Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 059

Monday, July 25 2005

• Re: Rav Lichtenstein's halachic analysis of whether soldiers may refuse orders
• Re: Rav Lichtenstein's halachic analysis of whether soldiers may refuse orders
• Re: Rav Lichtenstein's halachic analysis of whether soldiers may refuse orders
• Re: Harry Potter
• Re: Darkhei Emori? Or worse?
• Re: harry potter and kishuf
• Re: Medicines, Charms, and Statistics
• Rabbinic laws & spirituality
• The permissability of atypical shuckling...
• Mechachmascha
• Re: Harry Potter
• Re: AleiShur
• Re: sinat chinam
• Re:Covenant and Conversation - Pinchas
• Re: maaris ayin
• Re: Wireless Access

From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
> In the case of territorial concessions, the explicit and undisputed
> halacha is that we must take into account only the strategic situation,
> and we must consult military experts only for their professional
> military opinion.
...
> So when a military expert says that, from a pure strategic point of
> view, the withdrawal places Israel in more danger, rather than less,
> the halacha says that that's the end of the matter.  If he adds that
> although this is true, the chance that a withdrawal may eventually
> lead to peace, i.e. to the enemy *not* attacking, makes the risk
> worth it, he has gone beyond his competence, and we are *obligated
> by halacha* to ignore this portion of his opinion.
...

Now, as I understand it, it is the unanimous opinion of *all* currently
practising military experts (i.e. not retired experts who are now in
politics) that, from a strict strategic point of view, Sharon's plan will
make Israel harder to defend, and that, assuming the enemy does attack,
the withdrawal will turn out to be a very bad idea.

I think that RAL would respond that we ask experts not only for their
pure military analysis, but also for their *political/diplomatic*
analysis: is a withdrawal from Gaza likely to lead to peace. There are
many many experts who believe that such a withdrawal will help pave the
path to peace. (There are certainly those, such as Gen. Moshe Yaalon,
who disagree, but they are in the minority-at least in terms of public
pronouncements. In any case RAL believes that it is not for the individual
soldier to judge between the opinions of the experts, but to follow the
country's leadership's analysis of the situation.)

To quote RAL:
"Similarly, diplomatic issues that are veiled in the darkness of the
decision-making apparatus should be entrusted to the government, partly
because it has the tools and the perspective that are not always available
to others. The prime minister's statement, 'We see things here that you
can't see from over there,' is not an empty slogan."

[Email #2. -MI]

I wrote in explaining the view which argues against RAL:
>> the whole idea of milchamah to
>> conquer Eretz Yisrael implies that the Jewish people are willing to
>> lose lives in that endeavor.

On 7/24/05, Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Right. But who gives a Hesder RY the right to declare a Milchemes
> Reshus? That belongs to the Melech. PM Sharon is the closest thing
> Eretz Yisroel has to a Melech and he is not declaring any such war.
> Just the opposite. He is trying to prevent any further war.

I don't think that that's the point.  The point is that there is a
mitzvah (according to Ramban) to conquer and settle EY, and we can see
from the *example* of milchamah that the mitzvah of yishuv ha'aretz is
meant to be docheh pikuach nefesh even if a milchama is not declared.

(RYBS disagreed with this analysis, which that of the Minchas Chinuch
mitzvah #425 and is espoused by rabbanim influenced by Rav Tzvi Yehudah
Kook and others at Mercaz Harav. The Minchas Chinuch's reasoning is that
the fact that we are commanded to conquer Eretz Yisrael and presumably
lose lives doing so shows that the conquest of Eretz Yisrael supersedes
pikuach nefesh. Rav Hershel Schachter (in Nefesh Harav p. 97) explains
that Rav Soloveitchik disagreed with the Minchas Chinuch's proof: during
the conquest by Yehoshua, the Israelites were specifically commanded by
Hashem ("al pi ha'dibur") with respect to their battles; in the case
of wars to save ourselves from enemies, one could argue that a person
must engage in acts which are safek sakanah in order to save people
who are in definite danger. (R. Schachter also addresses the case of
milchemes ha'reshus.))

>> Sharon has not
>> asserted that a tremendous number of Jewish lives will be saved by the
>> Gaza withdrawal.  Therefore, Jews should be willing to hold onto holy
>> land even if this number of lives will be lost, and it is halachically
>> assur to transfer land to save this number of lives (see point #1).

> We do not know how many lives will be lost in one scenario versus
> another. This is where RAL makes his point about relying on the
> govenment rather than on individual RYs of Hesder Yeshivos. Both
> sides make a valid argument for their positions. So it becomes a
> "wash". You then must look at the overall picture and decide on what
> is the greater good which leads to the conclusion that the proper
> course of action is to obey orders.

No.  The point here is that Sharon never asserted that tremendous
numbers of lives would be saved, just that lives would be saved.  For
Sharon, that argument is enough.  For Mercaz HaRav poskim, that fact
is not enough.

>> Rav Shlomo Levi, rosh kollel at
>> Yeshivat Har Etzion (RAL's yeshiva) and resident of my yishuv, gave a
>> public hashkafa shiur this past Shabbos on the issue of the
>> disengagement in which he asserted that many believing Jews believe
>> Hashem has given Israel back to the Jews after 2000 years of galus as
>> a precursor to the geulah.  Consequently, such believing Jews should
>> not believe that it is necessary to transfer land in order to achieve
>> peace; rather, Hashem has a plan for the Jewish people and will not
>> allow it to achieve peace until the geulah (at which point all these
>> issues will be resolved anyway).

> That's fine. If one wants to believe that this is "Reishis Tzmichas
> Geulaseinu" it is their right. However, we don't really know what
> God's plan is for Eretz Yisroel or how He will execute the end of
> Galus. Perhaps He will first expell us again before He brings us back
> in. That one believes it will all work out in the end doesn't mean we
> have a handle on how... or when. Nor does it mean that a Hesder RY's
> views are automatically the correct ones.

The views that you propound are those of charedim and a small minority
of DLs.  (I happen to agree with you, but that's beside the point.)
For the overwhelming majority of DLs, the thought that we may be
expelled from EY is unthinkable--why would Hashem have brought about
this historic event only to undo it?  Therefore, DLs cannot take the
attitude of elu v'elu on this matter.

>> If so Sharon's reasoning is
>> undermined: it is not true that under all scenarios Gaza will be
>> transferred to Palestinians, and that all lives lost from now
>> henceforth are needlessly lost.

> We don't know. All we can do is act on the best information we have.
> As Prime Miniter, no one has better access to "intelligence" than
> Sharon.

The problem is, though, that Sharon is not sharing with us his
thinking, step by step, just his conclusions.  His conclusions are
based not only on his analysis, but on certain hashkafic
preconceptions, some of which DLs believe to be plain wrong and
inadmissible to the halachic analysis.  Because Sharon refuses to
explain his analysis, recourse must be made to those who purport to
explain the analysis, and those explanations are deemed insufficient
by poskim such as Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (who BTW is the preeminent
posek in the DL world).

>> 4.  I don't think that it is straightforward for someone like RAL, who
>> believes in the permissibility of trading land for peace, to pasken
>> for a soldier who does not believe in the permissibility of trading
>> land for peace.  The fact is that just about every posek who believes
>> that the disengagement is a grave issur states that a soldier
>> fulfilling orders is no different than a soldier being asked to be
>> mechalel Shabbos when it is forbidden to do so.
...
>> Would dati leumi soldiers go to the Satmar Rebbe zt"l
>> to hear his psak on the issue if he would tell them that he would
>> pasken with the assumption that R. Zvi Yehudah Kook was right about
>> the value of settling Eretz Yisrael?

> It's not about who a DL would go to for Psak. In any Psak Halacha
> that is not universal and there are disputants about it, one should
> err on the side of non-rebellion.

The poskim of the vast majority of DL soldiers say that the halacha
is clear. The Satmar Rebbe would say that the halacha is the other way,
but the DL would say that his opinion is irrelevant.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. RAL believes that pikuach nefesh overrides holding onto land. Many
> opposing him believe that while avoiding large numbers of lost lives
> may be docheh holding onto land, it is proper to hold on to land even
> if a few people die each year--after all, people lost their lives to
> create the State of Israel,

There is a difference between the creation of the State and the
holding on of Gaza. The transfer of eretz Yisroel into Jewish hands
for the first time since the Churban Bayis Sheni is cause for the
risk of war and the possible loss of life. Not so the retantion of
Gaza.  R. Aaron Soloveichik said Halel on Yom HaAtzmaut and not on
Yom Yerushalyim for that reason. The creation of the State of Israel
was a seminal event in Jewish history. The retention of Gaza is not.
I know that RAS would have sided with the settlers as he felt it was
Asur to give up any land. He said so time and again. He also
bbeleives that Pokuach Nefeseh was a factor only he was convinced
that giving away land would increase, not decrease the danger to
Jewsih Life. But I am equally sure he would have opposed any call to
disobey orders.

> the whole idea of milchamah to
> conquer Eretz Yisrael implies that the Jewish people are willing to
> lose lives in that endeavor.

Right. But who gives a Hesder RY the right to declare a Milchemes
Reshus? That belongs to the Melech. PM Sharon is the closest thing
Eretz Yisroel has to a Melech and he is not declaring any such war.
Just the opposite. He is trying to prevent any further war.

> 2. The number of people who have died in Gaza or defending Gaza is not
> that great--certainly less than the number of pioneers defending
> similarly sized settlements in the early 1900's.

That was then. This is now. There is no comparrison. We had no
sovereign State and no military in the early 1900's. There was much
more of a need for individual communities to protect themselves. In
those cases Pikuach Nefesh demanded individuals protect themselves in
any way they could. Today, Yishuvim are protected by the military.

> Sharon has not
> asserted that a tremendous number of Jewish lives will be saved by the
> Gaza withdrawal.  Therefore, Jews should be willing to hold onto holy
> land even if this number of lives will be lost, and it is halachically
> assur to transfer land to save this number of lives (see point #1).

We do not know how many lives will be lost in one scenario versus
another. This is where RAL makes his point about relying on the
govenment rather than on individual RYs of Hesder Yeshivos. Both
sides make a valid argument for their positions. So it becomes a
"wash". You then must look at the overall picture and decide on what
is the greater good which leads to the conclusion that the proper
course of action is to obey orders.

> 3.  Moreover, Sharon's argument seems to be that lives will be saved,
> and each life which is lost is needlessly lost given the prevailing
> assumption that in any future peace agreement, Gaza will be
> transferred to the Palestinians.

That is as valid an argument as any. But it is more than that. If
Israel is to remain a democracy, it cannot afford to retain a
population that by all acounts will outnmuber the number of Jews in
about ten years. The demographics will change and the Arabs will
simply vote Israel out of existence.

> Rav Shlomo Levi, rosh kollel at
> Yeshivat Har Etzion (RAL's yeshiva) and resident of my yishuv, gave a
> public hashkafa shiur this past Shabbos on the issue of the
> disengagement in which he asserted that many believing Jews believe
> Hashem has given Israel back to the Jews after 2000 years of galus as
> a precursor to the geulah.  Consequently, such believing Jews should
> not believe that it is necessary to transfer land in order to achieve
> peace; rather, Hashem has a plan for the Jewish people and will not
> allow it to achieve peace until the geulah (at which point all these
> issues will be resolved anyway).

That's fine. If one wants to believe that this is "Reishis Tzmichas
Geulaseinu" it is their right. However, we don't really know what
God's plan is for Eretz Yisroel or how He will execute the end of
Galus. Perhaps He will first expell us again before He brings us back
in. That one believes it will all work out in the end doesn't mean we
have a handle on how... or when. Nor does it mean that a Hesder RY's
views are automatically the correct ones.

> If so Sharon's reasoning is
> undermined: it is not true that under all scenarios Gaza will be
> transferred to Palestinians, and that all lives lost from now
> henceforth are needlessly lost.

We don't know. All we can do is act on the best information we have.
As Prime Miniter, no one has better access to "intelligence" than
Sharon. He has often said that no one can have the perspective on
things that a PM does. He has far more information than anyone else.
His opinion, therefore, should carry more weight than a Hesder RY who
has no "intelligence".  Is it possible that Israel will somehow end
up keeping Gaza? Sure. Anything is possible. The Arabs could all
convert to Judaism too. It's possible. The question is what are the
current probabilties and what is the most prudent way to act.

> 4.  I don't think that it is straightforward for someone like RAL, who
> believes in the permissibility of trading land for peace, to pasken
> for a soldier who does not believe in the permissibility of trading
> land for peace.  The fact is that just about every posek who believes
> that the disengagement is a grave issur states that a soldier
> fulfilling orders is no different than a soldier being asked to be
> mechalel Shabbos when it is forbidden to do so.

RAL covered that and I synopsized it in my original post. There is a
difference WRT to a clear violation according to all Poskim such as
doing a Melacha on Shabbos and one that is a violation only accordong
to some Poskim while to other Poskim it might be an actual Mitzvah.

> (Rav Aviner and those
> in Yeshivat Har Hamor just say that soldiers should do everything
> possible to avoid being placed in the situation where they have to
> fulfill such orders rather than blatantly declare their refusal to
> follow orders.)

I have no problem with that and I don't think RAL would either. The
probelm is whether one ...IS... placed in such a situation, what does
he do? What does R. Aviner tell him to do?

> Would dati leumi soldiers go to the Satmar Rebbe zt"l
> to hear his psak on the issue if he would tell them that he would
> pasken with the assumption that R. Zvi Yehudah Kook was right about
> the value of settling Eretz Yisrael?

It's not about who a DL would go to for Psak. In any Psak Halacha
that is not universal and there are disputants about it, one should
err on the side of non-rebellion. Even if one side says it is a clear
violation of Halacha, a soldier can never-the-less rely on the Poskim
that say it isn't a violation of Halacha. The price for rebellion
could lead to the destruction of the State.

HM

[Let's keep the discussion both civil and about Torah. IOW, about the
halachic positions based on the metzi'us as the poseiq sees it, rather
than whether or not his perception is correct. -mi]

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
>> In the case of territorial concessions, the explicit and undisputed
>> halacha is that we must take into account only the strategic situation,
>> and we must consult military experts only for their professional
>> military opinion.

> I think that RAL would respond that we ask experts not only for their
> pure military analysis, but also for their **political/diplomatic**
> analysis: is a withdrawal from Gaza likely to lead to peace.

Well, yes, of course, that is precisely my point. The problem with this
is that it is explicit and undisputed halacha that we must not take
such matters into account. They are halachically irrelevant, because
the gemara says so, not a single rishon disagrees, and the the Shulchan
Aruch quotes it lehalacha. When the goyim besiege a border city, which,
if they occupy, will make it easier for them to conquer the land, we must
fight and resist them even on Shabbat (i.e. it counts as pikuach nefesh),
even if they claim that they have no designs or further claims, and if
only we surrender the city to them they will take booty and go away in
peace. The halacha is that we must not trust them, and expose the whole
land to danger if they should happen to be lying or to change their minds.

> To quote RAL:  "Similarly, diplomatic issues that are
> veiled in the darkness of the decision-making apparatus should be
> entrusted to the government, partly because it has the tools and the
> perspective that are not always available to others. The prime
> minister's statement, "We see things here that you can't see from
> over there," is not an empty slogan."

But the halacha says that diplomatic issues are irrelevant, and
must be ignored. That we must *only* take into account the military
perspective, and ignore any political or diplomatic issues. So the
government's so-called "expertise" in such issues is a red herring.
If RAL thinks it is relevant, he needs to cite a halachic source for it,
not just state it as if it were self-evident.

--
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Gil Student <gil.student@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Eliyahu Rabbah (307:40, cited by the Aruch HaShulchan) writes that
> books from which one can grow in yiras shamayim are permissible to read
> on Shabbos. If you can derive yiras shamayim from a Harry Potter book,
> then according to the Eliyahu Rabbah one may read it.

R Yaacov Emden (Shu"t Yaavetz, I have no idea what chapter, I saw it
inside over 20 years ago) gives another heter which seems more applicable.
He permits reading newspapers on Shabbat, on the grounds that not being
able to keep up with the latest news causes tzaar, and interferes with
oneg shabbat. It seems to me that the same consideration would apply to
those who were so eager to read the latest installment that they arranged
to obtain a copy on the Shabbat that it was released - by that action they
show what a tzaar it would be to let it lie unread until after Shabbat,
and therefore the Yaavetz's heter should apply...

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On 7/20/05, D&E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il> wrote:
: On returning home, I questioned two talmidei chakhamim who had learned
: in European yeshivot in their youth, one Litvish, one Chasidish.
: Neither had ever heard of this minhag. The Litvish RY remarked that it
: is not certain that this superstition (emunah t'feila) is darkhei Emori
: because it is doubtful whether the Emori had adopted it (safek gadol im
: haEmorim nahagu kakh).

I took this joke seriously because I thought the LRY was speaking about
Emorim in as broad of a sense as the din. IOW, that he was saying that
it's doubtful whether any non-Jewish people have this custom. If not,
how can it be banned as assimilationist religion?

And even if this point was not intended, I think it's true.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 12:36:09AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote (emphasis mine):
: Communicating with sheidim may not in itself be kishuf, but IMHO KISHUF
: IS ASKING or commanding SHEIDIM (AND OTHER NON-HASHEM ENTITIES) TO DO
: SOMETHING, BY RITUALS INTENDED either TO GAIN THEIR FAVOUR, or to bind
: them to the mechashef's will. And without seeing the Chinuch inside my
: first thought is that this is a second approach, an alternative to the
: first one, and incompatible with it.

RZS, kinly look at the portion I highlighted and explain why singing
"Borkhuni leshalom" as part of Shalom Aleikhem doesn't qualify as
kishuf by your definition. TIA!

-mi

It working or not is only an issue for a kameya. If one takes the position
that this practice is kishuf, then its efficacy makes it more likely to
be so, not less

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

We all know that if one transgresses the Torah there are consequences 
which include spiritual dimensions such as loss of Olam HaBah and damage 
to the neshama. What happens when a rabbinic law is transgressed? I can 
not find any sources which indicate that there are any spiritual 
consequences. This of course is assuming that Rabbinic laws are not 
viewed as a type of Torah law i.e., lo sasur.

Daniel Eidensohn

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 06:42:26PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Rabbi Falk "Modesty - an Adornment [for Life" -mi] page 47. "It is
: wrong to do most of these things even with pure intentions because ,
: they after all attract attention which is the antithesis of tznius....
:                                  It is similarly unrefined for a girl
: to sway excessively during davening as she displays her pious qualities
: for all to see....

Then how is it mutar for men? Tzeni'us is not a gender specific value.
It's just that men have more chiyuvim that force us into center stage,
requiring personal sacrifice in our development for the sake of the kahal.
That's why we're supposed to initially decline when asked to daven for the
amud, no?

Alternatively, is REFalk spelling out the problem of yuhara? After all,
excessive swaying would seem like a holier-than-thou display of the
sort banned by the issur of yuhara. In which case, why specifically
women? (Just happens to be the target audience?)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

Second try-anyone have a source for or explanation of the piece we say
after putting on the shel rosh?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Zev Sero wrote:
>R Yaacov Emden (Shu"t Yaavetz, I have no idea what chapter, I saw it
>inside over 20 years ago) gives another heter which seems more applicable.
>He permits reading newspapers on Shabbat, on the grounds that not being
>able to keep up with the latest news causes tzaar, and interferes with
>oneg shabbat....

Chalek 1 #162

R' Yaakov Feldman <YFel912928@aol.com> translated Alei Shur as saying:
: It's impossible to uproot character traits. Someone who's cold-hearted
: (for example) can't become warmhearted anymore than someone who's violent
: can uproot that trait (though we can all apply bad traits to good ends).

I wonder if this depends on the chiluq I read between the Orechos
Tzadiqim's words between dei'os and midos. One can't uproot or dei'ah,
nor do I think he should even want to. Rather, one sets the dimensions
(midos) of that dei'ah. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/07/psychological-model-of-orechos.shtml>.

But RSW's chapter is all about the possibility of change. This is the same
chapter in which he writes (also RYF's translation):
: Of all the heresies and idolatries that have come about throughout
: the ages, our own era has reached the lowest rung. For the heresy of our
: age has to do with free choice itself .... (People have come to believe
: that man has no free choice and that he's compelled to sin for various
: reasons. Why, even the observant community has come to believe that,
: for) who among us believes that man isn't (somehow) compelled to sin?

RWS is talking about changing on a dime vs slow progress. Again, from
RAF's selections:
: (Know, too, that) you aren't so free that you could simply decide today
: to go from being an out-and-out sinner to being absolutely righteous
: (and manage to) .... You can (indeed) *determine* to do that today, but
: the actual process of going from being a sinner to a righteous person
: could go on for years.

R Rich, Joel wrote:
: R' Chaim Soloveitchik disagrees. As quoted by R'YBS he was by nature a
: cold person and turned himself into a warmhearted Rav Chesed.

Nit: Actually, that would mean that RYBS disagrees and believes RCS was
a counterexample. It doesn't mean RCS thought it was possible or that
he did so.

R Gershon Seif:
: I'm well aware of the famous piece from RYS in Ohr Yisrael, where he writes
: that Hillel and Shamai had their belief systems based on their psak of what
: the belief systems should be. And if Shamai had paskened like Hillel, he
: would have been capable of behaving just as sweetly and gently as Hillel. So
: I agree, in a perfect world, if you're a Shamai, you can have pure hashkafos
: based on pure reason, and your middos won't get in the way.

: But OTOH, RYS' statement needs some extra thought. The Rambam in the
: hakdama l'peirush hamishna, when he talks about paskening lfi rov, states
: that we need to do this because it's human nature that when people derive
: halachos based on their own reasoning, they will dig their heels in and
: defend their position...

It wouldn't be the first time RYS chooses to follow a different rishon than
the Rambam.

An example more fundamental to mussar. According to the Rambam, it's ideal
to say "I wish I could have pork, but the RSO prohibited it." According to
RYS, the issur implies that one should learn not to have pork. IOW, the
Rambam lauds kibbush hayeitzer (acting despite the yeitzer) as a goal,
whereas RYS sees it as a means to tiqun hayeitzer (developing away from
the desire).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 01:16:21PM -0700, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
: but this argument has to be allowed both ways eg if edah x considers
: edah y krum. you are saying that 1] if x defines y's behaviour as *non
: orthodox*, than sinah is permitted or required. if x just *disagrees*
: with y's derech any criticism is ok cuz that's not sinah. so either way
: it is always allowed to attack the Other, as it's either a mitzva or
: just ok [since the Other is wrong]

First, halevai "if x just *disagrees* with y's derech any criticism is
ok cuz that's not sinah." It needn't be sin'ah, but the fact that it is
often motivated by sin'ah anyway is exactly what would make it chinam.

Second, I wonder if mutav sheyihu shogegim applies to an error that isn't
assur. Perhaps it is assur to correct them if they won't listen. In
any case, it /is/ assur to correct someone who won't listen except on
deOraisos that are spelled out in the pasuq. Issurim derabbanan and
derashos -- the gemara's example is tosefes Yom haKippurim -- better
not to give tokhachah.

Third, the gemara (Yuma 9b) asks how a generation that was oseqim baTorah
merited churban bayis sheini. The famous answer: sin'as chinam. The
Netziv writes that this is a dangerous combination. It yeilds murder
lesheim Shamayim -- anyone who doesn't toe the normal line in every way
was branded a Tzeduqi, kofeir or malshin. They were, the Netziv writes,
an "am naval velo chakham." (See the Targum on the pasuq -- "am naval"
is a nation that got the Torah, and yet "lo chakham".)

See also the Netziv before Bereishis and on Devarim 4:14 and Bamidbar
35:34.

Also the Tanya (ch. 32) writes that hatred of the cheit and even the
chotei must be mixed with pity for the state of the person's soul.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Saul Mashbaum asked: <<< Nevertheless, there were gzeirot and takanot
from time to time which are a form of legislation. These were instituted
by chachamim who may have connected with the judicial branch, but seem to
be outside the judicial process per se. I wonder if others have noticed
the lack of a legislature in rabbinic thought. >>>

Well, gezeros or takanos which the chachamim institute have to be
approved by a majority of the people, or else they're not binding. So
perhaps the people can be considered a sort of legislature.

Akiva Miller

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 02:32:59PM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote about cloned
tissue:
:> It would at least have to be treated as fleishig for mar'is ayin
:> reasons.

: Maaris Ayin is very subjective. When margarine first appeared many people
: discussed using it at a Fleishig meal and being confused with butter.
: Today that discussion seems to have disappeared. Margarine is so prevelant
: that the assumption is "butter" with meat must be margarine.

I would suggest that with cloned meat we're at the early, not yet
prevelant, stage.

And I don't know if this is relevent, but I wonder: If someone has a
heker and therefore looks closely, he can see that "basar paravi" doesn't
look like meat and that margarine doesn't quite look like butter. That
wouldn't be true here.

I think our case is more parallel to the gezeirah against fleishig milk
(milk found in the cow after shechitah). After the fact, the milk is
identical to any other and there would be no way to resolve confusion.
Would that make a difference?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 07:09:00PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: However, Reb Micha posted:
:> But I agree with R' B------ Sr that it's definitely not ehrlach, even
:> if you say it's mutar.

: I am not so sure about that - this is a classic case of zeh neheneh v'zeh
: chaser, or, to flip it, kofin al midas Sdom. It is the virtual parallel
: of Reuven using Shimon's shtender in the Beis Medrash. Dohs heist nisht
: ehrlach oich?

I wonder if the fact that it's midas Sedom for Shim'on to deny access
to Re'uvein means that it's ehrlach for Re'uvein to take advantage of
that access.

But our case isn't quite the same, either.

It's more like Re'uvein using the lectern that Paul's rental shop leased
Shim'on without asking Shim'on or Paul. You can't simply go over to a
middle party like that. Nor can it be moral to use the shtender rather
than going to Paul's Lectern Rental shop yourself.

What about the middle case: What if Shim'on had the shtender rental
business (rather than Paul / Optonline). Would it be middas Sedom not
to be mocheil on others using his shtender?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
micha@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      		      -Rita Mae Brown

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


[ 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         ]