Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 24

Fri, 22 Jan 2010

• 1. Insights Into Rosh Chodesh, the Yomim Tovim, and the Luach (Yitzchok Levine)
• 2. Re: When did Judaism begin? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Netilas Yadayim - Brachah on 2nd N'tillah (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 4. Coca Cola's ingredient list. (martin brody)
• 5. Re: Coca Cola's ingredient list. (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: When did Judaism begin? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (Tal Moshe Zwecker)
• 8. Re: New Brachos (Chana)
• 9. Re: New Brachos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: Coat Room Mix-up (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Coat Room Mix-up (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Coat Room Mix-up (t6...@aol.com)
• 13. Two kinds of humros (David Riceman)

RSRH has a long commentary on Shemos 12:1-2.

121 And God said to Moshe and Aharon in the land of Egypt as follows:

2 This renewal of the moon shall be for you a beginning of new moons; 
it shall be for you the first among the months of the year.

Indeed, his commentary goes on for 10 pages. In it he give brilliant 
insights into the nature of Rosh Chodesh, sanctifying the months by 
means of witnesses, Yom Tov Sheni, etc.  All of this is well worth 
the long read, IMO. I will just post a couple of things from his 
commentary on these pesukim. YL

Note this well: It is to be by mutual choice! If the beginnings of our
months and, consequently, the dates of the festivals were to be tied
exactly to planetary-astronomical phases, so that the lunar cycle would
automatically determine the Moed and the Moadim then we and our God,
as it were, would be bound by the blind, unchanging cycle of nature.
In that case, our Moed of the New Moon would lend serious support to
the idolatry of a cult of nature worship.

But this shall not be. Indeed, this dangerous illusion that so readily
suggests itself must be countered with all deliberate firmness. It is not
the meeting of heavenly bodies, the renewed illumination of the moon by
the sun, that produces the beginning of the month; it is not this natural
phenomenon that the New Moon celebrates. Rather, each time the moon
reunites with the sun and receives from it new light, God wants His people
to find their way back to Him, so that His light may again shine forth on
them, no matter where they may be or through what periods of darkness
they may have to pass in their path through history. The encounter between
the moon and the sun is only a symbol and occasion for our
reunion with God; the renewal of the moon is a symbol and an occasion
for our own renewal. Moed literally means "meeting."

Chodesh thus proclaims redemption from sin and from evil, and that is
why this institution is placed at the commencement of our national
upbuilding. The truth that it teaches forms the foundation stone of our
Jewish consciousness and sharply distinguishes this consciousness from
all paganism. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100121/9e6eba3d/attachment-0001.htm>

I gave a talk on this on Shavuos night several times over the years
about the origin of TARYAG - so you might say "When did Taryag beging?"

Briefly I see this as a machloqes Rashi and Rambam re: the last Mishnah
in Gid Hanasheh

According to Rashi aiui, Mitzvos accumulated up through Sinai - which
was a "makkeh bepatish" to what was already evolving as Torah

As per Rambam - Sinai was a clean-break from the past, and the pre-Sinai
"proto-Torah" was erased and our Torah was established anew in toto in
one fell swoop.

Of course there is room to quibble here. I feel the Rambam was forced
to take this position because any Torah NOT given via Moshe Rabbeinu was
inherently revisable - EG mitzvos to Avraham and Yaaqov COULD be trumped
by a greater navi - which is unthinkable to the Rambam. [Lo qam k'Moshe]

OTOH Rashi was not so concerned - and you could say that Moshe's
confirmation @ Sinai removed that concern anyway.

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

This dovetails with the "split" between Ashkenazic approach to Halachah
and the Andalusian-Sephardic approach

Ashk'naz - Torah is treated like "common law" and is based upon precedent,
etc.
Basrai extends beyond Rav Ashi. L'mashal In USA constitutional law
includes court rulings, NOT just the document.
Minhag Counts
A lot like "oqeir harim"


Rambam holds Torah is legislated
First @ Sinai
Then Bd Hagadol in Y-layim
Then Hasimas Hatalmud
Ras Ashi is final basrai.
Etc.

It's top-down. Authoritarian.
More Sinai like

EG You don't see a lot of "yeish omrims" in Mishnah Torah, because there
is ONE way.

The SA drew from both schools, and that's where I often quibble because
this eclectic method leaves a murky legacy at times about brachos etc.

[I don't know why Rosh went with lich'orah a rigid approach]

The Rema's virtual rebbe on Talmud was AIUI the Mordechai, who also used
the Rif as his core but was not exposed to Spain.

These 2 schools play out even early in Jewish Halachic history, EG BS vs. BH
R Yihsma'el vs. R Aqiva, etc.

And might go back even earlier.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

See SA O"Ch 158:7
Re: Washing for peiros shetibullo b'mashkin - and then subsequently
eating bread later

As per Rema - w/o heisech hada'as - we DO re-wash BUT w/o a
brachah. [Lich'ora s'feiq brachos l'haqeil]

See MB 30,31,32
Beiur Halacha D"H v'Im lo hisi'ach..

Q: How do we make a brachah on 2nd N'tilah @ the seder?

One approach:
Note: AIUI - the Yekke Minhag is that the first n'tilah is done ONLY by
the leader.
This method presents less of a problem for brachah on 2nd n'tilah
1 Since it's the first n'tillah for most, and 
2 the leader himself could be yotzei his own brachah by listening to
another's brachah.

Yeish l'yasheiv For those whose minhag is for ALL to wash twice..

EG maybe the haggadah is a heisech hada'as
But that approach might be a problem for borei p'ri ho'adamah...

Any other approaches?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

"MAYBE, because the ingrediants were a secret. There are things in Coke
in quantities of more than 1/60 that aren't specified on the ingrediants
list. Hershey's is more up-front.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha"

This is untrue. It would violate the FDA laws.

Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100121/26976318/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:51:29AM -0800, martin brody wrote:
: This is untrue. It would violate the FDA laws.

The FDA doesn't require disclosing trade secrets to anyone but them.
(See 21 C.F.R 20.) Natural and artificial flavorings can be listed just
as that, without naming.

This issue came up in the beginning of the "why are lists good enough in
EU but not US?" discussion.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I was going to respond to this thread with several paragraphs and examples,
pointing out that until one defines "Jewish", the question is meaningless
and unanswerable.

But R' Zev Sero did a much better job than I. He wrote:

> In the same sense, a Ben Noach today who accepts the truth of
> the Torah and keeps the 7 mitzvos because Hashem told Moshe
> that he has to, and also keeps additional mitzvos of his
> choosing, is clearly a follower of the Jewish religion, and
> thus in English he is a "Jew" in the same sense that a Xian
> is a Xian or a Moslem is a Moslem.  What he isn't is a Ben
> Yisrael, which is what *we* mean by a "Jew".  (This is the
> issue that lies at the heart of the recent UK court case.)

As bizarre as this sounds, he has hit the nail squarely on the head. None
of us is obligated in all Taryag mitzvos. If one wanted to, he could easily
argue that a Kohen Gadol and a Yisroel Mamzer are following different
religions. But one could also say that we are Jewish because we are trying
to do whatever it is that the Torah is telling us to do -- and that applies
to a Ben Noach as well!

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=Mkoy-qkJ52Gl9UaRxX9FigAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=

See http://hebrewbooks.org/2227
Teshuvah Concerning Coca Cola
??"? ????? ????? ???? ????

Kol Tuv,
R' Tal Moshe Zwecker
Director Machon Be'er Mayim Chaim
www.chassidusonline.com
chassidusonl...@gmail.com
Phone: 972-2-992-1218 / Cell: 972-54-842-4725
VoIP: 516-320-6022
eFax: 1-832-213-3135
join the mailing list to keep updated about new projects here: 
http://groups.google.com/group/beermayimchaim 


========================================================

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:10:05AM +0000,  wrote:
: That makes sense, but I can't help wondering: why is it that the
: kosher consumer ate Hershey's chocolate without a hechsher all the way
: into the 1980s, but wanted a hechsher on Coca-Cola back in the 1930s?

MAYBE, because the ingrediants were a secret. There are things in Coke
in quantities of more than 1/60 that aren't specified on the ingrediants
list. Hershey's is more up-front.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100122/bab38f2b/attachment-0001.htm>

RRW writes:
> I respect each Minhag-nusach within its own sphere, but [generallly]
> I oppose imposing from the outside. My only beef is with those Posqim
> who construe a brachah l'vatalah for Ashkenazi women on Lulav, shofar,
> sukkah, etc

But then it would seem you do not see the halacha on any level as being
about truth. We do have a concept of elu v'elu, but the way that is
(I believe generally) understood is by using the example of Beit Hillel
and Beit Shamai - and while again there would seem to be two ways
to understand what went on, the most common one is that they avoided
problems and allowed intermarriage by making sure they told the other
who were considered mamzerim by the others calculation and understood
that if somebody was considered a mamzer according to the other, they
were not an eligible marriage partner to be offered to the other, not
that they said that by our people these people are mamzerim but amongst
your people they are not or that they stopped teaching their position
vis a vis the others, hoping that they would ultimately convince them.

Similarly if you understand this as a genuine elu v'elu situation, you
would expect those poskim to say, we hold that this is a bracha l'vatala
(for everybody, not just for our women) but that does not mean we do
not recognise and accept that you hold differently and you are still
halachic Jews (we will count you in a minyan etc etc).

> Therefore -
> Here is my "quasi-learned" opinion:

> 1. EG for S'phardic women to say a brachah on Lulav, shofar, sukkah,
> etc. Would indded be an issue of "brachah l'vatalah"

Whoa here. This is a huge generalisation for a large group. I know
I quote ROY a lot, and he is almost certainly the pre-eminent Sephardi
posek today, but that is not to say he is the only one people follow.
I have previously mentioned that there are alternative opinions out there
(some of them perhaps based on dreams and others) but they exist.

> 2 Similarly for Ashkenazim to say a brachah on Hallel in shul on Seder
> night - is the same issue because it simply is not the Minhag to do so.

Not sure that this would necessarily be the case. I would have thought
that eg if an Ashkenazi was davening in a Sephardi shul, there might
well be good reasons to allow them to say the bracha (especially if
Shatz, or to allow them to be Shatz). It may not be their minhag,
but it might be the minhag of the Shul. There is also the factor of
pisumei nisa, which would seem from the Kol Bo, Rashash etc to give it a
stronger basis than Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. And there is Rabbanu Tam,
the Rosh etc saying that a brocha sheino tzricha is just a d'rabbanan,
and that something beyond that is mutar l'chatchila. Obviously if
it is a practical case one would need to ask one's Rav, but the theory
would suggest to me that if anything, an its OK is more likely than not.

[Email #2. -mi]

RRW writes:
> EG Talmud has a brachah on ner hanukkah Ner ish uveiso

> How does the m'chabeir legislate a brachah on ner Hanukkah in shul?

Well I am not sure that I would have called what the Mechaber does as
legislate a bracha. Rather I would have framed the question as being
why does he brings as halacha the rulings of others that allow for this
bracha in shul, given his general position regarding brochos.

> Hacham Zvi asks a similar question. See SA O"C: 671:7,
> Be'er hagolah 80
> [Apparenly in the name of Rivash]
> baer hetev 10
> Shaarei t'shuva quoting HZ 88

Yes the Chatam Zvi asks the question, which goes as follows: Why does
the Mechaber bring this ruling that one says a bracha on lighting Ner
Chanuka in shul which seems to be based on a Rivash who allows it based
on minhag and likens it to making a bracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh,
given that the Mechaber rejects making a bracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh,
following the Rambam.

But you see, just because the Ashkenazi poskim seem to base this on the
Rivash (the Rema does so explicitly in his follow up comment) it does not
necessarily mean that the Mechaber is sourcing this based on the Rivash.
In fact if you look at the Beis Yosef (Siman 671) he writes "mashekatuv
shemanichin ner channuka bebetei Haknesset, nireh shetiknu ken mipnei
haorchim shein lehem bayit lhadlik bo nerot channukah kemo shetiknu
Chazal Kiddush b'bet haknesset sheochlu v'shatu b'beit haknesset v'ken
katuv haKol Bo v'katav tam acher shehu mepharsem hanes mipnei kol ha'am
u'lesader brachot lifneihem lifi sheyesh b'zeh pesum gadol v'kidesh
shemo bkehilot" . That is, he begins by bringing two reasons:
a) and the one that seems to him right "nireh" - that it was for those
who stay over and eat and drink in the shul, and he uses the words takana
(and seems to suggest that this is at one with the takana of Chazal re
Kiddush); and brings support from the Kol Bo;
b) a second reason given by the Kol Bo, that this is a form of pisumei
nisa, ie the special factor of pisumei nisa allows for things that
might otherwise not be permitted to occur (ie pirsumei nisa allows for
an exception to the general rule).
And then he goes on to bring the Rivash and he quotes him as saying
"haminhag zeh l'hadlik b'beit haknesset minhag v'tikun hi mishum pirsumei
nisa kivan shein anu yecholim l'kayim hamitzvah k'tikuna l'hadlik kol
echad b'petach beito m'bechuz mipnei sheyad hakum t'kufa, v'marbrichin
al zeh k'mo shemevarichin al hallel  d'rosh chodesh."
Ie he then brings the Rivash - who firstly says that the reason for the
minhag is because we cannot do the mitzvah the way that Chazal instituted
it outside of one's doorway because of fear of non Jews, and then goes
on to justify the bracha based on Rosh Chodesh.

So the simple answer would seem to be, that while the Beit Yosef does his
usual round up of the Rishonim *he* does not hold like the Rivash (given
that he says one should not make a bracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh)
but holds like one of the other two reasons, and if anything (I would
be tempted to say like the first reason, given that he says "nireh").
And in fact the Chatam Zvi after asking the question appears to conclude
that in fact the Shulchan Aruch is indeed relying on the Kol Bo not the
Rivash - and that the point is, this is not just a case of minhag, it
is a form of pirsumei nisa, and so also concludes ROY in Chazon Ovadiah
(Mitzvat Hadlikat Nerot Chanukah oit 10).

> My point about q'rias hatorah is similar. If laining no longer conforms
> to Hazal's parameters it becomes problematic AISI to attach a brachah
> to it I at leas for "strict constructionists."

> EG:
> Wouldn't all agree that if laining devolved somehow to a "humash" we
> would still lain - but w/o a brachah? IOW since Hazal required laining
> -
> and when this is the best we can do - then would we still say a brachah
> is still triggered somehow?

> Back to niddan didan, we have stripped a fundamental of laining - a
> fundamental that EG Teimanim still apparently adhere to as did Rambam
> AFAIK. AISI it no longer STRICTLY adhering to Hazal's parameters -
> which brings to mind a potential safeiq. Certainly lain! The question
> is s'feiq brachos l'haqeil - or restore the Targum.

But again, you have to understand what is going on with layning.
You are setting up a straw man. Layning and Targum are not one and
the same thing. You are assuming that the takana of layning included
a requirement of targum (that it is a "fundamental of laining"), and
that without targum there is no mitzvah of layning, ie they are part
and parcel of one entity and not two separate things, as would seem to
be the most straightforward way of understanding it, especially given
that they were (and are for the Teimanim) done by different people,
with different halachic requirements as to who may be a metargeman etc.
But to make such a statement you need to have some sort of support for
your initial supposition.

But in fact, were you correct, in the times of Chazal themselves it
would have meant that there would have been no brocha on kriat hatorah
on Yom Tov, because there was no targum on yom tov (see Mesechet Sofrim
perek 18 halacha 6 which explains that as opposed to Shabbat, when women
came early and left late, women generally came late on Yom Tov and left
early, and the reason they left early was because there was no targum
for the kirat hatorah on Yom Tov, as it was established like Rav that
he did not appoint a translator during Yom Tov because of drunkedness -
see eg Betza 4a).

But of course nobody suggests such a thing, ie that there was or should
be no brocha on kriat hatorah on Yom Tov because a metargeman was not
established on such days. So why would you expect even the strict
constructionists to say there was a safek bracha here?

> KT
> RRW

Regards
Chana

> But in fact, were you correct, in the times of Chazal themselves it
> would have meant that there would have been no brocha on kriat hatorah
> on Yom Tov, because there was no targum on yom tov (see Mesechet Sofrim
> perek 18 halacha 6...
> But of course nobody suggests such a thing, ie that there was or should
> be no brocha on kriat hatorah on Yom Tov because a metargeman was
> not established on such days. So why would you expect even the strict
> constructionists to say there was a safek bracha here?

Ein hachi nami - this mamash proves my point beyond any doubt. Aside
from the Yomtov strawman which is a red herring the key is following
Hazal NOT in having or lacking a m'turg'man contrary to Hazal!

SO When hazal legilsate no meturgeman, then we DO say the brachah -
davka because this follows Hazal

But when on Shabbos WE - contrary to Hazal - omit the Targum, we no
longer conform to Hazal's taqqnanah and brachah is problematic
Just like hallell bedilug!
Of course when Hazal omit a targum on a controversial passuq, that IS
strict construction. Aderabbah adding Targum AGAINST Hazal [such as on
a restricted passuq or on YT] would jeopardize the brachah! That's the
point of strict construction, not playing any games with Hazal's dictates!

So The key for a strict constructionist is NOT to morph Hazal to make
a brachah on Ner Hanukkah in shul either. It simply lacks Talmudic
approval. Morphed circumstances is not a legitimate trigger You might
as well go along with Ran on nashim somchot r'shut and allow women to
bench lulav etc. Which is the flexible position favored by ashk'naz.

Similarly it is against strict construction to make a brachah on Hallel
in shul at night. But since this IS minhag has'phardim, [be'er hagolah]
there is room to be lenient for S'phardim as per BIC and Kaf HaHayyim.

While there is no such leniency for an ashkknazi Jew - and s'feiq
brachos l'haqeil.

> then it would seem you do not see the halacha on any level as being
> about truth.

Tannur achnai



> Sheasani k'rotzono is surely a bracha of shevach, but ROY says you should
> say it without shem or malchus.

Abudarham p.69
    V'hanashim nohagos l'vareich bimqom "shelo asani isha" "she'asani
    kirtzono" k'mee shmatzdiq es haddin hara'ah habbah alav"

IOW it's like "dayyan ho'emes" I'm not sure if that is "shevach" or not,
you can be the judge If "dayan ho'emes" is shevach.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Micha Berger wrote:

> 1- You come home from the pub with the wrong item. This is phrased as
>    "mi shenischalfu lo".
> 
> 2- "Vekhein" getting the wrong shirt back from the laundry. So that's also
>    "nischalfu lo", no? But moreso, in case I'm reading too much into
>    "chiluf", RSGanzfried continues "af al "af al pi sheshelo ne'evad"
>    -- not *only* if it's lost, but *even* if it's lost.
> 
> 3- Like case 2, but enough time has since passed that we could assume
>    the owner would have complained and gotten recompensated by then.

If we're talking about a swap, why would she pay him?  What loss did he
suffer by getting your shirt instead of his?  Assuming the shirts are of
comparable value, and he's not a (now-former) administrative law judge
in DC with an grossly inflated sense of entitlement.  Also, "ne'evad"
doesn't usually mean "lost" (as in gone missing) but "destroyed".

Also, in the first case, what does he mean with "and when the thing's
owner comes he must return it even though his own thing was lost"?
How was it lost, if the other person took it?  Surely when he comes
looking for his own thing he has brought with him the one he took?
Ela mai, he didn't take it; your item is gone, disappeared, this guy
didn't take it, but you took his.

It seems to me that the Kitzur is not talking about the second person,
who finds his item gone and another one in its place, but rather about
the first person, who took someone else's item without looking, and
didn't realise it until he got home.  Now he must not use it any more,
since he has no basis for believing that the owner has his item.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:26:14PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: >3- Like case 2, but enough time has since passed that we could assume
: >   the owner would have complained and gotten recompensated by then.

: If we're talking about a swap, why would she pay him?  What loss did he
: suffer by getting your shirt instead of his?  Assuming the shirts are of
: comparable value...

As one example... If he is a half a size larger than you, his shirt
would fit you, but yours would be useless to him.

: Also, in the first case, what does he mean with "and when the thing's
: owner comes he must return it even though his own thing was lost"?
: How was it lost, if the other person took it? ...

Because I rendered it "even if", not "even though". IOW, he has to
return it whether or not his own thing was lost. It's there in my
translation.

: Also, in the first case, what does he mean with "and when the thing's
: owner comes he must return it even though his own thing was lost"?
: How was it lost, if the other person took it? ...

The other person broke it, lost it, etc...

: It seems to me that the Kitzur is not talking about the second person,
: who finds his item gone and another one in its place, but rather about
: the first person, who took someone else's item without looking, and
: didn't realise it until he got home.  Now he must not use it any more,
: since he has no basis for believing that the owner has his item.

Certainly it's the 2nd person, since the first guy to leave the pub is
less like the person who got the wrong shirt back from the laundry.

But he doesn't know what happened to his own shirt, does he? We do. He
only guesses that someone else got it. He doesn't know who the someone
else is, or what he did with it when it arrived.

In any case, RMF understands the halakhah as I did, and also why the
shul coat-room is an exceptional case -- IF that's what everyone else
has established as norm. My own perplexities with this se'if were
resolved.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

 


>> This situation comes up in shul pretty  often. There aren't that
many different styles of men coat, and  it sometimes happens that
someone looks through the coat room  and realizes that the only
remaining coat was one similar to  theirs. Someone who left already
took with the wrong  coat.

I hadn't heard, though, of a rabbi telling the person  stuck in this
situation that he is not permitted to wear the  accidentally
exchanged coat home.

What do you  think?

-- 
Micha  Berger             

 
>>>>>>
I think if it is so bitter cold outside that it would be dangerous to walk  
home without a coat, he should wear the coat home (but bring it back to 
shul as  soon as he possibly can).  Otherwise he should not wear the coat that 
does  not belong to him.  The other guy made an honest mistake and did not  
realize he was wearing a coat that did not belong to him, thus his sin was  
beshogeg.   You, however, do know that this coat in the coat room does  not 
belong to you, so if  you wear it, you are using someone's  property without 
permission and that is bemezid.
 
 

--Toby  Katz
==========

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100122/977abd6c/attachment-0001.htm>

I'm studying Be'er HaGolah, and it reminds me of an old question.  Think 
of the gzeirah of einah bas yomah atu bas yomah as a typical humrah.  
The cook is in the kitchen every day grabbing at pots.  One evening, 
cooking meat, he accidentally grabs the pot he used that very morning to 
cook dairy.  So the Rabbis required him to have separate dairy and meat 
pots to avoid this problem.

How does this translate to shniyos ba'arayos? Certainly we can't imagine 
that one of the newlyweds just grabbed the wrong spouse on the way to 
the wedding! Were the Rabbis worried that no one in town knows the 
halachos? If they don't know Biblical law how could the Rabbis expect 
them to know rabbinic law? So what's the function of the gzeirah of shniyos?

The Maharal's answer is that shniyos are inherently immoral, but less 
immoral that Biblical prohibitions, so the Torah left it to the Rabbis 
to prohibit them.  But according to the normal explanation, that this 
somehow prevents violations of Biblical law, how does the decree work?

David Riceman


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 24
**************************************

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..."