take strong positions against them.
If you feel that there is no problem with the idea that people can take
a conclusion from the secular world, then find ways to force the Torah
to somehow fit, discarding most Gemaras and Rambam and more because it
doesn't fit, and then go around the world trying to get people to follow
their practice - if that is OK with you, then I understand why you take
your position. Surely you can then understand that I also believe I am
doing ratzon Hashem, and seeing a dangerous precedent being set ,I am
responding strongly.

BTW, R" Chaim Twerski's article that you call masterful - that is
the article that was so full of blatant errors, that I got started
on the whole subject of research. Right in the beginning when he
gives his "proofs" against Radzyn, starting with the assertion that
cuttlefish can't live in sand and can't meet the "buried in the sand"
criterion. He couldn't have tried to check any sources for that, since
even the encyclopedia notes that cuttlefish spend their days buried in
the sand. I will be merciful and leave the discussion at that, but I
was appalled that someone could make such a statement *in a published
periodical* without making any effort to ascertain the truth.

I intend to look at your response to Rav Miller's points about the Gemara
Shabbos, as well as at Micha's. I expected to see some good discussion of
these points, though I was hoping to be more of a spectator. I am swamped
at work and am really only responding on issues I can address expediently.
Alas, in general, I don't have time to follow Avodah, merely checking
the subject line from time to time to follow interesting threads.

[Email #2. -mi]

[Micha:]
>On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:32:51PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote:
>: This isn't about debating points. It's about how in the face of strong
>: evidence that murex dye should fail the test supplied by the Amoraim...

>For the third time... Unless the test if for the absence of a
>contaminant coming from the indigo plant, or the presence of one
>from murex snails.

>And again, it's not "the amora'im", as another amora concluded no such
>test exists. So what we're looking for is a test that -- if its exists --
>is unreliable. Although it's not muchrach, this is consistant with a
>test for contaminants.

I thought that P'til had generally agreed that the test is not about the 
contaminants, but rather it was possible the contaminants could alter the 
expected result so that murex could pass. If I understand correctly, you 
are suggesting that it is possible the test could have been designed 
specifically to test for the contaminants, despite the appearance of being 
about reduction - since we don't know the exact test.

OK. It isn't very logical to me, but one can certainly make such a
conjecture.

I will now be merciful and drop this line of discussion.

mendel

Mendel E. Singer, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Health Services Research
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics
e-mail: mes12@po.cwru.edu

[RYGB:]
> I do not understand RSM's ra'ayah from the Gemara in Shabbos. I think
> the Gemara in Shabbos is the best ra'ayah *for* the m. 
> trunculus techeles ...
>     Further, the Talmud tells us that the dye needs to be extracted
>     while the snail is yet alive, or soon after (Shabbos 75a). This is
>     true to the nature of the trunculus mucus. In order for the color
>     changing processes to develop, a specific enzyme, purporase, must
>     be present. This enzyme deteriorates rapidly after the death of
>     the Murex. If the exposure to the air does not occur immediately,
>     the mucus will not develop into dibromoindigo (techeles blue).

> I believe Rabbi Twerski's masterful review is in the Avodah archives.

I don't see how the Gemora in Shabbos can be brought as a *proof*
for the Murex, as it would require us to accept some unsubtantiated
conjectures in the sugya. The Rabbi Twerski/Sterman/Ptil *conjecture*
is not accepted as the pashtus of the Gemora in RSM's teshuva.

To show why, let me quote from Baruch Sterman's reply to Mendel Singer
in the JCH: " Tekhelet comes from a live chilazon. This is one of the
more powerful proofs supporting the murex as the chilazon. The enzyme
required for dye formation quickly decomposes upon the death of the
snail, and so the glands that hold the dye precursor must be crushed
while the snail is alive or soon after. In experiments, we have seen
that as soon as TWO HOURS after death, the quality of the dye is severely
degraded. Dr. Singer's assertion that "the Gemara is speaking not of a few
hours, but mere moments after death" is totally arbitrary. That assertion
is even more implausible considering that this property is mentioned
by both Pliny and Aristotle specifically regarding the murex. Since
the murex loses its dye quality a FEW HOURS after its death, and those
scholars express that fact by saying that the dye must be obtained from
live snails, it follows that the Gemara's use of the same terminology
would certainly sustain a two hour post mortem limit."

Apart from misquoting Pliny and Aristotle (see Mendel Singer's response
in JCH), let's focus on the fact that you have a few hours after the
Murex dies to extract the mucus for the dye.

In the Gemora (Shabbos75a) the Rabanan hold that when a person traps
and is potzea the chilazon to extract the secretion ["dam"], he only did
one melacha -- tzeda ["aino chayav ela achas"]. The Gemora dismisses two
putative additional melachos viz. disha and netilas-neshama. [I'll use
"sqeeze" for potzea as in Rashi, but changing it to "cracked" will not
affect the argument].

Why does the Gemora [in the hava-amina] think "chayav nami mishum
netilas neshama" [let him be liable for killing the Chilazon]. In its
last peshat, the Gemora asserts that the Chilazon could be squeezed even
while alive. But sqeezing out its secretion will inevitably cause it to
die. The person is thus liable because even R. Shimon concedes that this
is an inevitable killing [pesik-resha velo yamos]. Thus, there should
be two melachos [tzeida and netilas-neshama]?

The Gemora answers that the blood of a live Chilazon is superior
to that of a dead one. This person thus tries his hardest [Rashi:
kol atzmo] to keep the Chilazon alive while squeezing it [tefei nicha
leh]. Thus, when it dies, he has the petur of "misasek", even though
the death is inevitable [pesik-reisha], and thus he is patur from
netilas-neshama. [c.f. Tosefos that "misasek" is not precise].

PUSH1: We all agree that if the secretion deteriorates immediately after
death (within seconds or minutes), this is a very big push on the person
to bedavka want to keep the Chilazon alive. It is this push that produces
the required petur of misasek. We can then definitely say like Rashi that
"kol atzmo", his whole being is focussed on keeping the Chilazon alive
and he bedavka does not want it to die, as he will destroy the dye the
moment it does.

PUSH2: Now, acording to Ptil, the mucus of the Murex can still be used for
dye even if extracted a few hours after death. Thus, the person need not
try to keep the Chilazon alive -- after all, let it die, and the mucus
is still good for a few hours. He could take a one hour lunch break,
and still be back in time to extract the mucus.

Of course, you could *conjecture* that he needs a three hour lunch break,
and so there is (a) still a little bit of a push to keep the Murex alive,
and (b) which is enough to produce the required petur of misasek.

But clearly the conjecture PUSH2 is a bigger chidush than PUSH1, and
hence PUSH2 needs some substantiation. At the very least, while Ptil
will obviously accept PUSH1 as sufficient to produce the petur, others
are not forced to accept Ptil's conjecture PUSH2.

The pashtus is that, unlike the Murex, we are looking for a species in
which there is a rapid and immediate deterioration of the "dam" at or
very close to its death so that the person's whole being strains to keep
it alive and he bedavka does not want it to die.

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 01:49:15PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: I have a healthy skepticism (perhaps some would call it unhealthy...)
: concerning science, even "hard" sciences like chemistry. Perhaps
: Chazal knew better than science? Perhaps chemistry (like all sciences,
: an evolving set of theories) has not yet attained the knowledge of
: the distinction between techeles and kaleh ilan that was revealed
: to Chazal. Certainly, molecular structures are meaningless from an
: halachic standpoint (for example, a goat created by Sefer Yetzirah,
: which presumably has the same molecular structure as a goat generated
: the natural way, is not considered meat vis-a-vis halachos of schechitah
: and basar b'chalav).

You make two arguments here.

1- Perhaps Chazal knew better than science. I'm not of the opinion that
this is likely. This could be an chassidsher emunas chachamim argument
(that the information was beru'ach haqodesh) or a litvisher da'as Torah
one. But neither would convince me.

To convince me you would have to argue that the information was
part of the mitzvas tzitzis relayed at Har Sinai and transmitted by
the mesorah. And for that you would need to explain why Hashem would
need to. Chazal tell us that qiddush levanah and the menorah got such
explanation because they required such explanation.

2- Perhaps the difference between kaleh ilan and techeiles is not
scientific.

This position must be accepted by the Radziner chassidim, as prussian
blue can be made from any source. And as the rest of the cuttlefish
"dam" is reduced to white ash, the impurities are the same as if one
made prussion blue using any biochemical with the same basic ration of
elements.

BTW, the gemara's statement about kaleh ilan makes it clear that there
is a single plant source that makes a fake dye that is far closer to
techeiles than any other dye.

And then there's the Tif'eres Yisrael, who is even less picky than RYGB
and would use any indelible dye of the right color, doesn't even need
to be from a shellfish. His shitah appears demonstrably wrong, as kaleh
ilan qualifies.


On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:32:51PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote:
: This isn't about debating points. It's about how in the face of strong
: evidence that murex dye should fail the test supplied by the Amoraim,
: people will find a theoretical possibility on how it could pass...

You're still arguing it backwards.

It's not murex dye that fails the test. It's the test that fails because
it incorrectly permits kaleh ilan. The test we thought was chazal's
obviously isn't the real test. Chazal couldn't be checking whether the
dye could decay by fermentation, because kaleh ilan can't. Such a test
would give a consistant false positive.

Until we identify the real test, the only question that can be asked
is whether such a test could exist; could one construct an experiment
that will tell you if a sample of indigo came from a murex or from the
indigo plant? The theoretical possibility is enough of an answer because
the test is at this point theoretical as well.

This is why the Amutah considers this issue academic. Where they err is
that they still make a big deal about passing a test they ought to know
is the wrong one. But that error doesn't touch the conclusion.

And we still have a shitah that says the test doesn't exist. So even if
it does, we would expect the test to be tricky.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Richard Bach

Given what we see on Areivim, I feel many of us have something we could
contribute to future issues of Mesukim Midevash
<http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim>. Thoughts that are not only "fit to print"
but would be a zechus on our part to have such Torah leharbitz.

Mesukim is not really a parashah sheet. Rather than providing vertlach one
can repeat at the Shabbos table, it challenges the reader to think about
issues he otherwise might not. Each week we provide three divrei Torah, one
each on machshavah, mussar, and tefillah. You can get a sense of what we're
looking for by perusing the archive and from the submission guidelines
(below).

We're looking for writers for issues on seifer Vayikra. Here are the desired
submission deadlines:
    March 5th:
	Vayiqra
	Tzav
	Pesach
	Shemini
	Sazria'-Metzora
	Acharei Mos - Qedoshom
	Emor
    March 12th (the span we're trying for; two months before the parashah):
	Behar-Bechukosai

Please help us help the community focus on these too-often neglected pillars
of Yiddishkeit. AishDas gives you a forum to discuss your ideas; why not help
us create another forum for harbatzas Torah to others?

Thank you.
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

            A few guidelines for Mesukim MiDevash Submissions

  * Connection to the parashah:
    For machshavah and mussar, this can be minimal, but should be
    present.

    For tefillah, there need not be any connection at all. (Athough
    discussing something other than Az Yashir the week of Beshalach, for
    example, might be odd.)

  * Focus, what defines the topic of each column:

    The machshavah article should be something that prods the reader to
    think about the broader issues of the Torah worldview. Not just any
    aggadita or parshanut, and not the kind of neat answers that require
    little thought.

    The mussar article is easiest to find the borders for. It need not be
    from tenu'as hamussar, but that helps. A focus on how to change onself
    to better pursue shalom and sheleimus as an oveid H'. (Thus the title,
    "Bakeish Shalom".)

    The vort on tefillah must be aimed at the meaning of the tefillah. The
    topic could be anything from Shemoneh Esrei to some zemer to the formulaic
    greetings and berakhos we give eachother. As long as it aids kavanah.
    Halachic comments about the tefillah are off topic.

  * Length:
    If we want to fill a standard format of 4 pages, we need around 750
    words per submission.

[Micha:]
>: It is clear from the gemara, that no matter what we would say that R'
>: Yochanan holds, that the explanations when dealing with PI are based
>: on perimeter.

>That's not the way Tosafos understand it. They invoke the notion of limits
>to prove that the formula for circumferance of pi * diameter (2 * pi * r)
>implies the fomula for area of pi * r^2. See the pretty pictures. <g>

They hold that in the Rabbis of Caesarea, not in the gemara on the
previous amud, which was still trying to estimate. See the Gr"a on the
Tosafot and how he rejects their position.

 --Russell

On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 06:43:54PM -0500, Russell Levy wrote:
:>: It is clear from the gemara, that no matter what we would say that R'
:>: Yochanan holds, that the explanations when dealing with PI are based
:>: on perimeter.

:>That's not the way Tosafos understand it. They invoke the notion of limits
:>to prove that the formula for circumferance of pi * diameter (2 * pi * r)
:>implies the fomula for area of pi * r^2. See the pretty pictures. <g>

: They hold that in the Rabbis of Caesarea, not in the gemara on the
: previous amud, which was still trying to estimate. See the Gr"a on the
: Tosafot and how he rejects their position.

Sorry, I thought your "no matter" and "the explanations when dealing with
PI" was intended to include the explanations in the entire sugyah and
according to all shitos.

My error, I lost the context of the discussion.

-mi

> Up until a few years ago two engine planes were prohibited by the FAA from
> straying too far from the coast line.... Hence the planes do not fly along
> a great circle, except when flying from, say, London to Tokyo over the
> North Pole.

While the path two-engined planes take is not exactly a great circle,
it's close. That's why "in reality neither...planes now venture much
further" than the FAA-approved paths for 2-engined planes. They venture
just far enough to straighten out their paths and save time and fuel.
But you can find the great circle path quite easily with a string and
a globe, and you will find that it does indeed pass over Newfoundland
and Greenland, quite close to the path depicted on the in-flight map.

I still can't understand the hava-amina to give halachic authority to
Gerardus Mercator and the map-making method he invented.

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> Yisro went to be megayer his family. Would being megayer his own family
> be an exception even nowadays to the halacha of not "pushing' giyur?

I don't believe there is a halacha to discourage giyur or even not
to push it. Everyone cites the reisha about telling a candidate for
giyur all about the down side, but nobody cites the seifa of the same
piece, about how one must also explain the up side, and how one must
be careful not to exaggerate the down side, lest one frighten away a
sincere candidate. The point of the whole thing is not to discourage
giyur but to make sure that those who are going to drop out do so before,
not after. We *want* geirim (lo niglu yisrael levein haumot ela kedei
sheyitvasfu aleihem geirim), but we want quality geirim, the kind that
will stay even when things get difficult, so we screen for that quality.

Presumably Yisro went to tell his family what he had learned, and to
convince them that the Torah is true, so that they would *want* to
convert. Knowing them well, he would also be in a position to judge how
serious they were about it, when the time came. Such a project would
seem to me entirely appropriate even today.

On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 04:15:23PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
:> Nope. In vol I, pg 311 or so, the last section on Olamos, he lists a
:> number of conclusions. The first explicitly states that the sefiros are
:> according to our perception, each according to where we are omedim.
:> Not some relationship between din and chessed. In fact, specific sefiros
:> are not discussed or even named.

: I think you misunderstand what he's saying....

I think I did too. But my current understanding still isn't the same
as yours.

Rather, that the sefiros really are only reality as man perceives it.
However, anything but the Borei Himself is reality on as man perceives
it. Someone who can become aware of olam ha'atzilus would perceive
sefiros.

So yes, REED is saying that they are real AND created by the nature of
the perceiver.

The whole ma'amar on olamos is about how reality is all about perception.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Richard Bach

I just rejected a number of Avodah submissions on this subject.

I don't see enough new material. Just repetitions of the same old
arguments, repeated in ever more heated tones as we get frustrated
with eachother.

When I saw one of my posts in the moderation queue and I was ashamed of
the tone it contained, I decided things had gone far enough.

My apologies in particular to RYGB, who submitted 5 or so emails on
the subject before I constructed this notice. They will not be going to
the list.

All the participants in the conversation are in the BCC list, but it
was only RYGB and myself whose posts got rejected. So far.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Richard Bach

On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 04:15:23PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
:> REED accepts universal HP, at least for people. That doesn't actually
:> mean S. Hashem could tailor one's life's events for reasons other than
:> sechar or onesh.

: Except that according to RMHL the reason God created the world is to give
: people schar.  Ultimately everything reduces to schar vaonesh.

But not every event need to be sechar or onesh. It could be a nisayon
that the person must overcome in order to merit more sechar; or a bit of
assistance in order to avoid a nisayon the person couldn't handle, etc...

-mi

On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:29:23AM +0200, Avi Burstein wrote:
:> I think that's why the Rambam says that perfect tshuva is being
:> confronted by the exact same situation again and not sinning. You
:> already know the result of the bad action and the hana'a you got
:> from it. That makes resistance much harder.

: I always understood this Rambam to be about a person perfecting himself.
: Not about how hard the struggle may be.

The Rambam defines perfection in terms of yedi'ah. Therefore, he has
problems explaining lefum tza'arah agra. If you learn the same thing
with less work, you got to the same place.

However, most of us understand perfection also (and not exclusively)
in terms of middos. And really more in terms of improvement in middos,
middos on a subjective scale, not an absolute measure. In which case,
struggling is more self-changing than an easy trip, and therefore
produces bigger results.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Richard Bach

On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 07:25:37PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: Presumably Yisro went to tell his family what he had learned...

Apparantly he failed, as the Keini still existed as a separate people
(or at least a tribe of Midian) 40 years later.

-mi

On 11 Feb 2004 at 19:25, Zev Sero wrote:
> Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
>> Yisro went to be megayer his family. Would being megayer his own
>> family be an exception even nowadays to the halacha of not "pushing'
>> giyur?

> I don't believe there is a halacha to discourage giyur or even not to
> push it. 

I always understood the Gemara in Yevamos as making it dependent on the
status of the Jewish people. If our status is good (e.g. in the times of
David and Shlomo), there is a possible ulterior motive for being m'gayeor,
and therefore we discourage it and don't push it. If our status is poor,
then we don't discourage it, and in some circumstances maybe even push it.

In the times of Matan Torah, three months after Yetzias Mitzrayim,
Am Yisrael was on a high. But, as you note...

> Presumably Yisro went to tell his family what he had learned, and to
> convince them that the Torah is true, so that they would *want* to
> convert. Knowing them well, he would also be in a position to judge
> how serious they were about it, when the time came. 

You then go on to say:
> We *want* geirim (lo niglu yisrael levein haumot
> ela kedei sheyitvasfu aleihem geirim),

Which doesn't really shtim with the Gemaras that talk about kashin
geirim l'Yisrael because they excel at mitzvos more than many of us
do. In other words, our natural tendency is NOT to want geirim because
they make us look bad.

> Such a project
> would seem to me entirely appropriate even today.

I disagree. Especially in today's environment where we have chashashos of
geirim coming because of intermarriage (US and other western countries)
and to improve their economic status (Russians moving to Israel),
I think we have to be very careful about accepting geirim.

-- 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. 

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


[ 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         ]