Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 13

Thu, 15 Jan 2009

• 1. Re: 7MBNoach: Stricter or Less-Strict? (Y...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Birchot Habanim and Negiah (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Birkat HaHammah (Joseph Mosseri)
• 4. Re: Birkat HaHammah (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Threats Against A Judge (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Threats Against A Judge (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Re: The importance of a woman's name (Yitzhak Grossman) (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] Is smoking mutar? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Din Moser (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 10. Re: Threats Against A Judge (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (D&E-H Bannett)
• 12. Re: new customs (David Cohen)
• 13. Re: Birchot Habanim and Negiah (David Cohen)
• 14. sheimos (Steven J Scher)
• 15. Re: Din Moser (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 16. Re: Threats Against A Judge (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: Threats Against A Judge (Zev Sero)
• 18. Re: sheimos (Micha Berger)
• 19. Birkat Hachamah (Gals...@aol.com)

 
 
In a message dated 1/13/2009 5:25:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
mi...@aishdas.org writes:

Oneshim  are stricter for benei Noach, though. So many more violations
are dinei  nefashos. Sanhedrin 57a. 57b says there is no requirement of
hasra'ah, and  eid echad, even a qarov, is sufficient. In terms of the
content of the  issurim themselves...



Much can be written on this topic, but just 2 short points.
 
1) Sugia Arucha in Sanhedrin 58, and other places, wether "Mee Ika Midi  (can 
there exist something which is permitted to a Yisroel and Ossur for a B"N),  
see also Rambam Hil. Mlochim 9:13 (and see Margoliyas HaYam on the Sugia).
 
2) B"N is punished on a Kol Shehu, ".Lo nitnu Hashiu'rin eloh lyisroel  
bilvad" Ramba"m (ibid9:10) 
 
Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?
redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%2
6bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090114/6074f097/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> I've seen - IIRC, twice - a Rov put his hand on the head
> of an (unrelated) Kallah to give her a Berachah. I assume
> that they did not consider it Derech Chibah.

Let me start off by making two educated guesses about this situation:

A) It was probably around the time of the bedeken; in my experience that's when the brachos are given. If so, it was prior to the kiddushin.

B) Any rav who is close enough to the kallah to give her a bracha would
probably have been the Mesader Kiddushin, or would otherwise have been
close enough to know whether or not this was a Chupas Nidah, and I'll
presume that it was not.

If those two guesses are correct, then the kallah would not have been an ervah to the rav.

I'm not saying that this is enough to justify the negiah, and I'm also not
saying that it is *not* enough to justify it. My only point is that neither
consideration applies to a father-in-law giving brachos to his
daughter-in-law on a typical Friday Night, and so RMYG's story is not
relevant to answer it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Domain Registration - Click Here
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/
PnY6rbuwwavUJGThDQEdVbMbVhsHo1HqOAt3CffE8MxYOWfmjeDFI/

I clearly remember Birkat HaHammah in 1981 and at the time we were taught
that this berakhah is recited once every 28 years when the sun is in the
exact position it was in when it was created at the time of Ma'aseh
Bereshit.
As we know from Bereshit 1:14-19 this happened on the 4th day. According to
tradition Bereshit began on Rosh Hodesh Nisan hence the 4th day (Wednesday)
of Ma'aseh Bereshit when the sun was created had to be on the 4th of Nisan.
This berakhah must be recited on the 4th of Nisan.
What is the source and the reasoning to say that this year we will recite it
on Ereb Pesah the 14th of Nisan?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090114/8cb76cb1/attachment-0001.htm>

Joseph Mosseri wrote:
> I clearly remember Birkat HaHammah in 1981 and at the time we were 
> taught that this berakhah is recited once every 28 years when the sun is 
> in the exact position it was in when it was created at the time of 
> Ma'aseh Bereshit.

In theory, yes.  Well, it comes back to the same position every year,
of course, but every 28 years it comes back to that position at the
same time of the day and day of the week.  At least, it would if years
were exactly 365.25 days long, and that's the assumption we use for this.


> As we know from Bereshit 1:14-19 this happened on the 4th day. According 
> to tradition Bereshit began on Rosh Hodesh Nisan

No, it didn't.  I don't know where you got that one.  According to the
view that the world was created in Nissan, the first day was the 27th of
Adar, and Rosh Chodesh was the fourth day.  Molad Nissan in the year 1
was on Wednesday at about 3:35 AM.  According to the view that the world
was created in Tishri, the first day was the 25th of Elul, and Adam was
created on the sixth day, 1 Tishri of the year 2.  The molad of that
Tishri was on Friday at exactly 8:00 AM.


> hence the 4th day 
> (Wednesday) of Ma'aseh Bereshit when the sun was created had to be on 
> the 4th of Nisan.

See above.  It was the 1st of Nissan.

> This berakhah must be recited on the 4th of Nisan.

No, it is recited whenever the 26th of March falls on a Wednesday, in
the year after a leap year.  On the Julian calendar, that is.  To convert
from Julian to Gregorian this century, add 13 days, so 26 March = 8 April.
There is no particular date on the Hebrew calendar on which it must fall;
in 1953 it was on the 23rd of Nissan, and in 1925 it was again on Erev
Pesach.


-- 
Zev Sero                    A mathemetician is a device for turning coffee
z...@sero.name               into theorems.                   - Paul Erdos

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> Nor is kibush ha'aretz listed, and yet it's completely
> obvious that it does override pikuach nefesh.  The same
> applies to lo taguru; by its nature it's obvious that it
> requires mesirut nefesh.  The three listed exceptions are
> those that don't require mesirut nefesh by their very
> natures, and indeed bnai noach are *not* required to be
> moser nefesh for them, but Jews are.

One of "the three listed exceptions" is murder. I have two questions:

1) It seems to me that the prohibiton against murder DOES require mesiras nefesh by its very nature: "Who knows whose blood is redder?"

2) Is it really true that a Ben Noach is not required to be moser nefesh
for murder? Suppose Yasser threatens Adolf that he must murder Mahmoud, or
be killed himself. Are you saying that Adolf is allowed to murder Mahmoud
to protect his own life?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Suffering from asthma? Click now to find relief with great treatment options!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/
PnY6rbv1qXXKkw7T3Z3lN2CBFEoos2X9a8vX5wZ1xiqXu7dQ8jDtw/

I don't have my HM handy, but IIRC there is a way out if the judge is 
afraid. The judge does not have to accept a case if one of the sides is 
violent and he is fearful for his life. Once he accepts the case however, 
then the prohibition of lo taguru applies.

Ben

>> RZSero wrote:
>>> That's an explicit lav of "lo taguru".  As the Sifri says, "perhaps you
>>> will say I am afraid of so-and-so lest he kill my son, or burn my grain-
>>> stack, or chop down my trees".  There's no question that one may not
>>> give a false psak, and that this overrides pikuach nefesh...

>The larger point here is the
> remarkable malleability that the Bible has demonstrated, often
> functioning as a mirror of the views of its exegetes.  RnSB is
> something of a feminist; she looks at the text and derives from it
> feminist, woman-friendly messages. Ralbag is emphatically *not* a
> feminist; he looks at the text and sees, well, something rather
> different ...
>
> Yitzhak

We have a saying here in Israel that sometimes judges mark the target - then 
write the judgement.

R' Yitzchak claims that my goal is a woman-friendly message. Of course he 
read my mind - not. BTW, this kind of response is totally inappropriate b/c 
it dismisses the content without ever having to actually bother to 
understand it.

With all due respect to Ralbag, how smart a woman can be is irrelevant to 
the message I was trying to teach.  Perhaps, instead of assuming that my 
goal was a feminist one, it would have been helpful to re-read the post with 
the understanding that the goal was a Torah thought, an understanding of 
Hashem's subliminal messages, so to speak. Just b/c it's given by a woman 
doesn't mean it's feminist.

My post was not an issue of malleability, but of 70 panim LaTorah.  One can 
focus narrowly on a pasuk or topic, or one can try to see the broad brush 
strokes that created the Jewish history.

I took the evidence, who Hashem considers worthy of leadership and sought 
the common factor. That is not being "feminist", that is seeking Emet and 
understanding of what Hashem wants from us. How to improve our Avodat 
Hashem.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Avroham Yakov wrote:

> As to the question of smoking; is there any living authority today that 
> says that it is indeed mutar?


IIRC R Bleich wrote an article many years ago arguing that there is no
precedent for the claim that "venishmartem" applies to actions that pose
no immediate danger, but only increase the probability of developing a
disease at some time in the future.  All the examples the gemara gives are
ones where there is an unacceptably high risk of immediate death.  A shaky
bridge may or may not collapse while you cross it, but if it does it will
kill you.  Exposed water may or may not contain venom, but if it does and
you drink it you will die.  None of these are like the risk from smoking.
AFAIK he has not renounced that position, and nor has our knowledge of the
metzius changed in that time, so as to invalidate its application to smoking.

-- 
Zev Sero                    A mathemetician is a device for turning coffee
z...@sero.name               into theorems.                   - Paul Erdos

This is a very misleading statement. You are relying on the Tzitz 
Eliezar based on the Aruch HaShulchan. Rav Moshe Feinstein and others 
strongly reject this as R' Broyde acknowledges in his article. One posek 
told me that this view in fact is only a minority view.

R' Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:52:55 -0500 I wrote:
>
>   
>> No.  Rambam (Hovel 8:10) and SA (HM 388:10) explicitly state that even
>> a moser of "mamon kal" is a rodef; it is a mizvah to kill him; and
>> "kol ha'kodem le'hargo zachah".
>>
>> Incidentally, they also state there that this Halachah applies even
>> today, even though we don't judge dinei ne'fashos, answering a question
>> raised earlier in this thread.
>>     
>
> While this is technically correct, I should have noted that as a matter
> of actual Halachah, one who is "moser mammon kal" in contemporary
> times might not have the status of rodef, since the assumption of the
> Poskim that any mesirah has the potential to lead to the (unjust) death
> of the nimsar, which is the basis for the aforementioned Halachah, may
> no longer hold. For an excellent survey of the literature on this and
> related points, see section III of R. Broyde's classic, comprehensive
> article on Mesirah, a version of which is available here:
>
> http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/mesiralaw2.html
>
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090115/7200cff5/attachment-0001.vcf>

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:11:04AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: One of "the three listed exceptions" is murder. I have two questions:

To tie this to another thread I just revived....

Perhaps the 3 mitzvos yeihareig ve'al ya'avor are unique in that they
define dying al qiddush Hashem? Dying for shoelace color is situtational,
whatever they banned to get rid of Judaism. But in the definition of
dying AQH, these 3 mitvos are phrased as absolute, not situational.

: 1) It seems to me that the prohibiton against murder DOES require
: mesiras nefesh by its very nature: "Who knows whose blood is redder?"

I fail to undertand what you're saying. How does your question make
shefichas dam more about mesiras nefesh than AZ or gilui arayos?
What the question you quote shows is why one should be moseir
nefesh, why this made it to the list of 3. But how does it define
the very nature of refusing to kill?

IOW, in most situations I can refrain from killing someone without risking
my life. This is in contrast to a milchamah, where it's impossible to
not assume risk.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

Re:  <<OTOH there are other minhaggim which have not aroused 
protest.  The
Kabblists of Tsefat started the Minhag of Kabbals Shabbos, 
but I am unware
of any siginificant protest.  I AM awre that some communites 
did not
institute Kabbals Shabbos until relatively recently, but I 
am not aware of
any serious oppostion to its imposition.>>

You seem to be unaware or have forgotten that, in the first 
years, there were places where they did not permit the 
saying of Kabbalat Shabbat in the synagogue and those 
interested, came early to say it in a side room. Later, in 
shuls with a professional chazan, it was permitted in the 
shul but, because it is not part of the normative davening, 
it was not said by the chazan and not from the amud of the 
chazan.

But, to this day, there is still an obvious objection, 
although not usually seen as such.  In many Ashkenazi shuls, 
Kabbalat Shabbat is still said from the bima and the ba'al 
tefila moves to the chazan's amud afterwards for ma'ariv.


David 

R' Eli Turkel:
> ...the custom of some to use only one hand when blessing
> the children only has a mystic support of not combining mercy
> and justice.

Many people have the custom to include Birkas Kohanim in the birkas habanim.

See the lengthy discussion in the Bach at the beginning of Orach Chayim
128.  His conclusion is that one of the factors that might determine whether
or not a non-kohein violates an "isur asseih" by giving Birkas Kohanim is
whether or not he does nesi'as kappayim (and any raising up of both hands
technically qualifies as such).  Using only one hand would avoid this
potential problem.

I heard this point made in a shiur by a major talmid chakham (a RIETS rosh
yeshiva), whom I will gladly identify off-list to anybody who asks.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090115/f8f35532/attachment-0001.htm>

RMYG wrote:
> I've seen - IIRC, twice - a Rov put his hand on the head of an
> unrelated) Kallah to give her a Berachah. I assume that they did
> not consider it Derech Chibah.

Most of the time, a kallah on her wedding day, before the chupah, is
in the relatively rare position (for pre-menopausal women) of being
neither an eishes ish nor a niddah.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be mutar otherwise, but just pointing
out that one can't necessarily bring a proof from this story.

-- D.C.

ok.  so, as I usually do when I get into my office, I picked up a copy of 
the student newspaper, and retreated to the rest room.

imagine my surprise when I opened the paper and saw the editorial cartoon 
about israel.... no, I wasn't surprised that it was about israel, what i 
was surprised about was that it included correctly drawn hebrew 
characters.

upon closer look, I realized that among the characters were 
yud-key-vav-key...

this raises several halachic dilemmas (dilemmae??):

1) what do I do about the fact that I now have sheimos in a bathroom?  I 
couldn't exactly get up and walk right out.

2) what is my obligation with this paper and, more importantly, with all 
the other copies that I see lying around?  Do I have to try and pick up as 
many as I can to dispose of properly?  Do I have to seek them out, or can 
I just get the ones I happen to see in improper places (e.g., the floor, 
etc) and dispose of them properly...

and, for a question without torah emphasis: does the chevra think its 
worth writing a letter to the editor to the paper to complain about this?

- steve


ps - I did a quick search on the cartoonist.  he is israeli born, american 
educated, getting a master's in art here at eastern illinois university. 
that explains his command of hebrew, but raises other questions about his 
position vis-a-vis the war.

***************************************************************************
Steven J. Scher              sjsc...@eiu.edu         Listen to WEFT 90.1FM
Department of Psychology     217-581-7269            www.weft.org
Eastern Illinois University
Charleston, IL 61920         I would discuss the holy books with the learned
USA                          men seven hours every day.  That would be the
                              sweetest thing of all...

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:35:24 +0200
Daniel Eidensohn <yadmo...@012.net.il> wrote:

> This is a very misleading statement. You are relying on the Tzitz 
> Eliezar based on the Aruch HaShulchan. Rav Moshe Feinstein and others 
> strongly reject this as R' Broyde acknowledges in his article. One posek 
> told me that this view in fact is only a minority view.

It is not at all misleading; on the contrary, your comments
misrepresent both my statement and the Halachic literature on the
subject.

First, a clarification.  I should have stated explicitly, although it
was clear from the context, that I was addressing the narrow question
of whether a contemporary moser is a rodef, not whether mesirah is
actually permitted today.

Your comments suggest that Ziz Eliezer is the sole lenient opinion, and
that most others disagree.  R. Broyde himself notes that R. Elyashiv is
quoted as taking the same view.  This position actually appears first in
Resp. Beis Yitzhak, cited in Pis'hei Hoshen (first footnote to Nezikin
Ch. 4 and in R. Broyde's article) as stating that "in contemporary
times, a moser of property is not under the rubric of rodef".

Rav Blau, one of the greatest contemporary experts on Hoshen Mishpat,
presents the issue as follows (ibid.):

"In the works of the Poskim we find limudei zechus on contemporary
kingdoms and governments, that moser doesn't apply.  But it is known
that these Halachos have been distorted by the censors, and sometimes
things have been written (or omitted) out of fear of the censor or the
government, or at least out of eivah, so it is difficult to deduce
anything from these statements.

But it still seems to me that there is a basis ('zad') in Halachah for
this: since the main stringency of moser mammon is that they will come
to kill him, it is possible ('yitachen') that in these countries where
there is a proper ('metukan') government, even though it is certainly
ab initio still prohibited, , but if it is certain that there is no
danger that they will kill him, it is only like a tort against
property, and all the stringencies of a moser against a person would
not apply.

But it is still possible that the punishment of jail is like mesirah
against his a, since there is a danger to life in imprisonment,
and also, even mesirah of property to the government can possibly
result in danger to life as a consequence of their investigations and
cross-examinations ('derishos va'hakiros'), and it is known that one
who falls into their hands, they have no compassion on him until he
confesses"

He subsequently cites the Beis Yitzhak mentioned earlier, and the
stringent opinion of Rav Breish cited by R. Broyde.  [R. Broyde also
mentions Rav Blau's analysis.]

As mentioned, Rav Breish is stringent, although Rav Moshe's position is
considerably less clear.  In one responsum, cited by R. Broyde, he
states only that mesirah is prohibited "where the punishment is
unfounded in Jewish law", and in all his various responsa prohibiting
mesirah cited by R. Broyde, he is only stating that mesirah is
prohibited, and not that we would treat a contemporary moser as a rodef.

Rav Ezra Bazri, as cited by R, Broyde, does apparently take a very
stringent view, but R, Broyde also cites Rav S. Wosner as adopting a
more lenient view.

Also note that contrary to your comment, I did not 'rely' on anything;
I chose my language very carefully for its tentativeness, writing:

"one who is "moser mammon kal" in contemporary times might not have
the status of rodef *might* not have the status of rodef, since the
assumption of the Poskim that any mesirah has the potential to lead to
the (unjust) death of the nimsar, which is the basis for the
aforementioned Halachah, *may* no longer hold"  [Emphasis added here.]

To summarize, Rav Waldenberg is far from being a da'as yachid.  Rav
Yitzhak Shmelkes, Rav Elyashiv, Rav Wosner and Rav Blau all at least
consider the possibility that the laws of moser, and in particular the
assumption that he is a rodef, do not remain unchanged today.  Tho only
ones who clearly maintain that he is still a moser are Rav Breish and
Rav Bazri (Rav Moshe, although he rules that mesirah is prohibited,
does not state explicitly that a moser remains a rodef, as above).
Your citation of some anonymous posek claiming that it is minority view
is not terribly persuasive without the information of who the posek is,
which authorities he believes are stringent, and exactly what he was
asked (permissibility or status as rodef) and how he responded.

R. Broyde's article is available here:

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/mesiralaw2.html

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> Nor is kibush ha'aretz listed, and yet it's completely
>> obvious that it does override pikuach nefesh.  The same
>> applies to lo taguru; by its nature it's obvious that it
>> requires mesirut nefesh.  The three listed exceptions are
>> those that don't require mesirut nefesh by their very
>> natures, and indeed bnai noach are *not* required to be
>> moser nefesh for them, but Jews are.
> 
> One of "the three listed exceptions" is murder. I have two questions:
> 
> 1) It seems to me that the prohibiton against murder DOES require mesiras
> nefesh by its very nature: "Who knows whose blood is redder?"

Not by its nature.  It is perfectly logical to put self-preservation above
the duty not to kill others.   My blood may not be redder than yours on an
absolute scale, but it's redder to ME.  My first duty is to myself and my
own, and therefore if preserving my life, or those of my children, means
taking yours, then that is what I will do.

So why is the halacha otherwise?  Here's my speculation: We have a mitzvah
of kiddush Hashem, that we must give up our lives for Hashem, i.e.
mitzvot are more important than self-preservation.  But we have a
contradictory pasuk "vachai bahem".  So some mitzvot require mesirut
nefesh and some don't.  Bish'at hashmad any avera is a chilul Hashem, and
so mesirut nefesh applies even to shoelaces.  At other times, AZ is
obviously always a chilul Hashem by definition, but for other mitzvot we
can apply "vachai bahem".  In other words, "vachai bahem" is a *heter*
from the requirement for kidush Hashem.  But once we have to resort to
this heter, how can it apply to murder?  Surely Hashem is just as concerned
about your life as He is about mine!  Why would He let me off the general
requirement of kiddush Hashem just to save my life, if by doing so yours
will be lost?  What will He have gained by that?  And once we say murder
is always a chilul Hashem, we bring in giluy arayot because the Torah
compares them.

War, on the other hand, by its very nature requires soldiers lives to
be risked and lost.  And yet there is a requirement to fight milchemet
mitzvah.  If pikuach nefesh overrode that requirement, then how could
it be a requirement at all?  How can a war *ever* be fought, if each
individual is entitled to put his life ahead of the mitzvah?

Nor is this the only example. Imagine if someone were to argue that the
requirement to execute someone who has been convicted of a capital
crime is overridden by pikuach nefesh!  After all, one may be mechalel
shabbat in order to save a Jewish life, even that of a rasha, kal
vachomer that one may ignore the mitzvat asei of executing the convict!




> 2) Is it really true that a Ben Noach is not required to be moser
> nefesh for murder? Suppose Yasser threatens Adolf that he must murder
> Mahmoud, or be killed himself. Are you saying that Adolf is allowed to
> murder Mahmoud to protect his own life?

It certainly seems so.  He is not required to be moser nefesh even for AZ,
kal vachomer for murder and giluy arayot.  See Rambam Hil' Melachim 10:3
http://mechon-mamre.org/i/e510.htm

-- 
Zev Sero                    A mathemetician is a device for turning coffee
z...@sero.name               into theorems.                   - Paul Erdos

Ben Waxman wrote:
> RZSero wrote:

>> That's an explicit lav of "lo taguru".  As the Sifri says, "perhaps
>> you will say I am afraid of so-and-so lest he kill my son, or burn my 
>> grain-stack, or chop down my trees".  There's no question that one may
>> not give a false psak, and that this overrides pikuach nefesh...

> I don't have my HM handy, but IIRC there is a way out if the judge is 
> afraid. The judge does not have to accept a case if one of the sides is 
> violent and he is fearful for his life. Once he accepts the case 
> however, then the prohibition of lo taguru applies.

Whether and in what circumstances he can recuse himself from the case
is the subject of the article I linked to.  It is not clear that he
can refuse a case, especially if he is a BD kavua, whose job it is to
take the public's cases.  It's discussed by the poskim, which is why
I linked the article.  But the question here was not about recusal but
about giving a false psak, and certainly lo taguru applies here, and
by definition overrides pikuach nefesh.

-- 
Zev Sero                    A mathemetician is a device for turning coffee
z...@sero.name               into theorems.                   - Paul Erdos

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:27:04PM -0600, Steven J Scher wrote:
: 1) what do I do about the fact that I now have sheimos in a bathroom?  I 
: couldn't exactly get up and walk right out.
...
: ps - I did a quick search on the cartoonist.  he is israeli born, american 
: educated, getting a master's in art here at eastern illinois university. 

I think that a sheim found in an Eastern Illinois U student newspaper
no holier than seifer Torah shekasvo min. I doubt a non-min would have
put a sheim H' in a cartoon.

BTW, this question comes up a lot in Columbia. Their logo is a man in a
throne, with the sheim Havayah in a ribbon overhead, denoting who they
are trying to represent. (The vision of the zeqeinim at Har Sinai?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

We will say "Birkat Hachamah" , IY"H, on April 8th.
This is done every 28 years, first counting from Adar 22.
My question is, why Adar 22?  If Adam was born (to Rav Yehudah) on Friday, 
Nisan 1, then the Me'orot were created on Wednsday, Adar 29th. Then why do we 
count from Adar 22?
 
galsaba
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?
redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%2
6bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090115/b3aeb31c/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 13
**************************************

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..."