Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 327

Mon, 15 Sep 2008

• 1. Re: most of us do kaparos (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Parshah Ki Teitzie 9/11, Amaleik, Honesty and Anti-Semitism (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: rape (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 5. Gedolim and the HM (SBA)
• 6. Geirut - QOM, Geirei Arayot and Rambam (David Eisen)
• 7. Re: HaShem as God's Name (David Roth)
• 8. Re: Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori... (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. bat mitzva "bo bayom" (menucha)
• 10. Re: Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori... (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori... (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: Geirut (Micha Berger)

Most of us do?
------------------------------


> 
> OTOH, most of us do kaparos despite his objections, and rely on the
> vetting process to assume that there must be something wrong with the
> analysis, somewhere.
> 
***********************

The juxtaposition of honest wights and measures has been used by Hazal to be
a causal connexion.; viz. when Jews are dishonest in business the spectre of
Amaleik rears its ugly head. And I have heard similar statements by
Holocaust survivors. Supposedly, Anwar Sadat had anti-Semitic feelings due
to being ripped off as a youngster by a Jewish businessman.

So be it.

But I would like to suggest as slight nuance shift. The concept that
dishonesty in business triggers Anti-Semitism or Amaleik is difficult to
perceive. How can the simple act of being dishonest bring about full-fledged
persecution?

I would suggest an alternative way of understanding this point. I.E. that
there are Latent Anti-Semites all over the place. However, when we Jews
behave ourselves we merit Divine Protection. However, when we Misbehave we
are stripped of this special shield and we are now VULNERABLE to Amaleik or
Anti-Semitism. This might be viewed as a form of negative re-enforcement
philosophically speaking; nevertheless in pragmatic and historical terms
this can explain how a relatively minor infraction can trigger such a
virulent response.

The late Jerry Falwell and other Christian Leaders voiced a similar point of
view [POV] with regard to 9-11. and that is normally America merits Divine
Protection but for some misbehaviour this Divine Shield was removed. In the
case of the Christian Right, that was attributed to Sexual deviance, etc.
While the specifc attribution might betray a right-wing or Fundamentalist
mindset, the concept of Divine Protection being removed is IMHO indeed a
very legitimate Jewish, Midrashic concept. In the case of us Jews, the
shield subject to business practices. Woe unto us re: some recent
allegations re: some prominent Jewish Businesses.

In the case of America I have no idea which sin was the egregious one that
removed this Divine Protection. Perhaps the Christian Right has it right,
but it is also possible it has it wrong. If the Dor Hamabbul is a precedent
for the world at large, the issue would be "hamas" or a form of thievery -
not sexual deviancy. Nevertheless,. the impact is similar, i.e. that any
catastrophe must bring about active introspection and is a call for
self-improvement regardless of the specific shortcoming. To put it another
way. the Christian Right might have the specific misdeed all wrong but could
also be 100% correct that SOME misdeed permitted this plot to succeed and we
are therefore impelled to take this as a wake up call.

With thoughts of Elllul time Teshuva,
RRW


-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for the New Year 5769
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080914/1ee99ac9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:19 PM, David Cohen <bdcohen613@gmail.com> wrote:

> RMB wrote:
>
>
> Or, that giving significance to the evidence of minhag, or the
> legislative weight of minhag, is part of that methodology. At per RRW
> and my interminable debate.
>
> I believe that's what is happening with saying "LeDavid".
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha"
>
> Me: I am taking the "Rupture and Reconstruction" idea further, and saying
> that the loss of Torat Imecha works in only one direction, chumra. But
> lenient sources are ignored and Torat Imecha reigns supreme, because
> obviously the Gedolim know and rejected the lenient sources sub silentio. As
> I said, sounds result oriented.
>
> Shabbat shalom
>
> David I. Cohen
>
>
Re: the legislative aspect of Minhag...


   1. AIUI the an aspect of textless Minhag is: Mimetic evidence of a p'sak
   whose source is lost
   E.g. Not sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Atzeres
   2. The 2nd is when the macha RATIFY a p'sak
   E.g. Kitniyyos [even thought some ba'alei Tosafos objected as a minhag
   Shtus]

I am not sure if people can create a Minhag w/o a solid basis. See the AhS
in Hilchos Megillah [passim] where he states that a Minhag w/o a Torah basis
is not valid.


#!  falls under the rubric of we know WHAT to do but not the why.


IMHO the haftara is read from the Side of the Bima in order to demonstrates
its inferiority to the Torah reading

BUT
It gets morphed into a mis-understadning - and humra - in that now Yekum
purkan and Ashrei fare from the side to honor the Torah so as not to put
one's back to it.  IOW the practice spread because of lack of knowledge re:
the original intent of th author of the Minhag.  This aspect AISI is a
Minhag Ta'us.

Bottom  line, Minhag to me is more or less like text, it MUST be respected
and analyzed.
ust as TEXT can have a Ta'us Sofer so can a Minhag have a Ta'us.


-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for the New Year 5769
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080914/5fdc7b3f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:51 +0300
"Ilana Sober Elzufon" <ilanasober@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> But setting punishments, and defining specific criteria for imposing them,
> is very dependent on the specific society. This is an area of law that is
> entrusted by the Torah to the melech and should be applied appropriately in
> each era.
> 
> The above I learned from my first husband, Moshe Sober z"l; I think mainly
> based on Drashot HaRan.

Note, though, that the Ran's theory is innovative, and not necessarily
the consensus view.

> - Ilana

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

From:Saul Mashbaum
Why does everyone keep saying that the heter m'chira is based on selling the
land to *Arabs*?
================

Actually that is how the Ridvaz writes - about it. "The Rav of Yafo selling
it to some barefoot Arab.."

>>>ROY is one of the g'dolei hador, is essentially chareidi in hashkafa and
holds, on purely halachic grounds, that produce from the heter m'chira is
muttar l'chatchila. Others disagree, but certainly k'dai ROY lismovch alav
b'shaat had'chak. 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Others disagree? In fact how many gedolim of the past 50-60 years can you
name that ruled that DON"T disagree and rule that it is muttar lekatchila?

>>>>I think that those incapable of refuting his halachic reasoning (which
is of course everyone on this list) should refrain from sarcastic comments
about the validity of the heter m'chira. 
----------------


he quotes the baal Aruch Hashulchan. VERY blunt and pointed, vezeh leshonoy
(of the AH):

"..umah shehekilu be'avonosenu horabim bo'eis hazos beyeshuvei Eretz
Hakodesh laasos bashviis al pi shtarei mechireh al hayesod she'ein zeh rak
miderabonon, zehu elbon Toroseinu Hakedosho ve'elbon Eretz Hakodesh
lehaarich pizureinu, kakosuv betochocho, veyad "hamechunim rak beshem
Yisroel" [my emphasis] be'emtza - kaasher kevar tzavchu gedolei hador
al zeh, kemevuar b'teshuvas gisi Hagaon Hatzadik miVolozhin bechiburo
'Meshiv Davar' beKuntres Hashmitta..."

The DY also shows that with Mechiras Chametz, the achronim rule that if one
'sold' his chametz but continues to trade with it on Pesach, then the
mechireh is batel. Accordingly those fields where Jews work and sell the
produce, the whole HM is a 'chuche utelule'.

(If requested I can scan and email the teshuva.)

The Minchas Yitzchak (vol 8: 96) also writes about this. He quotes the CI
zt'l giving 3 reasons why the HM has no 'chalos' at all.

1) The sale is done via a shliach - ve'ein shliach lidvar aveireh.
2) That the Tabu is not transferred to the buyer. And should the goy decide
he wants to keep his purchase, he would have no claim in court.
3) Because everyone knows that this isn't a genuine sale. Unlike 'mechiras
chametz' where everyone sells with his whole heart - so as not to be oyver
on 'baal yero'eh' and is 'gamar umakneh', those behind the HM sale would
never genuinely sell the whole country to goyim.

SBA

For a fascinating and novel analysis on Rambam's different standards for
accepting converts, click on the below link to download an shiur (MP3) and
accompanying source sheet delivered a year ago by HaRav Mayer Lichtenstein
at Beit Avi Chai in Yerushalayim. The shiur is in Hebrew.

http://the-eisens.com/rml_giyur_in_modern_times_sivan67.htm

Click on the below link to watch a video of the shiur:
http://players.mediazone.co.il/media/authors/49/playlists/18767/pla
yers/22/

B'virkat HaTorah,
David Eisen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080915/7ea4375d/attachment-0001.htm>

R. Akiva Miller wrote:
> I have very clear memories of a gemara in which an amora (or maybe a tanna) was
> quoted as saying "Elo-him!" in a context which I was unable to tranlate in any manner
> other than as a meaningless exclamation. The gemara spelled that name with the
> usual five letters, and no fancy abbreviation marks. I've mean meaning to ask about
> it for many years, but unfortunately I've forgotten where it appeared. Does this ring
> a bell in anyone's memory? Anyone know where it appears?

The one I rememered was "ve-ha-elokim! amar rav..."  Since then, I've
found several more.  It seems that this exclamation was part of the
vocabulary of certain Amoraim, though perhaps it's more acceptable
when they're engaged in and surprised about a matter of Torah.  I tend
to translate it as "(and) by God..."

On another note, when learning these sugyot, does anyone pronounce the
Divine name differently than in a pasuq quoted by the Gemara?

Here is the quick list that I've come up with:
Rav Hisda (Berakhot 24b, Moed Qatan 9a)
Rav Nahman bar Yitzhaq (Shabbat 94b)
Rava (Eiruvin 14b, Megillah 10a, Ketubbot 102b, Bava Qama 106a, Bava
Metzia 16b, Sanhedrin 72a)
Rav Yosef (Nazir 42b)
Rav (Kiddushin 42b)
Rav Papa (Sanhedrin 67b)
Rabbah (Makkot 15a)
Rav Nahman (Hullin 54a, Hullin 124a)
Rabbi Yohanan (Hullin 54a, Hullin 124a(?))
Rav Hiyya bar Yosef (Hullin 54a)

Kol Tuv,
David

In this whole thread, I have not noticed anything about WHY some do not
have this minhag, other than the idea that it was started by followers of
Shabbetai Tzvi.

Are there any other reasons? I mean, it's just a chapter of Tehillim; I can't imagine anyone saying that there's anything objectionable about the content!

I concede that (from some perspectives) the objectionable source could be
enough of a reason to avoid it. It is also quite possible that in some
communities the minhag simply didn't "catch on" and become popular.

I'm just wondering if I've exhausted the possibilities, or if there's
another reason why some communities don't say it, which somehow escaped my
imagination. Thanks.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Comfort your feet with a new pair of slippers. Click here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3lwW3PrgHFXzXgQgfPn9Q9TlLLoDLcF9fg4zFm20hhulscAq/

I am wondering if there is an inyan to have a seudat bat mitzva
(obviously for those who hold that a seudat bat mitzva is a seudat
mitzva) on the actual birthday.  My feeling is that since there's not
much else the girl can do on that day to show her reacing mitzvot (yes,
I know she can take challah, or tovel dishes etc.- ) that it seems more
important to have the seuda on the actual day, but i'd like to hear
other peoples reactions and sources.
thanks,
menucha

Are there any other reasons? I mean, it's just a chapter of Tehillim; I
can't imagine anyone saying that there's anything objectionable about
the content!



I'm just wondering if I've exhausted the possibilities, or if there's
another reason why some communities don't say it, which somehow escaped
my imagination. Thanks.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Some (e.g. R'YBS iiuc) are against any changes in nusach/matbea hatfila,
even "non-objectionable" changes.  There's also the issue of tircha
dtzibbura (why not add parshat haman, sheis zchirot, asseret
hadibrot...)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> I'm just wondering if I've exhausted the possibilities, or if there's
> another reason why some communities don't say it, which somehow
> escaped my imagination. Thanks.
>   
How about tircha d'tzibura? I recognize that it's somewhat denigrated 
nowadays, but Hazal were very insistent that davening not take too long 
(see Rashi Yoma 70a s.v. "mipnei kibud tzibbur", Ritva ad. loc.).

David Riceman

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:49:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: On the other hand, it is also Tosphos and those following him who understand
: the whole story of Hillel and the convert who only converted on condition he
: could be kohel gadol as giving leeway to the beis din "l'fi ra'os enei beis
: din" - where we are dealing with a case where a mitzvah was rejected...

As opposed to the Maharsha? And how does that fit the position of
Tosafos repeated in the SA (above)?

The way I read the Tosafos is that beis din can choose how much to teach
the geir. The absence of acceptance could be rejection, but also it could
be ignorance. Like for kiruv, where you don't necessarily teach or inforce
the mitzvos that are harder for the person to accept first. Things he
would reject if he knew now, but BD believes he would accept if he knew
more are simply not taught. It is up to their assessment of the geir
whether he would reach that point or not.

: There are two possibilities in relation to this:

...
: But secondly, even if you follow Tosphos and the Rosh - they do *not* state
: that KOM means acceptance of every single mitzvah.  On the other hand, they
: do not state that it doesn't.  The only evidence we have is a) their
: treatment of this story regarding Hillel and b) the fact that the Shulchan
: Aruch does not bring Bekhoros 30b.  It is however not an unreasonable
: inference that it doesn't, given the sources.

What about the fact that Tosafos don't need to farenfer Berkhoros 30b?
They simply let the gemara pass without a comment.

: Getting back to the Rambam, Rav Henkin has pointed out to me a Bach (Yoreh
: Deah 268, s. v. vechal inyanav, end) explained the Rambam's opinion as being
: that a conversion is valid even if "no kabalat mitzvot took place at all."
: (the language is "kol ikar").  

I can't find this Bach. But in any case, isn't "kol ikar" more like
"not entirely", but in some tafeil way, yes, as opposed to leaving off
any modifier to mean "not needed"? When is it taken to mean "not at all"?

And, the SA believes that the Rambam requires QOM; rather, the QOM doesn't
require being a mishpat (see below). So I find this Bach very problematic,
and wish I could find it.

On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 10:36:25PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: A) the person does not have to accept each and every mitzvah (as per
: Bechoros 30b) it is enough that they accept certain fundamentals.  What
: these are is  a bit unclear, but it is hard to see an atheist who
: rejects absolutely everything falling within this category.

Bekhoros has it that a prospective convert can not reject any mitzvah.
That's different than requiring he accept every mitzvah.

For example...

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:49:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: On the other hand, it is also Tosphos and those following him who understand
: the whole story of Hillel and the convert who only converted on condition he
: could be kohel gadol as giving leeway to the beis din "l'fi ra'os enei beis
: din" - where we are dealing with a case where a mitzvah was rejected. That
: would fully explain why Bechoros is *not* quoted by the Shulchan Aruch - he
: doesn't hold like it, as he is following those opinions who do not hold like
: it.

Tosafos there leave it up to the BD to decide what to leave the
candidate in ignorance of. Just like in kiruv, you don't start with the
hardest mitzvos to swallow. And so, if the person accepts what they know
and BD assess him as being later capable of accepting what they don't,
the geirus is chal.

Ignorance is a third ground between accept and reject.

Also, Tosafos isn't the only way to understand the gemara. The Maharsha
takes QOM so for granted, he assumes that the person was taught enough
to clear up their objection BEFORE geirus.

Two weeks ago (which is half a year in email list time), on Sun, Aug 31,
2008 at 12:47:19AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> I'm missing why you have a need to cast KOM into another halachic
:> category. The gemara discusses nedarim, it mentions KOM. Why can't KOM
:> stand as its own beryah?

: Start from the other end.  A shavuah is X. If KOM fulfils the requirements
: of X, then how can you say KOM is *not* a shavuah?  If it walks like a duck
: and quacks like a duck?  That is what is odd about it.

This threw me. I thought we were looking for a category in order to
make a determination about what QOM requires. IOW, we are less sure as
to whether it quacks than whether QOM is a duck.

I thought of two more possible models. However, I think that RCOG and
RMF both reach a conclusion that we find difficult because for some
reason these models don't work. Your dislike and your desire to find an
umbrella are reflections of the same thing.

1- Perhaps QOM is a neder, but anan sahadei is enough anyway. Much
like the implied neder of someone who follows a minhag enough times to
qualify as a chazaqah. We already have a case where a neder can be
implied.

2- The Chasam Sofer on Kesuvos writes that the ikkar of tevilah is QOM.
This also fits the Taz (s"q 2) which requires a repetition of telling
him some of the mitzvos before tevilah. This would allow a Brisker to
say that QOM and tevilah are one -- tevilah is the pe'ulah, and it is
tzerikhah kavanah because QOM is its qiyum shebileiv.

This notion is also supported by the observation (made by the Taz) that
the examples of tevilah for other purposes, qeri and nidah, presume that
the person was meqabeil ol mitzvos.

: In addition, let us look at the gemora reference to KOM. It is a bit of an
: off hand reference in the gemora - ie it goes like this: - the gemora (in
: Yevamos 47b) is discussing a Braisa which says "echad ger vechad eved
: meshachrer" ...

If I thought that Yevamos, not Bekhoros, was the primary source, it would
seem off-hand. It would even have proven RnTK's instinctive position
that QOM is the whole essence of geirus and taken for granted.

What we see in the machloqes the SA spells out is that he holds that
Tosafos and the Rosh consider QOM to be the essence of geirus, and the
Rambam and the Rif hold geirus is a set of actions, but those actions
require QOM in order to be valid. I will discuss the Rambam's position
further when answering RMShinar's post. The need for QOM is there either
way, the difference is whether it's the bit that we mean when we say
geirus requires BD.

That point is WRT a geir gadol (only!) by the Pischei Teshuvah, which
is why the SA makes QOM the one thing that requires BD even bedi'eved.
And this is important; the SA doesn't question the need for QOM. Or, in
the case of a geir qatan, a lack of rejection.

RnCL spells out three different lenient positions:
: A) the person does not have to accept each and every mitzvah (as per
: Bechoros 30b) it is enough that they accept certain fundamentals.  What
: these are is  a bit unclear, but it is hard to see an atheist who
: rejects absolutely everything falling within this category.

This seems clear from Hillel's geirim, and other cases already
discussed.

: B) the person does not have to demonstrate a fidelity to mitzvos, only
: a desire to join the Jewish people and become a Jew, but this woman does
: not fall within this category either.
...
: C) While the majority opinion, as encompassed in the Shulchan Aruch, is
: that some form of KOM is required for adults...                   there
: are rishonic positions that hold that no KOM is required at all, only
: mila and tevila. And we know that in a sha'as hadchak, we can rely on
: minority opinions...

I thought C was more like: QOM is only required lechat-khilah according
to some shitos, and those we can rely on when needed, eg for the sake of
the general Israeli community.

I also believe some form of QOM is required for youth as well, as per
the whole anan sahadei discussion and the possibility of macha'ah
annulling the geirus lemafreia.

My discussion with RMShinnar started with my asking where either (b) or
(c) are found in the rishonim. So, he brought the Rambam.

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:56:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: you distinugish between issues of improper motivation and issues of  
: QOM...

Perhaps I did, last week, I do not recall. At the moment my opinion is
that they are different things, although quite likely the same basic
issue. Ulterior motive makes QOM unlikely, therefore lechat-khilah we
do not convert people who want to be geirei arayos. But if we did, and
there was QOM even though they were driven to taking the step by love
or by fear of lions, the geirus is chal bedi'eved. IOW, they can be the
same basic issue, and still one is only lechat-chilah, while the other
is required even bedi'eved.

...
: Now, we can never be certain about motivations - so QOM for a bet din  
: ends up being a technical issue of public declaration as well as  
: assessment - but the issue of faulty motivation is an issue of faulty  
: QOM

Or, as the acharonim most of us in the US pasqen by actually conclude,
anan sahadei is enough.

WRT to your understanding of IB pereq 12, see Yevamos 46b, near the
bottom. It seems that the idiom of qabbalas geir is bedi'eved, as the
gemara uses it WRT accepting that a person who claims to be megayeir
before moving into town actually was. It's not accepting him as a
candidate, but accepting him into the community.

...
: Yes, as you understand - there are two things - geirut and then QOM -  
: and the word order is clear that the QOM is after the geirut - so  
: geirut in and of itself does not require QOM - that seems clear in my  
: reading, as well as in your reading.

: You would like QOM to be pre geirut as a condition - but that is not  
: the rambam's order - so QOM is something, as you acknowledge,  
: separate from geirut - and can occur after geirut.  This would seem  
: to end the discussion - as you recognize that geirut lechud and QOM  
: lechud...

I am saying the Rambam holds they're distinct, as I wrote above in my
reply to RnCL. The Ashkenazi rishonim didn't, nor did the SA, which then
places QOM at the enter of geirus and the one thing that requires BD
even bedi'eved.

However, according to the Rif and the Rambam, I would argue that QOM
is logically prior to geirus -- there is no geirus w/out QOM. And this
is why the Rambam places it in pereq 12, rather than 13. However, they
are chronologically simultaneous -- the person must be willing to do
mitzvos at the time of geirus, or, in the case of a qatan, at the time
he becomes an adult.

: I think that this is a misunderstanding of the rambam and the role of  
: QOM.  The rambam doesn't say that after QOM he is a yisrael - but  
: rather, that after QOM, he is yisrael lechol davar..... (I wold argue  
: that after geirut he is yisrael...)

But his "kol davar" is chiyuvim and issurim, as is consistent from the
pasuq the Rambam uses for proof, taken from a discussion in Vayiqra of
qorban nedavah. I don't see how your read fits.

: The Rambam makes complete sense according to the second model - there  
: is the process of geirut - and then, to be fully recognized as a  
: member in good standing - there is QOM - otherwise one is possibly a  
: yisrael mumar (perhaps ledavar echad, perhaps lechol hatora kula -  
: but a yisrael who does not accept the mitzvot has that status...- and  
: one would not want lecatchilla to accept such a yisrael.  WIthout  
: public QOM - one does not know - and therefore chosheshin lo

You also imply that there are two ritualistic states, a Yisrael, and a
Yisrael lekhol davar ("in good standing"). ZThis is a major chiddush for
a distinction the Rambam doesn't spell out himself.

: According to your model, you end up with a problem in the word order  
: in the rambam - QOM should have been prior to geirut - and  
: contradictions between 13:13 and 13:14.  By my model - everything is  
: a coherent whole - the word order is precise, there is no contradiction.

Word order is not a problem, since by today's norms they must be
simultaneous, and QOM must actually be simultaneous with the last maqeh
bepatish in particular. Which means that the Rambam's language is not 
inconsistent with what American batei din require. However, given my
above objection to your take on "Yisrael lekhol davar", problems with
the word order wouldn't cxhange the need for QOM anyway.

13:13 vs 13:14 is problematic regardless. Either he is saying the pasuq
says "ke'ilu" but that's not the din, or he is saying that Shimshon and
Shelomo erred. But one of the two is non-authoritative, and thus requires
"explaining away". You just prefer your explanation, and therefore
consider your position to lack a problem, whereas my explanation you
considered flawed and therefore the problem remains. I would instead say
the Rambam is ambiguous, and if it weren't for the requirement for QOM
stated in pereq 12, I wouldn't know which way he holds. A requirement
the SA agrees to, he just questions the need for QOM having a BD.

: RCL has cited the Bach as understanding the rambam as I do. My Bar  
: Ilan is not working...

The Bar Ilan's Bach doesn't have a 268, as far as I could see. Part of
my problem finding what R' Henkin and RnCL were talking about.

And in any case, it would disagree with the SA's take on the Rambam.

To get to the core question: You cited the Rambam as an example of
someone who holds that QOM is part of being in the community, and given
12:13 being about being a Yisrael to the extent of qorban nedavah and
the like "haqahal chuqah achas lakhem... torah achas umishpat echad", I
don't see how that stands.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 327
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."