Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 036

Friday, June 11 2004

• VIDC
• Re: Disputing Previous Generations
• disputing previous generations
• Sheitels
• Re: Animal Proof
• Re: Animal Proof
• Yizkor
• Re: Disputing Previous Generations
• Re: filtering on shabbos
• 'paying respects'
• retracting an adoption
• Re: retracting an adoption
• Re: retracting an adoption
• Re: retracting an adoption
• Re: 'paying respects'
• Re: 'paying respects'
• Re: 'paying respects'
• Re: 'paying respects'
• Disputing earlier generations
• Choice of paying everything up front vs. paying higher amount spread out over time
• Defining the word "Halacha"

[RCM, thanks for replying on list. -mi]

This one is disccussed in the achronim.

Ayin D'var Yaakov on Baba Kama 56-sugyah of shomeir aveidah.

Rav Elchanan in Bava Basra says that if the aseh is not shayach at all
then there is no lav. Since the lav is connected to te aseh, if there
is no aseh there is no lav.

L'ma'aseh it could be toloi in whether oseik b'mitzvah is an oneis or
petur. If it is oneis then the aseh still applies just you are patur
m'tzad oneis so the lav would also apply. But if it is a petur so the
aseh doesn't apply at all so the lav doesn't apply either.

Re: R' Yochanan's acceptance of the authoritativeness of the Mishnah,
consider Kiddushin 46a. When confronted a Mishnah that does not make
sense, R' Yochanan does not reject it but laments: "Here is the table;
here is the meat; and here is the knife. But we cannot eat." This seems
to me to be an expression of both submission to the Mishnah and yeridas
ha-doros.

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

Joel Rich (6/9/04): 
> Monday's daf had a # of these "bnichuta". Does anyone have
> a theory as to why the gemora would use the same terminology, albeit a
> very small percentage of the time, to introduce a supporting statement?

This doesn't completely answer the question, but the "ha" in front of
the word simply means "behold!" I.e., "Behold, a mishna states...,"
"Behold, a Braissa states..." Evidently, the intent of the term was
not chosen specifically as a "key word" to denote either a kushya or
teyrutz, although we can usually reliably use it as such. It denotes:
"Here comes a relevant document (oral or written) to consider!"

Zvi Lampel

A question was raised:
>BY teachers are using Rabbi Falk's books, which frown on human hair 
>sheitels, as textbooks. Does my wife (and many other extremely good 
>intentioned women like her) who is very tznuis'dig but is beginning to 
>feel uncomfortable wearing a natural looking sheitel, should be encouraged 
>to be 'bold' and buck the trend because she is after all, most tznius'dig, 
>or on the other hand, she should be encouraged to move with the Rabbi Falk 
>trend against natural looking sheitels because of the movement of 
>community standards in that direction.

The tzenius issue of sheitels that completely cover a woman's hair is
an issue that requires great sensitivity.

There are several factors that must be taken into account which are not
necessarily obvious and not necessarily addressed in Rabbi Falk's book
on tzenius.

One issue, which is not discussed enough, perhaps because it is
embarrassing, is the issue of attractivity to the wife's own husband. This
is an issue that I have heard was addressed by Rabbi Heineman several
years ago, but have not heard mentioned since. According to what I recall,
Rabbi Heineman was said to have stated that in a generation and milieu
in which alluring women are to be found in the flesh and in images,
many of whom dress (or undress, as the case may be) with the intent of
provoking arousal and even desire, wherever you read, walk, drive, shop
or do business, it is very advantageous that a husband find his own wife
as attractive as possible. To be sure, this will not be at all times,
probably not even most of the time, but it is a good thing for some of
the time.

As is well known, for similar reasons, much of Orach Chaim 240 is regarded
as inoperative (i.e. as Milei d'Chasidusa) in our day and age. In my
"chosson shmues" I was told that Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky said that even as
an old man, most of OC 240 was simply not for him. (I do not know if the
story is true - but that is not relevant - the point is that the Gadol
who gave me the shmuess told it to me.)

We know, of course, that there is precedent for this in the takkana (of
Ezra, IIRC) that peddlers should go from town to town selling jewelry, and
in Abba Chilkiya's wife coming out to greet him (in public) fully adorned.

This is particularly true in the case of husbands who are in constant
contact with the "outside" world - but who really isn't, nowadays? That
is why a frequent refrain heard from bachurim in Lakewood et al (as I
have been told) seem to want to marry exceptionally good looking girls

Another issue is the fact that the overwhelming majority of frum families
(for that matter, American families in general) cannot get along - at
least if they want to pay their children's tuition! - on the husband's
income alone. Indeed, with the limited skills most yeshiva-educated men
currently acquire, the wife is as often as not the main breadwinner for
the family. Moreover, the quantity and quality of the available jobs
within the Orthodox Jewish world do not suffice to provide sufficient
positions and income for many families. And, in the outside world,
appearance means a lot in getting hired and retaining a job.

Yet another issue is the example set to those who are wavering as to
whether and how much to cover their hair - and to the image displayed
to our non-Orthodox brethren.

OTOH, of course, there is a geder of too alluring and a category of
naval b'reshus ha'Torah, v'ein kan makom l'ha'arich.

Taking all these factors into account, I would say that a simple rule
of thumb is that a sheitel that is similar in style to the acceptable
standard of the local Bais Yaakov school for its students' hair styles is
definitely sufficiently tzanu'a. It need not be more tzanu'a than that in
order to be considered nice yet not provocative. Within that definition,
it is permissible and probably worthy of encouragement, kana"l, that the
sheitel mimic a natural head of hair. To try to take community standards
beyond that will likely lead to deficits in the areas outlined above.

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
<<However, we still have to deal with the Sifri (Re'eih 49) and Chullin
60b, which do say that this parashah demonstrates zoological knowledge
Moshe couldn't have.>>

They don't say what people think they say. See Rashi. It doesn't mean
"how could Moshe have known that there are no other such animals." It's
referring to Moshe being familiar with *these* animals - the camel,
hare, hyrax and pig. In a separate statement, the Gemara does seem to
say that these are the only animals, but there are different ways of
learning the Gemara.

<<LAD, the "proof" doesn't work because we don't know what a min is. We
can answer RNS's #2 by assuming a single Hebrew word refers to something
that from a zoological taxonomy perspective would be multiple species. >>

That is certainly true in some cases. But you can't say that a kangaroo
and a hyrax are the same min. And both are equally maaleh gerah.

<<E.g.: Are bactrian and dromidary camels both "gamal"? OTOH, are both
camels and llamas kinds of "gamal"? Either grouping of animals to Hebrew
terms is possible.>>

The latter is very difficult - camels and llamas are much less similar
than horses and donkeys, which are two minim.

Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com/hyrax

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:04:24PM +0300, Zoo Torah wrote:
:                      In a separate statement, the Gemara does seem to
: say that these are the only animals, but there are different ways of
: learning the Gemara.

Until I actually see your book, I'll have to take your word for it.

: <<LAD, the "proof" doesn't work because we don't know what a min is. We
: can answer RNS's #2 by assuming a single Hebrew word refers to something
: that from a zoological taxonomy perspective would be multiple species. >>

: That is certainly true in some cases. But you can't say that a kangaroo
: and a hyrax are the same min. And both are equally maaleh gerah.

Without knowing all the words on the list, we don't know if there isn't
a misassigned word that refers to kangaroo. After all, the rishonim looking
to translate the chumash aren't likely to get that one (if it's there).
So, they could end up splitting what was really covered by a single term
into two terms, reusing the word that was unkown to them.

: <<E.g.: Are bactrian and dromidary camels both "gamal"? OTOH, are both
: camels and llamas kinds of "gamal"? Either grouping of animals to Hebrew
: terms is possible.>>

: The latter is very difficult - camels and llamas are much less similar
: than horses and donkeys, which are two minim.

But camels far more central to the lifestyle, and therefore might have a
richer lexicon.

-mi

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

From: gershon.dubin@juno.com
> Dr. Schuss asked for the source of yizkor on Yom Tov. ...
>        [T]he source of yizkor on Yom Kippur is that meisim need kapara
> as well as chayim.

> Rav Dovid Cohen points out that yomim tovim are also yemei hadin
> (bepesach al hatevuah, be'atzeres al peiros ha'ilan, uvechag al hamayim)
> which is why we say shelosh esrei midos when we take out the Torah. So,
> I suggest that this was the reason for expanding the yom hadin concept
> from Yom Kippur only, to all chagim.

For those who hold that previous generations "see" better.. Yizkor
is not for the same reason for both times.....Kav HaYashar by Rabbi
Zvi Hirsch Kaidanove and Maavar Yabok by Aaron Berechiah ben Moses,
of Modena student of the Rema from Fano state the reasons.

Chaim

In a message dated 6/4/2004 3:12:52 AM EDT, DGLASNER@ftc.gov writes:
...
> As to R. Yohanan's acceptance of the authoritativeness of the Mishnah,
> I am less impressed by the Yerushalmi in Pe'ah, which is obviously
> homiletic and hortatory in tone, than by the fact that he surely must
> have been challenging Reish Lakish with Tanaitic sources, just as he was
> being challenged by Reish Lakish....

FWIW, I agree that it seems highly likely that Rav Yochanan submitted to
the authority of the Mishnah in the absence of contradictory Tannaitic
material.

The source for my hypothesis was in Arvei P'sachim whera a number of
briasos are brought to contradict Rav Yochanan re: yedai yayain yatza
and end in a Tiyuvta. My hypothesis is that it would have surprised Rav
Yochanan that he could be refuted by those Braissos.

It's also a given that later on Amoraim would NOT have been surprised. I
don't know when this transition occured.

Point: The presumotions of the Stam might NOT have been in place
consistnetly throughout the hisotry of tha Amoraic era.

This is often the case that we view things with a kind of intellectual
Chazzakah d'hashta IOW since NOW we know that Amoraim cannot dispute
Tanna'im then we PRESUME it was ALWAYS the case. However, if you stepped
back say to the era of Rabbi Meir, you have a Chazzakah d'mai'ikara
that of course one tanna can dispute another. I am poisiting that this
cut-off point was formualted after the era of Rav Yochanan. albeit
perhaps retroactively...

Tangential mashall. A lot of people will tell you that Saboraic/Geonic
era should not be able to contradict the Gmara, but it is likely that
the Behag might not have know this rule. And Therefore this rule might
have been imposed later, albeit retroactively etc..

Shalom and Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com 

R' Saul Newman wrote:
<<< Since NY tap water actually is drinkable without being filtered,
it may be permitted to filter NY water on Shabbos, [as in fact Harav
Yechezkel Roth Shlit"a has ruled]. Even though Poskim have recommended
filtering the water for Kashrus reasons, unfiltered water may still be
Halachically drinkable since the incidence of visible copepods in tap
water may constitute a Miut She'eino Matsui - a very infrequent event -
for which checking and filtering is not strictly required. Furthermore,
the fact that something is only Halachically undrinkable may not
categorize it as a liquid that is subject to Borer. >>>

It sounds to me like this permission to filter on Shabbos would apply
only to people whose posek *recommended* filtering. If someone's posek
*required* filtering, then it is *not* drinkable to him, and should
be assur.

I do not understand the last sentence ("only Halachically undrinkable")
at all. Suppose one of my forks became treif. I know which one it is,
because of a tiny distinctive scratch on the underside, but to any
non-Jew all twelve forks are equally usable. You think that it would not
be borer to remove that fork from the bunch of forks, because it is merely
"Halachically unusable"?

Akiva Miller

A prominent political leader of a country with many Jews and a close
relationship to Israel passed away not long ago and it was announced
that the deceased would be laying in state for people to pay their last
respects to him.

Suppose a Jew wanted to file past his bier/coffin, to 'pay respects'
- possibly mipnei darkei sholom or similar - haim yeish bozeh mishum
chukos hagoyim ? Would there be a problem with it ? Different shitos
? Difference if casket is open or closed ? Only mutar perhaps if the
person was 'korov limalchus' and there could be inyan of 'mishum eivah'
? Ossur in all circumstances ?

I would be interested to hear comments on the inyan.

Mordechai

http://tinyurl.com/24zv4 

The article is about an Israeli case involving an adoption that the
biological parent is now retracting on.

Does anyone know any halachic sources that deal with this kind of
situation? Is there any halachic basis for an adoptive parent having a
"right" to the child after a certain period of time? If the criteria is
what is best for the child (is it?), how exactly is that determined? An
adoptive parent can at times be a better parent than a biological one,
so is being with a "better" parent (guardian) in the child's best
interests? If that were the case, then maybe we should be taking kids
away from lousy parents and putting them into more loving homes even if
the biological parents don't want it!

Curious to hear thoughts from sources on this issue.

Avi Burstein

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 06:51:12AM +0200, Avi Burstein wrote:
: Does anyone know any halachic sources that deal with this kind of
: situation? Is there any halachic basis for an adoptive parent having a
: "right" to the child after a certain period of time?...

Does halakhah have rights altogether? There are few intangibles whose
halakhah is phrased in terms of ba'alus or gezeilah (gezel shinah,
geneivas da'as are noted exceptions).

Second, AFAIK, halakhah has no concept of adoption. An adoptive parent
is closer to having the din of a mechaneikh than a parent.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

In a message dated 6/10/2004 9:18:36 AM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Second, AFAIK, halakhah has no concept of adoption. An adoptive parent
> is closer to having the din of a mechaneikh than a parent.

R'YBS stated this position (IIRC quoted in Family Redeemed), adoption per se 
was Roman (again IIRC)

KT
Joel Rich

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:23:27AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: R'YBS stated this position (IIRC quoted in Family Redeemed), adoption per se 
: was Roman (again IIRC)

According to RJHHertz, there is mention of adoption in Hammurabi's laws of
inheritance. He writes that in the Mesopatamia of Avraham's time, a means
of showing approval of one's daughter-in-law was to adopt her, thereby
guaranteeing she get a portion of the estate even if an almanah. RJHH
proposes this as an explanation of how Sarah was Avraham's sister in a
very literal sense.

See <http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/maternity4.html>, in which RMJBroyde
discusses "The Establishment of Maternity & Paternity in Jewish and
American Law", this section is titled "Adoption and Establishing Parental
Status". (And mentions adoption law in Hammurabi's code.)

Also, I overstated the point. WRT to property, the one who supports
a child has the same din as a parent (SA CM 370:2), a 2nd halachic
connection beyond chinukh.

RMJB's maskanah:
> Notwithstanding the high praise the law showers on a person who raises
> another's child, it is critical to realize that the institution of
> "adoption" in Jewish Law is radically different from the adoption
> law of American jurisdictions. In Jewish law adoption operates on an
> agency theory. The natural parents are always the parents; the adopted
> parents never are. While a number of incidental areas of parental rights
> are associated with custody and not natural parenthood, they are the
> exception and not the law. In the main, Jewish law focuses entirely on
> natural relationships to establish parental rights and duties.

WRT RYBS and adoption, RYBS held that problems of yichud do not exist
between the child and adoptive child. Actually, the way RKBrander
repeated it to me, RYBS laughed at the sho'eil for trying to impose such
a chumrah on himself. I don't think that proves that he recognized a
special relationship as much as a special metzi'us in which the problems
yichud avoids are unthinkable.

Also, RYBS said that for those who can't otherwise fulfil piryah verivyah,
adoption provides a means of some qiyum.

-mi

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

Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
> Suppose a Jew wanted to file past (former President Reagan's), 
> to 'pay respects' possibly mipnei darkei sholom or similar - haim >
> yeish bozeh mishum chukos hagoyim ?

Not in my opinion. CH does not mean we can't honor a non-Jew in the
manner which is customary in that country, as long as there is no
connection to AZ, or could lead to AZ, or could be misconstrueed as
AZ in any way... which there isn't. Just because a custom is non Torah
based does not make it Assur to do. If that were the case, then we could
never go to a ball game, or a museum. We would be forbidden to take on
any custom not originated in our holy Torah.

Personlly, I like wearing pants. I cannot conceive them being Assur just
because non-Jews originated the custom.

As a matter of fact, I am going to take a stand on this issue. Should
anyone Assur pants because of Chukas HaGoy, I will not listen to them.

HM

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 07:27:45AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: Personlly, I like wearing pants. I cannot conceive them being Assur just
: because non-Jews originated the custom.

The wearing of pants predates Avraham. And kohanim were obligated to
wear them.

: As a matter of fact, I am going to take a stand on this issue. Should
: anyone Assur pants because of Chukas HaGoy, I will not listen to them.

What if they assur pants because of pisuq raglayim?

Kohanim wore their michnasayim under a kesones, and Moshe wore his
pants under a chaluq (which is described similarly enough that I can't
tell how it differs). So, while wearing pants may be firmly Jewish,
this less-tzanu'ah custom of wearing them without anything around them
below the waist may not be.

If someone can explain the flaw in my sevarah, I'd appreciate it. Not
that I'm letting this argument keep me from wearing pants, I still would
like to understand why this concern with pisuq raglayim isn't din.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>: Personlly, I like wearing pants. I cannot conceive them being Assur just
>: because non-Jews originated the custom.

> The wearing of pants predates Avraham. And kohanim were obligated to
> wear them.

Yes, Kohanim wore pants, of a sort ( Actually it was probably more
like undershorts). They were designed to cover up their nakedness when
ascending the Kevesh of the Mizbeach. As to pants predating Avraham... I
was not aware of this. I was under the impression that pants as we know
them today is a relativrely recent innovation dating back no more than
a few hundred years ago at most.

...
> What if they assur pants because of pisuq raglayim?

I do not think this is an issuer for men. AIUI, The requirement for women
to cover the area of Pisuk Raglayim has as its basis the prevention of
Hirhur in men. I do not believe Hirur operates the same way in women as
it does in men, hence, there is no Issur for men to cover their Pisuk
Raglayim. If I am not mistaken, R. Moshe wore pants, and he occasionally
took off his Kapoteh.

> Moshe wore his
> pants under a chaluq (which is described similarly enough that I can't
> tell how it differs).

Well at the risk of yet again exposing my ignorance, I had no idea Moshe
R. wore pants. What is your source?

> So, while wearing pants may be firmly Jewish,
> this less-tzanu'ah custom of wearing them without anything around them
> below the waist may not be.

This illustrates well the concept of Tznius being relative to the
times. In an earlier day it was indeed the custom to wear long robes
(or later innhistory, frocks) of some kind, whether it be religious
Jews or non-Jews. So walking round in short jackets then, was not the
Tzanuah standard of the day. But as modern clothing have evolved, short
"suit type" jackets has become the norm and only Klei Kodesh, various
Chasidim, or Lubavitchers (on Shabbos and Yom Tov), wear them. The vast
majority of Frum Jews wear suits. R. Pam in fact refused to wear a Kapote
because he felt it was Yuhara. There are very few people that can claim
the Aidlekeit of R. Pam, ZTL.

HM

In a message dated 6/10/04 11:45:39 AM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> So, while wearing pants may be firmly Jewish,
> this less-tzanu'ah custom of wearing them without anything around them
> below the waist may not be.

See Psachim 3a Pisuk Raglayim is not an issue by men. V'hameivin Yovin.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, "Glasner, David" wrote: 
> Mishnah is obviously most authoritative ... The Tosefta incorporates
> other usually more discursive and detailed Tanaitic discussions
> that did not make it into Rebi's edition,
> but were later compiled into an authoritative edition by R. Hiya and
> R. Oshaya....

R. Lampel wrote:
> Just a technicality: Some Braissos were in written form as well,
> consisting of personal notes the tannaim took for themselves (as per
> Rambam in the Hakdama to his Payrush HaMIshnayos, and reference in the
> Gemora to a tanna's "mechilta," which Iggerress Rav Sherira Gaon takes
> to mean a tanna's notebook). I don't know how much this impacts on the
> thesis of the Dor R'vi'i.

More than a technicality, according to the Dor Revi'i. The prohibition
against writing down the oral torah did not extend to the written notes
that scholars and students kept for themselves. What was prohibited was
to teach from a written (i.e., authoritative text). That is precisely why
I am suggesting that, on the Dor Revi'i's theory, there may have been a
difference between the authoritativeness of the Mishnah and the Tosefta
compared to stam beraitot, although even the latter would certainly not
just be blown off by an amora.

Now for a more substantive issue:
> As to R. Yohanan's acceptance of the authoritativeness of the Mishnah,
> I am less impressed by the Yerushalmi in Pe'ah, which is obviously
> homiletic and hortatory in tone,

Zvi Lampel (in his own defense): How does a (perceived) tone of
"exhorting, giving advice" (Webster on horatory) do anything but
strengthen the seriousness of the principle he was advancing? How
else would he teach it? Would it only be by personally refraining from
contradicting mishnayos and braissos, and challenging others by tannaitic
sources, without explanation? We are looking for a Talmudic source
for this principle, and we have an Amora stating it as a principle,
with his explanaiton for it. What more can one ask for? (Am I getting
too passionate?)

>...than by the fact that he surely must
> have been challenging Reish Lakish with Tanaitic sources, just as he was
> being challenged by Reish Lakish.

R' Yochonon is not challenging Reish Lakish or anyone else in the
Yerushalmi passage cited. There is a mishnah that states a halachah,
someone in the mishnah then testifies that that halachah is a Halachah
L'Moshe MiSinai. Then the Gemora cites R' Zeira as quoting R' Yochonon who
said (homiletically, hortatorily, or otherwise) that one should not reject
any mishna, because it may well be a halachah told to Moshe at Sinai.
(The reasoning applies to any non-rabbinic halachah, as well as to a
technical halachah miSinai, and to any reliable tannitic source.) Then R'
Abin remarks, How true! For would we have known [this about the halachah
in question] had [the testifier that it was a Halachah L'Moshe Mi Sinai]
not come and explained it to us?!"

I don't think that I made myself clear in my earlier posting. I was merely
saying that your second argument that R. Yohanan obviously recognized the
Mishnah (and other tanaitic sources) as authoritative inasmuch as he kept
citing them to attack Reish Lakish's opinions seems to me dispositive.
I am reluctant to rely on the Yerushalmi in Pe'ah (even apart from my
uncertainty about its "tone") because it opens up the whole question of
what is halakhah l'moshe mi-sinai, which we don't have a very good handle
on. That the mishnayot contain some halakhot l'moshe mi-sinai does not
seem to me a very powerful reason for abrogating the halakhah p'suqah of
Hilkhot Mamrim 2:1, that a later court can dispute the halakhah previously
determined by an earlier court. Why didn't the possibility of halakhah
l'moshe mi-sinai deter every later tana from disputing an earlier tana?

What changed all of a sudden to make amoraim suddenly more nervous about
halakhah l'moshe mi-sinai than were the previous generations of tanaim
confronted with halakhic traditions that they were free to dispute?

That (and unfamiliarity with the sugya in general) makes me reluctant
to read too much into the statement from Pe'ah by R. Yohanan.

David Glasner

I have asked the following shaylah to a dayan but would also like to
read background material (e.g., articles in Techumin or Enclyclopedia
Talmudit) about the following issue: If landlord (L) wishes to rent to
tenant (T), and T offers to pay L either (a) 24 times $800/month today or
(b) $900/month each month for 24 months. Is there ribbis or avak ribbis
in this case (whether or not L chooses option a or option b)?

Assume:
1. the majority of rentals are paid each month rather than in advance;
2. there is no clear market price for rentals today--i.e., in the
particular community in question, until recently rentals costed
$700/month, but suddenly there was a tremendous demand for rentals and
there are almost no rentals available.

Shabbat Shalom.
Moshe

R Michael Feldstein <MIKE38CT@aol.com> wrote on Areivim:
> Although there have been many attempts at defining the word "halacha," I
> would define it as the blueprint for how we should live our lives.  How would
> you define it, and why is your definition contrary to what was written in the
> article?

The article in question was a C Rabbi's opinion on the subject.

However, I'm curious to know how people here answer this incredibly
basic question.

I'm not sure if I'm more comfortable thinking of halakhah as:

1- That which generates Jewish values. Halakhah legal system given by
G-d that is guaranteed by Him to provide tools for accomplishing the
goals for which we were created.

2- The values are primary and inherent, and from them derive halakhah. Not
that humans can actually do such derivation. Rather, that logically,
Hashem's ideal is the production of a human who embraces those values.

Why then the legal system of halakhah?

2a- HQBH gave us a legal system that embodies those values. This is
different than #1 (above) in that #1 defines the mission in terms of
practice, without this intermediating notion of values. Here, values
are primary, which then define the mission and legal system.

2b- As the culture is lost, and therefore the value system, we have to
rely more on hard and fast rules. In fact, the ideal halakhah would be
literally "orakh chaim", a culture by which we live. The legal system
is more durable, and therefore necessary.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

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


[ 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         ]