Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 038

Sunday, June 20 2004

• VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #13, MC p. 128
• Re: VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #12, MC p. 99
• Re: Disputing earlier generations
• Re: Disputing Previous Generations
• Re: The importance of secular studies
• Re: Wednesday and Tamuz
• Re: Wednesday and Tamuz
• RE: Wednesday and Tamuz
• Re: Wednesday and Tamuz
• Hebrew letters
• Re: inyan of wearing a tallis while doing things for the tzibbur
• immersing electrical appliances in the mikva
• RE: VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #13, MC p. 128
• [none]
• Re: VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #13, MC p. 128
• Re: inyan of wearing a tallis while doing things for the tzibbur
• Re: murder/pikuach nefesh
• Re: Wednesday and Tamuz
• VIDC #12
• Wednesday and Tamuz
• immersing electrical appliances in the mikva
• Disputing earlier generations--Malacha L'Moshe MiSinai
• is habitat for humanity muttar?

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
<<Thus, we see that in the Gemara in Horios we do reckon whose blood is 
redder;  why, then, in the case of murder do we reject that assessment?>>

The "mai chazis" doesn't mean to imply that there is never a hierarchy.
It's just that no person has the right to paskin his own place on it,
except as allowed by halacha, such as the two people in the desert with
one kiton shel mayim.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 01:31:19PM -0400, RYGB wrote:
: It's a nice teirutz, however, it seems to me that it generates a
: qualification which almost completely obviates the teirutz: If he really
: is a miser and is just using osek b'mitzvah as an excuse, he should be
: considered to transgress Lo Te'ametz.

The issur is a verb. IOW, someone who is generally miserly but didn't
do this bedavka lehis'ameitz haleiv, didn't violate the exact words of
the pasuq.

Of course, we often darshen the pasuq so that diyuqim in peshat don't
reflect din. The teirutz RYGB asks about requires insisting that in
the absence of known derashah, we can presume that there is no unknown
derashah disconnecting din from peshat.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Rabindranath Tagore

Be'oso inyan about unknown derashos....

On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:33:11AM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: Since we are dealing with the Rambam's shita in Mamrim 2:1, we can
: safely use his own definition of Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, which is
: simply a halachah whose sole source is Hashem via Moshe Rabbeynu, and
: which no real indication for itself has been planted into the p'sukim to
: be seen through drash. (Actually, I don't know od any other definition,
...

The other possibility is that every din has a maqor in the TSBK. Those
we label HLM are those whose maskanos are known to have been given at
Sinai, but the derivation is not known. Either lost, or was never
discovered.

In his introduction to Vayikra, the Malbim says there are 613 rules of
derashah and sevarah by which any part of TSBP could be reconstructed
if lost. He doesn't write what to do if the rules themselves -- which
are part of TSBP afterall -- are lost. But the Malbim doesn't seem to
exclude HLM.

This also touches upon the debate as to whether derashos are constructive
rules of pesaq, as the Rambam holds, or demonstrative of the correctness
of known conclusions. The latter would hold that only dinim known through
mesorah are given weight with derashah, but nothing new is derived. I
believe this is RSRH's position, but I can not recall where I saw it. He
describes the role of TSBK as being short notes, a small amount necessary
to keep Torah in memory. Perhaps I deduced from that a mnemonic role to
derashos. Or perhaps it was a more outright statement.

:-)BBii!
-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

> The Kovetz Shiurim is problematic, l'fi aniyas datti, because he cites the
> phenomenon of the Gemora stating "Aynah Mishneh" to show that an Amora
> sometimes disputes a Tanna. But checking through these Gemoras shows
> that this phrase merely means the Amora is poskening like another Tanna
> (as in "Bes Shammai b'm'kom Bes Hillel aynah mishneh") or is declaring
> the version in possession to have been corrupted. This is not disputing
> a Tanna!

Actually, I believe the RA"V translates 'BS bimkom BH einah mishnah'
exactly the same way: when BS are in the place of BH - i.e. when BS are
quoted as the lenient side and BH as the strict side, and it isn't on the
list in Edyot - then you should know that this is not a valid mishnah,
that the text in front of you is in error, and you should read it the
other way around, that BS is strict and BH lenient (and halacha kemotam).
To the best of my recollection, this RA"V can be found in Yevamot,
but I can't remember where.

In any case, according to this view, 'einah mishnah' *always* means
that the amora is not disputing the tanna's view, he's disputing the
authenticity of the mishna, and saying that the tanna never said such
a thing in the first place.

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>: Rabbi Shomo Aviner
>:  Consider what our master Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook wrote:
>:     "Regarding the distribution of academic talents in accordance with the
>:     various psychological strengths, some have a strong proclivity for
>:     secular studies....

> I wonder what the original Hebrew was, as it has serious impact on our
> TIDE vs TuM discussions.

I wonder, Did RAYK study secular subjects?
And did he allow or encourage his son RZYK to do so?

SBA

> I have long ago questioned the 'kepeida' - or even issur - in writing #
> 1, 2 etc to denote January February etc - becuase of the posuk 'Hachodesh
> hazeh l ochem Rosh Chadoshim' and the chiyuv to rather use the months
> names. [IIRC beshem the CS]

> However as months are named mostly after AZs - is it any better?

See Ramban ad loc. where he explains that the obligation is to refer
constantly to the Exodus. He also asks your question and says that
there is a verse in navi that after the redemption from Bavel, one
will no longer speak of RSBO who took us out of Egypt, but of RSBO who
took us out of Bavel. He points out that that doesn't mean that we no
longer refer to Yetziat Mitzrayim (obviously), but that the obligation
is achieved by refering to Bavel (through its cultural influence on the
names of the months) since that redemption was, in a way, even greater.

Bottom line, Ramban takes this as a hashqafic obligation, but no
"obligation". Which means, that there is a lot of value in referring
to the months from a Jewish calendar perspective, but not that it is
prohibited to wrrite 1 for January, etc.

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< Rav Asher Weiss once said in a shiur that it's
preferrable when writing lists to use Alef, Beis Gimmel, etc. rather
than 1, 2, 3 etc. Similarly, when taking notes in shiur, one should write
that there are Heh examples of ____ rather than 5 examples of _____. >>>

Did he say *why* that is preferable?

I doubt that it might be because letters are preferable to numbers,
because the Torah uses numbers in many places. Could it be that both
our numerals ("5") and names for the numbers ("five") are derived from
Avodah Zara?

Akiva Miller

> I have long ago questioned the 'kepeida' - or even issur - in writing
> # 1, 2 etc to denote January February etc - becuase of the posuk
> 'Hachodesh hazeh l ochem Rosh Chadoshim' and the chiyuv to rather use
> the months names. [IIRC beshem the CS]

AIUI, there is no problem with writing 1, 2 to denote January February,
so long as one is not intending to call January the first "halachic
month" and February the second "halachic month" etc.. Instead, when using
numbers to refer to secular months, one should have in mind that January
is only the first "secular month" - with "month" referring to a unit of
time used in the secular calendar having nothing to do with our chadoshim.

It is brought down in Halichos Shlomo that, according to RSZA, there is
no problem with using writing # 1, 2 etc to denote January February etc.

(This reminds me of another "shaila" that I heard (I think from R'
Reisman):

Q - since a Jew is forbidden to live in Yericho and any city by the name
of Yericho, can a frum Jew live in Jericho, New York?

A - Jericho is not the same as Yericho - just because our bibles translate
Yericho as Jericho, the isur only applies to cities with the name of
"Yericho" - not "Jericho."

So too, the posuk 'Hachodesh hazeh lochem Rosh Chadoshim' has no
shaichus to what we call January, February, March, etc. - these are not
"chadoshim/halachic months" - they are units of time that are called
"months" by secular society.

KT and Gut Shabbos
Aryeh

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:05:05PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: See Ramban ad loc. where he explains that the obligation is to refer
: constantly to the Exodus. He also asks your question and says that
: there is a verse in navi that after the redemption from Bavel, one
: will no longer speak of RSBO who took us out of Egypt, but of RSBO who
: took us out of Bavel. He points out that that doesn't mean that we no
: longer refer to Yetziat Mitzrayim (obviously), but that the obligation
: is achieved by refering to Bavel (through its cultural influence on the
: names of the months) since that redemption was, in a way, even greater.

Does this imply that in Yemos haMoshiach, we'll refer to the chodesh
ha'aviv as April?

:-)BBii!
-mi

RCS:
>Rav Asher Weiss once said in a shiur that it's preferrable when writing
>lists to use Alef, Beis Gimmel, etc. rather than 1, 2, 3 etc. Similarly,
>when taking notes in shiur, one should write that there are Heh examples
>of ____ rather than 5 examples of _____.

why?

Shlomo Goldstein

R' SBA wrote <<< Just to add a point: The MB 53:13 writes: "...veroui
sheyihyu bigdei sha"tz aruchim shelo yiru raglov.." >>>

It's true that he writes that, but he doesn't seen to specify *which*
beged should be the one which is long enough to cover the legs: tallis,
coat, pants, or kilt.

Akiva Miller

Hi.

I am wondering what "normative Jewish practice" is regarding the tevila
of electrical hot water urns and other keilim with components that are
sensitive to water.

I am aware of R' Moshe's teshuva that the keli should be immersed but
the electrical part need not be immersed, but as this is not always a
practical solution (in fact, I don't know when it ever is a practical
solution for urns), what are people doing?

Thanks
elly
--
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
mailto:EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com

At 11:20 AM 6/15/2004, Brown, Charles F wrote:
>The question sounds forced. If A is threatened and can only save his
>life by involving and endangering B (e.g. shoot B or I'll shoot you),
>mai chazis tells us we cannot create a situation of pikuach nefesh for B.
>If A and B are both already in danger, there is a hierarchy of who to
>save first.

>Similar idea, more "lomdish" - mai chazis is not an independent din,
>but is just a means of strenghening the issur retzicha so that "v'chai
>bahem" (save yourself) cannot push it off. In Horiyos there is no issue
>of retzicha at hand.

Suppose the case is one in which B is also in danger - say if you do
not kill him then the third party says he will kill him anyway. Or,
since there is still an obvious chilluk there, that B is drowning when
the third party tells you to shoot him?

YGB

Shalom,

Pisuk (Biblical pishuk) raglayim has an overtly sexual connotation;
a woman spreads her legs to have sex, as is explicit in Yechezkel 16:25
and see Rashi and Radak ad loc. It is therefore immodest to unnecessarily
refer to it, but not immodest for a woman to do so for good cause such
as riding on a camel or donkey.

In modern times, Pesachim 3a has been mistakenly cited as a source for
forbidding women to wear pants, as in shu"t Yaskil Avdi. Rather, If a
woman's legs are not spread wide, such as in normal activity, it is not
pisuk raglayim even in pants; if her legs are spread wide it is pisuk
raglayim even if she is wearing a long skirt.

    With  Torah blessings,
    Yehuda Henkin

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
> We know that murder is one of the things that are not overriden by Pikuach
> Nefesh, because of the sevara of Mai Chazis: What did you see to lead you
> to conclude that your blood is redder than your friend's blood (Sanhedrin
> 74a et al)? On the other hand, when two people are drowning the Gemara in
> Horios (13a) suggests a hierarchy of who to save first. Thus, we see that
> in the Gemara in Horios we do reckon whose blood is redder; why, then, in
> the case of murder do we reject that assessment?

From an offline communication:
> This is not totally accurate, the Gemara in Horayoth does not say
> anything about the redness of the blood and is not involved in the Lo
> Ta'ase of murder.

> Rather it is discussing an 'Ase of Hatzalath Nfashoth (and lo ta'ase
> of, literally ,lo ta'amod 'al dam re'ekha.) In that it comes to the
> practical issue, where to start when there are multiple cases. Here,
> concerns of kvod hatora and other issues of social order may take place.

> Would the isur of murder, like pushing one down beyadaim in order to
> save the other, come about, the totality of the aforementioned ma hazitha
> would take place in all of its totality.

> The best case to prove it is that in the case of complications in giving
> birth, the fetus could be cut into pieces while in his mother's womb as
> a rodef. Once he/she is partly out and considered alive, you may not do
> that anymore because of ein dohim nefesh mipnei nefesh.

[Email #2, in reply to RGD. -mi]

>It's just that no person has the right to paskin his own place on it,
>except as allowed by halacha, such as the two people in the desert with
>one kiton shel mayim.

Then is a person allowed to be moser himself, or does his negi'ah render
him incapable of that judgment?

[Shabbos ends here in .nj.us, and I find 60 submissions to Avodah. 58 are
spam, and two are from RJC in .nz. Gut voch und a a gutten choidesh. -mi]

This is taken from the book of my great-grandfather Avraham Shalom Shaki
z"l, Heichal Avodat Hashem, in which he describes the minhagim of many
diverse kehilot, along with inyane musar, mekorot, obeservations about the
deterioration of customs and many other fascinating issues.
He writes on the Gemara on Va'ya'avor:
R' Chananel: Shaliach Tzibbur wears talit
MAchatzit HaShekel(?): lav davka in 13 midot but every tefilla
Maharsha: covers the head all the time, unlike the individual.
Magen Avraham: Shatz always wears tallit, quoted in Mishna Berura
Pri Megadim: specifically including ma'ariv
Ya'avetz, Kitzur SHulchan Aruch: also ba'al kore and ole latorah
Magen Avraham b'shem 'lamed chet': also someone saying kaddish yatom
Aruch HaShulchan: includes 'chacham hadoresh', sandak, mohel, and yesh
nohagim avi haben in the brit

VeHaNahug HaYom:

Sefardim: Sha'tz doesn't wear tallit at night, even for slichot and
13 midot, following 'ba'alei hakabalah', who say no tallit at night,
except leil kippur. Mincha (chol, shabbat): in most kehillot, nobody
wears tallit, even olim and ba'al kore: and these include the "Chov'she
hakipot hak'tanot ulov'she hachultzot k'tanot hasharvilim"
Only in some communities does the sha'tz wear tallit on mincha shabbat
and ta'anit tzibbur mishum k'vod hasefer torah (as he is also the ba'al
kore) See shu't HaShomer Emet that he rebuked his community in Tripoli
for not following this.

Temanim: In Teiman, the minhag was that all the tzibbur wore tallitot
for every tefilla (including ma'ariv), and today in Eretz Yisra'el,
all communities at least ar careful that the sha'tz, ba'al kore, and
ole latorah always wear tallit.

Ashkenazim:

1. Sha'tz always wears tallit for s'lichot, even at night, in honour of
the 13 midot. Minchat Shabbat and Ta'anit Tzibbur also wears tallit, as
the sha'tz does hotza'at and hachnasat sefer (not the ba'al kore). Most
kehillot also wears tallit for leil shabbat and yom tov. Some kehillot
ole latorah and ba'al kore also wear tallit in mincha of shabbat and
ta'anit tzibbur if they aren't wearing a 'me'il elyon'. And there are
communities that are strict even about the magbi'ah sefer torah in mincha.

2. Chabad: No tallit for mincha and ma'ariv, even shabbat, yom tov and
rosh hashana. Unmarried men don;t wear a tallit as sha'tz for shachrit,
or for aliyah latorah.

3. Yekkes, and those who follow in their footsteps. Sha'tz, even at
night, alwaysw wears tallit. Ole latorah, machnis and motzi sefer torah,
golel sefer torah all wear tallit, even in mincha and ta'anit tzibbur.

And my great grandfather z"l adds: We belive this is a fitting minhag ...,
and at any write those who practise an issur atifa at night, should wear
a tallit in every tefillat mincha, and in particular that every sha'tz
and ole latorah (single or married) that is not wearing a coat, or that
is wearing a kipa and not a hat, should wear a tallit with kisui rosh.
Ad kan d'varav.

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

> The question sounds forced. If A is threatened and can only save his
> life by involving and endangering B (e.g. shoot B or I'll shoot you),
> mai chazis tells us we cannot create a situation of pikuach nefesh for B.

I don't see this as relevant. In this case the situation is not in your
hands. A is not saving his life by shooting B, as he has no guarantee
of what will follow. So we have at best a safek of saving himself, and
there it's vadai y'hareg v'al ya'avor. Perhaps a more correct desription
is when someone can save himslef by pushing another about of a boat or
some such. Similarly I don't believe a council which refuses to give up
'nefesh echad miyisrael' can be held responsible for the murder of those
who are eventually taken away.

After all, they didn't fire the bullet.
one has to have halachic guidelines.

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

From: "Arie Folger" <afolger@aishdas.org>
>> I have long ago questioned the 'kepeida' - or even issur - in writing #
>> 1, 2 etc to denote January February etc - >>
>> However as months are named mostly after AZs - is it any better?

> See Ramban ad loc. where he explains that the obligation is to refer
> constantly to the Exodus.

Bottom line, Ramban takes this as a hashqafic obligation, but no
"obligation".

> Which means, that there is a lot of value in referring to the months from a
> Jewish calendar perspective, but not that it is prohibited to wrrite 1 for
> January, etc.

My question was re the acceptability of using the names of months
which are called after AZs?

SBA

1. Reb Elchanan in the beginning of Pesachim suggests that the hierarchy
in Horiyos is on mi-safek. Therefore, we only follow it passively (shev
ve-al ta'aseh) and not actively.

2. Alternately, you can say that the hierarchy is only a list of
priorities in order to avoid chaos. If there is no list of priorities
then there would be no way of determining how to act and everyone would
have to make it up on their own. This list gives us a way to deal with
that absence of guidelines.

Mashal le-mah ha-davar domeh, doing the right before the left. Many
poskim hold that this is only when there is no other reason to do
the left first. Rather than just choosing randomly, you do the right
first. Here too, rather than making it up as the situation arises, which
would usually waste valuable time, the Mishnah provides guidelines. But
this list is not a heter for retzichah.

3. Or, you can say that "mai chazis" is not meant literally but is an
explanation of why we do not say "ve-chai bahem" regarding retzichah.
Since there is pikuach nefesh either way, "ve-chai bahem" does not
apply. But there is no attempt to determine who is more worthy of living.

Gil Student

R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< Rav Asher Weiss once said in a shiur that it's
preferrable when writing lists to use Alef, Beis Gimmel, etc. rather
than 1, 2, 3 etc. Similarly, when taking notes in shiur, one should write
that there are Heh examples of ____ rather than 5 examples of _____. >>>

R. Moshe Shternbuch in Dinim VHanhogos is matir regarding writing numbers
of months. Unfortunately I do not have access to this sefer and can't
provide the exact marei makom. ( I saw it 6 years ago in a distant
Beis Hamidrash).

M. Levin

The majority of poskim require full immersion with R. Moshe's shittah
being one of a few to be mattir. THis si according to a recent review
of halachos on tevila by R. Daniel Neustadt in Yated Ne'eman.

M. Levin

Micha posted on Jun 18, 2004:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:33:11AM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
>: ...Rambam's ... definition of Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai ... is
>: simply a halachah whose sole source is Hashem via Moshe Rabbeynu, and for
>: which no real indication for itself has been planted into the p'sukim to
>: be seen through drash. (Actually, I don't know of any other definition,
> ...

> The other possibility is that every din has a maqor in the TSBK. Those
> we label HLM are those whose maskanos are known to have been given at
> Sinai, but the derivation is not known. Either lost, or was never
> discovered.

The Rambam's definition is solidly based on the Gemora. When the Gemora
(Sukkah 5b-6a) refers to the halachic units of meaurements (such as
k'zayis, etc.) as Halacha L'MOsheh MiSinai, the Gemora objects, "How
can you say they are HLMS, when the measurements are said to be alluded
to in a posuk?" The answer is, they are indeed HLMS, [and they actually
have no bona fide indication in the Torah,] and that posuk is merely an
device."

> In his introduction to Vayikra, the Malbim says there are 613 rules of
> derashah and sevarah by which any part of TSBP could be reconstructed
> if lost. He doesn't write what to do if the rules themselves -- which
> are part of TSBP afterall -- are lost.

1. The Malbim considers his rules to be part and parcel of the grammatical
and syntaxical nature of Lashon HaKadosh, not hermenutical rules handed
down MiSinai. Also,(from Bava Kamma 41b)we know of one rule that was
created in the generation of Rabbi Akiva by Shimon HaAmsuni, based upon
his own analysis, trying to discover sources in the Written Torah for
extant oral explanatory details of mitzvos, and then using that rule
to generate new information. (He himself abandoned his rule when it
produced a result that he considered impossible, whereas Rabbi Akiva
still supported it.)

2. True, the Malbim doesn't deal with the iisue of what to do if the rules
provided at Sinai themselves are lost. However, we do know that--just
as with some details of halachos l'maaseh--details of the mechanics of
the 13 hermenutical laws did come under dispute. This can be quickly
seen by perusing the Kitzur K'lallim MiYud-Gimmel Middos ShehHaTorah
Nidreshess Bahen printed in the back of our Gemorsos Brachos.

> ... But the Malbim doesn't seem to exclude HLM.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by this.

> This also touches upon the debate as to whether derashos are constructive
> rules of pesaq, as the Rambam holds, or demonstrative of the correctness
> of known conclusions. The latter would hold that only dinim known through
> mesorah are given weight with derashah, but nothing new is derived. I
> believe this is RSRH's position, but I can not recall where I saw it. He
> describes the role of TSBK as being short notes, a small amount necessary
> to keep Torah in memory. Perhaps I deduced from that a mnemonic role to
> derashos. Or perhaps it was a more outright statement.

I don't think he says more than the short-note statement. The Doros
HaRishonim (Rav Yitchak Isaac Levi Rabinowitz, 19th century) strongly
advocated the latter position, but even he applies the inability to
use drash to generate halachos only to the Tannaim and on. He admits
that the Bes Din HaGadol of Yerushalayim did (albeit in few cases)
use drashos to generate solutions to unknown details.

[Email #2. -mi]

micha@aishdas.org Posted on: Jun 18, 2004: 
> This also touches upon the debate as to whether derashos are constructive
> rules of pesaq, as the Rambam holds, or demonstrative of the correctness
> of known conclusions. The latter would hold that only dinim known through
> mesorah are given weight with derashah, but nothing new is derived. I
> believe this is RSRH's position, but I can not recall where I saw it. He
> describes the role of TSBK as being short notes, a small amount necessary
> to keep Torah in memory. Perhaps I deduced from that a mnemonic role to
> derashos. Or perhaps it was a more outright statement.

Despite my earlier post, RSRH does speak more on the matter. In Collective
Writings, Volume V (Origin of The Oral Law), p. 40, he writes:

"These midos ... were placed by the Lawgiver Himself in the written
expression of His Law in order to refer the student to the oral complement
of the Law. At the same time they wewre intended as a tool to use in
the correction, examination and restoration of any tradition that might
become vague, dubious or incomplete due its having fallen into oblivion."

[Email #3, not on HLM... -mi]

zev@sero.name posted on: Jun 18, 2004:
> Actually, I believe the RA"V translates 'BS bimkom BH einah mishnah'
> exactly the same way: when BS are in the place of BH - i.e. when BS are
> quoted as the lenient side and BH as the strict side, and it isn't on the
> list in Edyot - then you should know that this is not a valid mishnah,
> that the text in front of you is in error, and you should read it the
> other way around, that BS is strict and BH lenient (and halacha kemotam).
> To the best of my recollection, this RA"V can be found in Yevamot,
> but I can't remember where.

Y'Yasher Kochacha! I found it in Yevomos 3:1.

Zvi Lampel

is it muttar to working on a habitat for humanity house?

this is how the orgs described to me.

----
Christian community service organization that builds houses for low
income families. From their website, <http://www.habitat.org/>

"Habitat for Humanity International (HFHI) is a nonprofit, ecumenical
Christian organization dedicated to eliminating substandard housing
and homelessness worldwide and to making adequate, affordable shelter
a matter of conscience and action. Habitat is founded on the conviction
that every man, woman and child should have a simple, decent, affordable
place to live in dignity and safety.

Habitat has an open-door policy: all who desire to be a part of this
work are welcome, regardless of religious preference or background.
Habitat for Humanity has always had a policy of building with people
in need regardless of race or religion, and we welcome volunteers and
supporters from all backgrounds.

The work of Habitat for Humanity is driven by the desire to give tangible
expression to the love of God through the work of eliminating poverty
housing. Habitat's mission and methods are predominantly derived from a
few key theological concepts: the necessity of putting faith into action,
the "economics of Jesus" and the "theology of the hammer."

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


[ 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         ]