Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 131

Monday, March 29 2004

• Al Naharot Bavel
• RE: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:41:24 -0500
• Re: Bracha on having a child
• V'Higadta L'Vincha (was: Time for afikoman)
• Re: chametz in the kinneret
• Re: diet soda
• R. Elyashiv on pesach
• Re: Walking down the aisle
• Re: Walking down the aisle
• Re: Innovation In Religious Paractice
• Re: G-d's existence
• Re: Rambam, Torah and philosophy
• Chazal and Superstition
• Re: Is R Marc Shapiro's recent book intellectually flawed
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: Is R Marc Shapiro's recent book intellectually flawed
• Re: Is R Marc Shapiro's recent book intellectually flawed
• Re: Innovation In Religious Paractice -corrected

For those who say it during the year, what is the common practice re:
saying this during Nissan(before Birchat Hamazon)? Does anyone say shir
hamaalot for the whole month(whether they say al naharot the rest of
the year or not)?
Any sources?

KT
Joel RIch

Meir Shinnar wrote:
>The radbaz's tshuva dealt with a preacher who
>was teaching what was felt minut - and he was
>dealt with differently.

If you are discussing Shu"t Radbaz vol. 4 no. 187, then I believe that you
have mischaracterized the teshuvah. The question was regarding a preacher
who taught that the Dor HaMidbar - or maybe just the Eirev Rav -
considered Moshe to be a god and Moshe knew about it and legitimated it.
Teaching that Moshe committed such a grave sin was the problem. The Radbaz
tried unsuccessfully to be melamed zechus and then said that he is
certainly no worse than someone who due to a mistaken analysis errs in one
the the fundamentals of religion. Since the latter is patur from a
punishment, the former must also be.

However, the Radbaz concludes by instructing his correspondent to send
witnesses to tell this preacher in his [the Radbaz's] name that the
preacher is wrong and give him an opportunity to retract or to state his
view in front of the witnesses. If he does not retract, the Radbaz was
ready to rebuke, coerce and chase him until Chormah (which I think is a
veiled reference to putting him in cherem).

I think this supports my position.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

<<And apropos HA'MAFSHIT, removing feathers on chicken skin.>>

SSK says there is a chashash of GOZEZ of this (3:30 **).

 - Ilana

From: "Kenneth G Miller" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> R' SBA wrote <<< I have just checked my KSA [im Piskei MB] and see that
> the MB says that if one had sons and was hoping for a daughter then
> tsorich iyun if he makes a brocho...>>>

> The ellipses there are not mine, but from RSBA's post. I think that what
> he meant was: The MB says that if one had sons and was hoping for a
> daughter then tsorich iyun if he makes a brocho when the daughter is
> born.

> Catch that? The first three times I read that, I thought (as RSBA did)
> that it had said "yesh l'ayen if he says a bracha on the birth of a
> daughter." But that's *not* the case.

No. I meant it the way you finally understood...

SBA

R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< Rav Asher Weiss' shiur last night was about
Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim ... In the old days when Haggados were scarce,
in most houses the Ba'al HaBayis read the Haggada and everyone else just
listened. He implied that today, either you have to have kavana to be
yotzei or you have to read along with the Ba'al HaBayis. We do neither of
the above - we go around the table handing out paragraphs to each person.
I never thought that there was an inyan to READ the entire Haggada ALOUD
other than the Shlosha Dvarim and possibly Avadim Hayinu. Anyone else?

I have asked a similar (maybe identical) question many times: In a case
where the baal habayis reads and everyone else listens, by what mechanism
are the others yotzay?

The first reaction would be that this occurs via shomea k'oneh, but I have
not yet found any sefer which reminds us that the baal habayis must have
kavana l'hotzi, or that the family must have kavana latzeis -- despite
the ubiquity of this reminder in so many other parts of Shulchan Aruch.

Note, for example, the Rema in 473:6 who reminds us to read or explain
the Hagada in a language which the women and children will understand.
Mishna Brurah 64 explains: "So the women will understand: For the women
too are chayav in the mitzvos of the night and in saying (uv'amiras)
the Hagadah..."

What an odd piece of logic! The women must understand what being said,
else they won't fulfill their obligation to say it? Where else might
we find this? They don't have to understand kiddush. They don't have to
understand the megillah. They just have to listen, and keep in mind that
what they are hearing should be considered as if they were saying it.

But the logic here seems to be that if they would sit through the hagada
the way they sit through kiddush and megilah, it would not suffice,
and they wouldn't be yotzay. Am I the only one bothered by this?

My guess at an explanation would be this: Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim is not
necessarily done by *telling* the story. Perhaps it can also be done by
*participating* in a storytelling - whether as teller *or* as audience.
Proper fulfillment of one's role as an audience member does require the
person to understand the story being told, but it does not require any
sort of "shomea k'oneh" because he is doing the mitzvah himself rather
than by being yotzay from someone else's action. Just a guess. Anyone
else?

Akiva Miller

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> at a field school on the Kinneret in the summer of 1972 and we
> were told by the madrichim when we went swimming on Sunday that if we
> loosened our bathing suits, we could be toveil in it. Ask me if any of
> the madrichim were reliable poskim at the time (at least one of them
> that I recall is today), and I'd have to say that I'm not sure. And I
> don't recall whether the Rabbonim who accompanied us actually signed
> off on this idea....

I remember seeing a tshuva in Betzeil Hachochmo re paskening to women who
asked him about tovelling in a lake/river. He paskened they cannot -
even if they loosen their bathing ssuits. He writes that he knew they
wouldn't listen to him - but at least this way, they actually loosened
the BS - something they would not have done had he stam assered...

SBA

On 25 Mar 2004 at 16:13, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
> it is interesting that they show OUP diet coke on their list
> of okay products. is diet coke using another sweetener, or are they
> listing a product that r heineman would not give a hechsher on?

I don't know. But I can tell you that Rav Landau does not give a Pesach
hechsher to Diet Coke here, and I don't think the Badatz EC gives one
to Pepsi Max either.

-- Carl

a booklet recent appeared with piskei halachot of R. Elyashiv about 
Pesach.
I am enlcosing some of them (there is 30 pages!) some with a question
mark about the ones I didn't understand (I elaborated on #25 because
it really seems strange)

?1 today that we clean the rooms before bedikah one is REQUIRED (chiyuv
midinah) to put out pieces of chametz before the bedikah otherwise there
might be (cheshash) for a beracha le-vatala

2. those living in a co-op (e.g. apt buildings in Israel) only need to
check the stairs below their flight. Avove their apt they don't really
own the area even though informally they have access to it.

3. One has to check chametz between the burner and the stove (kirah
and tanur). However, if one can't reach some places it is considered
buried and so like biur

!!4. A hot plate only needs to be cleaned off and covered with aluminum
foil

5. a candle is only needed for cracks. Things in the open one can use
one's hands to feel what is there. Cracks where it is dangerous or not
effective to use a candle (eg a car) one should use a flashlight.

6. crumbs in pockets that have been washed don't need bedikah since
the washing makes them inedible. Only those not washed need bedikah.
Nevertheless it is a good idea to always do bedikah on pockets since
maybe the chametz was in a plastic or very large in a way that they are
still edible.

7. One is required to sell stocks in companies that own chametz

8. medicines with a bad taste or in capsules are considered inedible

9. some one with a slight headache that frequently develops into a
migraine is considered choleh she-en bo sakanah even before the migraine
develops.

10. cleaning elements are considered nifsal me-achilat kelev but it is
still preferable to buy kasher le-pesach

?11. in theory one can eat kitniot erev pesach but the minhag is not to
(ashkenazim of course)

12. someone who might give birth seder night needs to bring the matzoh
etc to the hospital before chag if the hosiptal is more than 12 mil
(about 12 kilometers) away.

!!13. For Israelis - one can put chametz before pesach in the garbage
bins in one's apt building since today the bins usually belong to the
city and not the tenants and so are completely hefker

14. One should not pour keresone on the chametz before burning it

15. one living in a coop where the neighbors don't sell the common
property should make it hefker.

16. One should not sell chametz "be-en" unless it is a store etc.
one can sell medicines that are edible (not clear about whiskey!)

!17. Even one who gets rid of all his chametz should participate in
selling his chametz

!18 if one sells a room or the house to a goy than one needs to remove
the mezuzot and reset them after pesach because of taase ve-lo min ha-asui

!19. The appointing of the rabbi as shaliach for the sale can be done
by telephone. One can sell the same chametz through several rabbis.
The one that sells it first to the goy "wins"

!20 when a not shomer mitzvot sells his chametz the setting of the rabbi
as agent needs to be done with a contract fully enforceable in court
and not with the usual setting the rabbi as agent

!21 one cannot work over pesach in a plant of a goy that deals with
chametz even if he is only the accountant

!?22. for shabbat and yomtov a microwave is considered like a regular
oven for pesach one should not heat the boiling water for hagalah in a
microwave (doesn't discuss ashering the microwave itself)

23. pyrex can be kashered

?24. One who is not a choleh should not take medicines with kitniyot.
if they are inedible then they can be taken for a slight pain

??25 an ashkenazi woman who marries a sefardi has to keep all the laws
of kitniyot because in the generation that it was accepted this was a
complete kabbalah for all generations

(I never heard this from any other posek - the more machmir only require
hatarat nedarim - besides I severely doubt there was any generation
that formally accepted the gezerah of kitniyot - the cloudy history is
well known)

26. The minhag to leave jerusalem on erev pesach has no basis

27. for taanit bechorot the siyum helps only if one is there for the
entire siyum. One who finished the mesechta the day before cannot make
the siyum erev pesach
(I was confused since the magid shiur always prepares ahead of time)

28. One should have kavanah. Dpn't say iyih ratzonal mitzvat aseh when
it is only derabban

29. A covered side bar to a chair can be instead of a pillow for
hesevah. RSYE himeslf leans the whole meal using pillows and leaning
with his shoulder

30. women who don't lean still have to sit in a "cherut" manner of sitting

31. If one mixes grape juice with wine then one must taste the alchohol.

32. If one can't even drink grape juice then one can use chamar
medinah. This includes various fruit drinks but NOT drinks that are
mainly water with some added flavor of fruits

??33 One needs to finish maggid and say the second beracha on wine within
72 minutes of kiddush. If maggid takes longer than one should stop and
make the second beracha and then continue with maggid

(I don't think that was the minhag of most raabanim)

34. Women need to particpate according to the order - not come in and
drink wine when it is convenient for them - Raaban Gamliel Omer is a
bare minimum of maggid taking care of children is not a hefsek bewteen
the first and second cup.

35. Women should answer amen to the she-hechianu in kiddush even if they
said already on the candles.

36. One is yotzeh with lettuce (chasah) and don't need horseraddish
(chazzeret) One should eat the stalks of the lettuce and not the leaves
as they are more bitter

?37. Those who eat raw celery its berachah is shehakol as it is usually
eaten cooked in soup

38. It is preferable that each person say the hagadah and not just
the leader

!!39. Kezayit is by volume. For hand matzah = size of the hand (kaf yad)
with the fingers slightly open.

!!40. Preferably the person should own the matzah - he should sell it
to grown children and in-laws

41. Preferably one should eat 2 kezetim at one time
(contradicts his own minhag!) - if this is too hard then one can eat
them in the normal manner within the time of achilas peras (note -
RSZA did not like stuffing ones mouth with matzah)

42. If the matzah is slightly broken but looks whole one can use as a
whole matzah.

43. Zimun includes everyone at the same table even though they had
separate matzot. It does not include people at other tables.

44. One can drink tea with sugar after the afikomon

some customs of R. Elyashiv

RYSE does not say the hagadah on shabbat hagadol
RYSE does bedikah with a wax candle and leaves on the electric lights
He personally puts out the 10 pieces of chametz before bedikah
In his older age he begings the bedikah and then gives it to a 
grandchild to finish
RYSE covers the marble with a thick aluminum foil without kashering it
RSYE uses a bitter modern strain of maror (wasn't clear)
he eats from the egg in the ke-arah (it is there in its shell)
he eats gebrochts
water for the entire chag is stored ahead of time in a barrel
only RYSE has a keaarah but the married couples get 3 matzot of their 
own
the matzot are from the chaburah of R. Chaim Kanevsky
he himself only eats hand matzah all chag but there is machine matzah 
from his son-in-law R. Auerbach for the rest of the family
He adds a little grape juice to the wine for the seder
the karpas is potato which is only partially dipped into the salt 
water
He does not dip the matzah of mitzvah in salt
RSYE does not eat two ke-zetim at once. Rather in the normal manner of 
eating but fast
Finishes maggid and drinks the second cup within 72 minutes of the 
first cup
Everyone stands for "shefoch hamatcha" and RYSE announces - boruch 
haba
They DONT steal the afikomon at the seder of RYSE
RYSE reads shir hashirim after the seder

Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 3/28/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

On 26 Mar 2004 at 7:58, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
> Doesn't the concept of shoshvinin meet your definition of "slight
> connection"?

No. There's no aisle mentioned. 

> So, over the years, we've added to the shoshvinin, and now the Kallah
> is also part of that formal procession, and other people as well. Why
> do you all thing that this is such a non-Jewish procedure? Maybe
> *they* got it from *us*!!!

Maybe. My suspicions are aroused because as far as I can tell it was
unknown in Europe (and is to this day done only in North America and by
North Americans who marry in Israel).

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@fandz.com      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.

I asked <<< Doesn't the concept of shoshvinin meet your definition of
"slight connection"?>>>

R' Carl Sherer answered <<< No. There's no aisle mentioned.>>>

My only point has been that the Shoshvinin constitute a formal procession
which later developed into what some have been calling a "parade". If
you don't like this development, fine; my only point is that it *does*
have at least a "slight connection" to legitimate Jewish roots.

But others don't see it this way. I'm obviously missing something very
basic here.

Could someone explain to me where the choson is, where the shoshvinin
are, where the rest of the minyan are, how they all got there, and what
route they took?

The only guess I can come up with is that at the beginning, the minyan is
near the chupa, and the choson and shoshvinin are somewhere else. Then,
the choson and shoshvonin walk to the chupa. I hope that they don't knock
over any of the minyan in doing so, which must mean that there's some
sort of gap which they go through in order to reach the chupa. Does it
matter whether or not this gap is referred to as an "aisle"? Or maybe
all the people are on the far side of the chupa, so that the choson and
shoshvinin don't pass through them via any sort of gap or aisle. It's
*still* a formal procession, isn't it?

Or do the guests go to the chupa *after* the choson and shoshvinin
arrive there?

Akiva Miller

R' Harry Maryles wrote <<< The Torah tells us of voluntary Karbanos
and mandatory ones. But the voluntary Karbanos are permitted precisely
because they are sourced in the Torah. If someone wanted to make up a
new Korban ... For example, if someone wanted to sacrifice a Korban on
the Mizbeach for Yom HaAtzmaut (not as a Todah but as a Chaggiga... and
assuming for a moment that we were in a Tekufa that we had the Beis
HaMikdash) it would be assur.>>>

Yes, all this is true. You know it, I know it, and I imagine that the
great majority of listmembers know it.

But did Nadav and Avihu know it?

What I'm asking is this: The Avos were making up all sorts of korbanos for
centuries before Nadav and Avihu were born. When did it become forbidden
to offer a korban which had not been sourced in the Torah?

My guess is that we know this to be assur mostly because of what happened
to them. But if that is true, then the issur did not yet exist (or was at
least unknown), in which case, the reason for their punishment is a lot
more complicated than "they brought korbanos which were not commanded."

Akiva Miller

In Avodah V12 #107 dated 3/1/04 Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
writes:
> My understanding of modern physics is that they claim that it is all
> "coincidence". i.e. there is nothing special that man exists rather
> than other material or even nothing.... 
> The debate about the anthropic principle boils down to whether one 
> considers humans to be important. If one considers them unique then 
> the anthropic principle shows that something strange is happening in 
> that many coincidences are needed to create this world.
> On the other hand if one insists that there is nothing special about 
> humans and that human creativity is a mere fluke then what we see is 
> simply the outcome of many possibilities - after all something had to 
> happen.

The tremendous interest and excitement generated by the subject of life on
other planets or intelligent life elsewhere in the universe derives from
the discomfort that scientists have with the idea that in all this vast,
vast universe, we are the only living beings and the only intelligent
beings. That very uniqueness strongly implies a special creation.
Whereas, if life is common in the universe, then evolution is "normal"
and not miraculous, and our being here is simply the result of natural
forces, laws of nature which apply everywhere.

That is why you see a lot of hype in the scientific press and in the
popular media about something like rocks from Mars that show signs of
life (later discredited) or SETI or anything that gives hope that we on
Earth are not the only life in the universe.

There is a profoundly religious hope behind all this hype: the hope
that we can sin and not have to pay for our sins. If there is no Creator
there is no Judge.

When you have a replicable experiment you feel a degree of confidence
about your results. So far evolution as the explanation for life on
earth is a non-replicable experiment, which strongly suggests that
Someone messed with the lab results. This is a situation that leaves
secularists very uneasy.

Of course, it may turn out that there is life elsewhere or even
intelligent life elsewhere. I think it highly unlikely, but not
impossible. It would not bother me at all. G-d is perfectly capable of
creating life in many places.

But to secular scientists, the existence of life elsewhere in the universe
has taken on something of the quality of ikrei emunah, because of their
wish to believe that man is not unique.

  CKvS
--Toby Katz

RMS wrote:
>> That's STILL the cart before the horse.
>> How does the Rambam decide what has been "conclusive" and what not?
>> Isn't that the entire question: Whether to assume the philosophy is
>> flawed, that it is not conclusive, or to assume one's understanding of
>> the Torah is?

RMB
> The problem is that the rambam, in his discussion, never uses torah to
> assess whether philosophy is true - only once philosophy is questionable
> on

Worried of getting embroigled in this disagreement when people call to
ask for the Pessa'h kashrut of cat food (this is serious), I shall just
add CHF0.03 (approx. USD0.02) and then cowardly disappear.

The Rambam does not consider Aristotle to have hit upon Rua'h haQodesh,
hence, his philosophy has no intrinsic value. Instead, he is contrasting
common (mis)interpretation of Torah with what is know by reason. "Reason"
is in fact the word my teacher in such matters, Rav Walter Wurzburger,
used when explaining those passages.

To restate, what is know by reason can be considered those parts of
philosophy which Rambam has deemed sufficiently convincing to warrant
reexamining Tanakh and 'Hazal in order to find what Rambam would accept
as the true meaning.

IOW, although there are significant differences between RMB's and RMS'
approach, they should not be arguing about this particular detail, since
those philosophical ideas the Rambam accepts in the Moreh are obviously
those he found acceptable, yet he does underscore the role of reason here.

I argued in the past, and still stand by the observation, that other
authorities accepted the basic saneness of this position of Rambam,
however argued about what constitutes sufficient reasonableness to
qualify for the label knowledge by reason.

Remember, Torah has a cannon, philosophy does not.

Einen koscheren und freilichen Pessachfest, ;-)
Arie Folger
-- 
Arie Folger

A good resource for this topic is
Faith and Folly: The Occult in Torah Perspective
by Yaakov Hillel (Feldeheim, 1990)
<http://www.feldheim.com/cgi-local/new/db.cgi>

M. Levin 

[Micha:]
> The notion that an "intellectual historian" is the relevent authority,
> and that the opposition only consists of ""talmudists who at best merely
> dabble" presumes his conclusion.

> If he thinks his opinion of normative hashkafah is more relevent to
> defining O than RYHutner's, RJBS's, R' Tzadoq's, R' Kook's, RAKaplan,
> (and that's only a tiny sample from within the last century), or simply
> didn't think about them, then his assumptions are wrong.

ZZG! RMB's comments express in a nutshell much of the underlying
criticisms that have been raised re R Shapiro's well meant attempt to
discuss these issues.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Me
>: If a possible
>: kofer gets a psak that he's not a kofer and then visits another town
>: wnere he is a kofer he gets lowered down a cistern to die (unless they
>: follow the Hazon Ish). It neatens the problem, but it's hard on the guy
>: who had gotten a psak that he's OK.

RMB
> Actually, they'd have to rule him a tinoq shenishba even without the
> CI. The CI generalized it to say that the post Haskalah kofeir is always
> a tinoq shenishba legabei moridin, he didn't invent the heter in general.

I don't know how you see this in either the Hazon Ish or in the case we're
discussing. The postulated case was a machloketh about kefirah. If he
knows that both opinions exist he's certainly not a tinok shenishba.
The Hazon Ish does not explain his psak (no mention there of tinok
shenishba), nor does he predicate it on the haskalah (though I tried to
explain it in a way that might fit the haskalah). He predicates it on
the absence of nisim gluyim.

David Riceman

In a message dated 3/29/2004 7:07:15 AM EST, Zeliglaw@aol.com writes:
>>If he thinks his opinion of normative hashkafah is more relevent to
>>defining O than RYHutner's, RJBS's, R' Tzadoq's, R' Kook's, RAKaplan,
>>(and that's only a tiny sample from within the last century), or simply
>>didn't think about them, then his assumptions are wrong.

> ZZG! RMB's comments express in a nutshell much of the underlying
> criticisms that have been raised re R Shapiro's well meant attempt to
> discuss these issues.

WADR this is a fine statement of why "no one ever died from a kashe"
but doesn't deal with the sources RMS brings down. We can disagree with
his conclusions and say we're sure that R'XYZ was aware of these sources
and they didn't trouble him so why should they trouble me, but I would
prefer to try to understand why they didn't trouble R'XYZ.

KT
Joel Rich

On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 08:46:51AM -0500, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: WADR this is a fine statement of why "no one ever died from a kashe"
: but doesn't deal with the sources RMS brings down. We can disagree with
: his conclusions and say we're sure that R'XYZ was aware of these sources
: and they didn't trouble him so why should they trouble me, but I would
: prefer to try to understand why they didn't trouble R'XYZ.

No one is denying the question. We're denying its pragmatic
relevence. Yes, once can still ask "How did rishon X hold...?" But
ba'alei mesorah are the ones who can reduce that rishon's shitah to a
historical curiosity, to Torah to learn on a theoretical basis but that
plays no rule in forming our own hashkafos.

As I wrote, right vs wrong WRT Torah is defined by those who are immersed
in it and try to become one with it, not those who stand back to get an
objective, scholar's, perspective of its evolution.

Second, if he can write that O has been bereft of modern rabbinic
leadership who have done more than dabble in philosophy RMS ignores the
modern history of the subject.

It's not a historian of ideas' role to define the limits of Orthodoxy.

IOW, the question is fine, it's his assertion that he has an answer that
requires rethinking what is basicaly a rabbinic subject that is wrong.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie

Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> R' Harry Maryles wrote
>> The voluntary Karbanos are permitted precisely because they are
>> sourced in the Torah. If someone wanted to make up a new Korban
>> ... (it would be Assur).

> Yes, all this is true... 
> But did Nadav and Avihu know it?

> What I'm asking is this: The Avos were making up all sorts of korbanos for
> centuries before Nadav and Avihu were born. When did it become forbidden
> to offer a korban which had not been sourced in the Torah?

Nadav and Avihu's Eish Zar happened at the time of Matan Torah
itself. Moshe Rabbenu was commanded to do the inaugural offerings on
the Mizbeach. Everyone knew this, especially those commanded to do
the Avodah, the Bnei Aharon... Nadav and Avihu et al. What perhaps
was NOT known by them but should have been, was the idea of precision
in following God's directives. That Nadav and Avihu should have known
better about not "jumping the gun" is indicated in their punishments.
God does not puinish the innocent. That they did it L'Shma shows that
intent is not enough. Mitzvah fulfilment requires not only intent but
accuracy... and certainly external non mandated actions, no matter how
sincere, can be considered an Eish Zar.

HM

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


[ 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         ]