Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 50

Tue, 16 Feb 2010

• 1. Re: S'udas Purim in the Morning (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 2. Insights Into the Aseres HaDibros (Yitzchok Levine)
• 3. Who said this? (Meir Rabi)
• 4. Re: Who said this? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Mishum Eivah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: S'udas Purim in the Morning (j...@when.com)
• 7. Re: S'udas Purim in the Morning (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: No Right of Pardon in Halacha (Achdut18)
• 9. Re: Chezkas Kehuna (j...@when.com)
• 10. Acharaei Rabbim l'Hatos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 11. drunk on purim (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 12. - Why don't we say "Asher Heini" by day? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 13. Do gentiles have more teeth than Jews? Do they have less? (Yitzchok Levine)
• 14. Re: Chezkas Kehuna (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Do gentiles have more teeth than Jews? Do they have less? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Geirut for marriage (Micha Berger)

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 08:51 -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> j...@when.com wrote:
> >  Personally, I think having a 
> > meal later is more chashuv in general, I don't know if halacha agrees 
> > with me.
> 
> At what time of day do you suppose Esther's mishta'ot were held?

Late enough in the day for Haman to have paraded Mordechai around
Shushan first.

--Ken

Towards the end of his extensive commentary on 
the Aseres HaDibros in Parshas Yisro RSRH writes

It is precisely this prohibition of Lo Sachmod  and Lo sisaveh  that sets the
seal of God on the social part of the Decalogue. Even a mortal lawgiver
can decree ?You shall not murder,? and so forth. But only God can
decree ?you shall not covet.? He alone probes the mind and the heart.
Before Him, not only deeds, but also thoughts and feelings, are manifest.
A human being can forbid only the crime, and when the crime is committed,
he can ? with difficulty ? bring the criminal to justice. But
the source and breeding place of the crime eludes human sight. And
once the crime has matured in a person?s heart, he is seldom deterred
from carrying it out by fear of the punishment meted out by human
courts of law.

Hence all human state-building is in vain, for the edifice remains
unfinished and shaky as long as it is based solely on human glory. Even
if the builders do lay the cornerstone ?in God?s Name,? the building is
erected without Him. They profess respect for the ?Ten Commandments,?
but pay homage to man. They do not subordinate human power
to the state, the state to the law, and the law to God; on the contrary,
they pay lip service to God as a means of gaining support for faltering
homage to man.

Only when God will be ?King over all the earth? and His Will will
become the Law in the midst of mankind, only then will prisons be
closed and will wretchedness disappear from the earth.

Let us add that the ?Ten Commandments? do not have greater holiness
or greater importance than any other of the Torah?s commandments.
They are neither the whole Law nor are they holier laws than
all the rest. God expressly declared them as being merely an introduction
to and preparation for the whole main Lawgiving that would follow
after them: ?I am coming to you . . . so that the people may hear when
I speak with you and so trust in you forever? (above, 19:9). Thus it is
expressly stated that the purpose of the revelation on Sinai was none
other than to prepare the people for the acceptance of all the other
commandments that would be transmitted to them by Moshe, and to
prove to them beyond the shadow of a doubt, by their own experience,
that ?God did speak to your entire assembly? (Devarim 5:19). Thus,
they would receive all the other commandments, too, as the Word of
God through Moshe, and would fulfill them ? forever ? with steadfast
faith.

Nevertheless, the Ten Commandments are basic principles and general
headings for all the other laws and commandments.
If we consider the order in which these basic principles are set forth,
we find in it a truth that sheds light on the whole conception of God?s
Torah. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100214/664f7fae/attachment-0001.htm>

Who said this?
"The truth is that even Chamets on Pesach should be Battel, and I would
Pasken accordingly if not that I fear that my colleagues will torment me by
labeling me Reb So and So the Meikel"

meir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100215/2a943635/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 03:16:37PM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: Who said this?
: "The truth is that even Chamets on Pesach should be Battel, and I would
: Pasken accordingly if not that I fear that my colleagues will torment me by
: labeling me Reb So and So the Meikel"

I am guessing RMF, but I'm not posting just to give my guess.

Presumably, we're talking about ON Pesach.

Rava holds that the definition of "min bemino" is linguistic -- if the
sheim is the same.

The Shach on YD 98:2 (6) interprets Rava to be talking about cases where
there is no bitul beshishism. Because when there is bitul beshishim,
clearly we're defining taaroves by taste. Examples of cases where
there is no bitul beshishim: yayin nesekh, orlah, kelayim and
*chameitz*.

An interesting Shach, because he is giving a different kind of meaning
to chametz than to basar bechalav. In basar bechalav, it's the taste
that's assur. On Pesach, it's the sheim chametz. From that comes the
difference WRT bitul.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:57am EST, R Zev Sero asked about my post on Areivim:
:> If it meant what my rabbeim taught me WRT saving [nachriim] on Shabbos,
:> then I would have to believe that we're worried about wives murdering
:> their husbands as well.

: How so?  

Mishum Eivah is used in four context: husband and wife, father and son,
bein adam lachaveiro in general, and between Yehudi and nachri. Something
I learned from RnCL in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n023.shtml#13 ,
who notes that the Encyc Talmudit has those four chapter headings, and
sure enough, it provides examples of each.

So when I wrote:
:> The translation just isn't teneble for other
:> uses of the idiom.

If we were worried about hatred only that led to death of Yehudim, the
idiom wouldn't really fit the other cases. "Mishum eivah" speaks of the
eivah itself, not its consequences.

(I'm reminded of the way yir'as hacheit differs from yir'as ha'onesh.)

...
:> Second, another (?) reason given is darkhei Shalom

: Given by whom?

Those who hold that the Rambam in Melakhim 10:12 is including refu'ah
beshabbos. Admittedly, that's chillul Shabbos derabbanan. However,
there is a machloqes altogether if and how darkhei Shalom differs from
mishum eivah altogether.

:                  Considering that the *universally agreed* halacha
: until 200 years ago was that one is *not* allowed to break shabbos to
: save a nochri, and we are *not* worried about eivah.

Yes, because until 200 years ago there was no way to avoid the hate
anyway.

And I ellided over his fundamental question, leaving it for the end:
: Eivoh means hate.  But how does the prospect of hate allow chilul shabbos?

It would seem that avoiding hatred (assuming the hatred is deep enough)
is in and of itself a higher priority than Shabbos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 
j...@when.com wrote:
>  Personally, I think having a 
> meal later is more chashuv in general, I don't know if halacha agrees 
> with me.

"At what time of day do you suppose Esther's mishta'ot were held?"

Ha I don't know what time they were held, do you? (don't know if you were being sarcastic) 
We don't necessarily say the most chashov or idea time to time to do something bezman hazeh is the same as the original source though. 


 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100215/b910ecbc/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 03:15:07AM -0500, j...@when.com wrote:
: We don't necessarily say the most chashov or idea time to time to do
: something bezman hazeh is the same as the original source though.

Otherwise the Purim Se'udah would be eaten on Pesach!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

There may be "no right of pardon," but RSRH's comments need to be
understood both in context for the milieu in which he was writing (19th C
apologetics for an assimilating community) and in context of how capital
punishment is treated in halacha.  "No right of pardon" presupposes a
system in which all halachic requirements regarding procedure in a capital
case are followed.  Were these same strictures imposed on capital cases in
the United States, it is highly likely that not more than a small handful
of the thousands currently sitting on death row, today, would have ever
been convicted of a crime. "No right of pardon" presupposes a far higher
bar that must be hurdled to obtain a conviction than that which is
contemplated by American jurisprudence.  

Avram Sacks
Skokie, IL


Sunday, February 14, 2010, 3:09:57 AM, R. Yitzchak Levine wrote:


RSRH writes in his commentary on Shemos 21

14 But if one deliberately plots against another, to kill him with premeditation, then you must take him away [even] from My altar
that he may die.

The whole idea of the right of pardon is absent in the code of law
of the Jewish state. Justice and judgment are God?s, not man?s. When
the precisely defined Law of God ? which leaves no room for human
arbitrariness ? ordains death for a criminal, the execution of the sentence
is not a harsh act ...it is an atonement, just as an offering upon the altar is an atonement. 

"Doesn't this reverse cause and effect? We allow kohanim to duchen
because we don't posit a safeiq unless we have reason to. That's what
chazaqah means -- we presume that this case follows the rule of thumb.
(Technically that's what the Sheiv Shemaatsa would call a chazaqah
disvara, in distinction to a chazaqah demei'iqara.)" 

I think you are confusing the chazaka itself with the validity and the
validity of the validity of the chazaka; I was attacking the validity
of the validity of the chazaka and not chazaka itself or the validity
of the chazaka.

"We allow kohanim to duchen because we don't posit a safeiq unless we
have reason to."

This is false; we allow kohanim to duchen not because we do not posit a
safek unless we have to but rather because they have a father who duchend
in conjunction with the fact that he would not have duchened if he was
not permitted to duchen; a chazaka AND it's stipulated requisites.

For instance, if an eiruv is up before shabbos we assume it is up
during shabbos. This, in part, is because of a "status quo chazaka"; the
assumed negation of change. According to many, kohanim also have this
type of chazaka. However, all poskim agree that the assumed negation
of change exclusively is not sufficient. The eiruv is only considered
kosher consequent to mainly the presence of x, y and z:

x: two kosher aidim who testified that the eiruv was up at a certain
time prior to shabbos.(validity of the chazaka)

y: non-existence of a certain level of bad weather subsequent to x
(validity of the validity of the chazaka)

z: assumed negation of change ("Status quo chazaka" - this is the most
common type of chazaka. If something was one way then we assume it remains
that way. Like we can assume the eruv is up since we know it was up when
Shabbos started. Of course certain things can weaken the chazaka or ruin
it but in general we assume the status quo remains. Rov is stronger than
this type of chazaka"). So it seems to be the the chazaka is a negation
of change, and the other requisites consist of validating the origin
and ensuring perpetuity of this negation of change.

Kohanim, as I have understood it, are considered kosher kohanim consequent
to the presence of mainly u, w, x, y, z and the non-presence of t:


w: the assumed non-existence with regards to the vast majority of people
to ACTIVELY lie about being kohanim ( i.e. initially SAYING that you
are a kohen when you are not.

[w differs from the likelihood of] "t": which is a lie resulting from
the passive non-disclosure of information (i.e. having relations with a
non-Jew in college and NOT saying that you did; especially after marriage.

x: the performance of the act of duchening by the father of the kohen
(the validity of the chazaka)

y: assumed negation of change.(the status quo chazaka)

z: the non-existence of x (this completely differs from a subsequent
negation of x) in cases where x is not halachically permitted (that
we have an enormous amount of chalalim or potential chalalim who have
duchened). (this is the validity of the validity of the chazaka) (z is
the reason why (no pun intended) x is accepted).

u: the non-presence of a "probability chazaka" (living in a secular
college when not religious or dating a non-Jew for a significant period
of time) that would take precedence over the chazaka of y ("Probability
chazaka- Something happens this way almost all the time so we can assume
it happened this way. That's the type of chazaka we're talking about in
our gemara. Talmidei chachamam almost always take off trumos and maasros
right away so we can assume it happened here also; pesachim 9a")

According to the Rabbi I spoke to; most if not many kohanim today have the
presence of w, probably lack the non-presence of "t", have the presence
of x, have the presence of y, yet lack the presence of both z and u;
unless the kohen holds by RMF before he realizes he has to divorce his
wife and by the Rivash only after. "the wicked rule lekula for themselves
and lechumra for others" Sota 23a (i.e. for a kohen to rule lechumra
for kavod kehuna when it befits him and lekula for kedushat kehuna when
it does not")

This Rabbi said that merely living in a secular college when one
is not very religious constitutes a probablity chazaka of zona,
though certainly dating a non-Jew for an extended period of time
would constitute such a chazaka zona, and I personally know several
kohanim who's mothers were raised reformed and dated non-Jews, yet are
considered kohanim (while a ger or I believe the daughter of two gerim
cannot marry a kohen). Furthermore, many amorim and rishonim darshin
from Sota (actually around that same spot in 23a) that gossip of a
promiscuous woman can create a din chalal and even a mamzer in certain
situations. Additionally, it seems logical that the Maharashdam caused
many chalalim when he permitted kohanim to marry a safek zona based on
the Rivash that all kohanim are safek kohanim. Additionally, I was told
that the mitzvah kavod kehuna is a derabanon according to tosfot and
the Rema and another safek is created if it is unclear if the yisroel
is a greater talmud chacham than the kohen. Also, a probability chazaka
(according what I read) has a higher status than an ordinary status quo
chazaka, and plays a special role in hilchot chazaka.

I hear stories how bat kohanim are given special treatment for shidduchim
and are chosen first for admission into seminary; we are playing with
peoples lives here while lacking sufficient evidence, and in my opinion
it is a real chilul Hashem. One girl named Rachel posted this on her
facebook (a horrible site, never go on it) page; "of course we deserve
respect!! being a bas kohen has opened many doorsfor me, especially in
choshuve sems - and I won't say more, loshon haraahead!"

On a final note, 
?,??  [??] ??? ?????? ????, ??? ?? ??, ?????? ?? ????; ??? ???? ???? ??????

 about chazaka: 
http://adafaday.blogspot.com/2006/01/chazaka-beats-rov-pesachim-9a.html

- Josh S 

I'm looking for sources..

The Hinuch on Mishpatim applies this to using rabbinical consensus
[even outside a formal BD]in order to preclude halachic anarchy

A Liberal on a Jewish Blog posited that

> When the Torah teaches "we follow the majority," we refer to the court
> and not culture.

It is obvious in reading Posqim that they do weigh the Rov as a very
important component in arriving at p'saq if not THE paramount component.


I am searching for the earliest and most authoritative sources that
advance this principle. IIRC there is a Rosh on this. Any more sources
from Shas and Posqim that establish this principle even outside BD?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

as an adjunct  to the am seudah discussion, it would solve the problem as 
per  GRA  of when to be drunk.  assuming  a seuda  2-3 hr  before maariv, 
and no chiyuv to drink  OUTSIDE the seuda  [but maybe that's wrong],  i am 
not  sure  how  you co-ordinate  eating, benching , and  maariv  with 
intoxication.
any thoughts on how to do this ?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100215/290e6488/attachment-0001.htm>

Background:
There is a discussion
Re: Hallel on Purim
Since hallel is replaced by M'gillah, therefore w/o a M'gillah we SHOULD
say Hallel according to some opinions

Here is a parallel case.

NishmaBlog: Megillah - Why don't we say "Asher Heini" by day?
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/02/megillah-why-dont-we
-say-asher-heini-by.html

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 From 
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/06/do-gentiles-have-more-teeth-th
an-jews.html

There is a famous position of Aristotle.
Why have men more teeth than women?
By reason of the abundance of heat and blood which is more in men 
than in women.
-- "<http://www.exclassics.com/arist/arist37.htm>Of the Teeth.", Aristotle

And the following from Bertrand Russell:
Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although 
he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this 
statement by examining his wives' mouths.
<http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/>Bertrand 
Russell, Impact of Science on Society (1952) ch. 1
British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

As someone noted in a comment recently, Rav Kanievsky similarly 
believes that Jews differ physically from gentiles in the number of 
teeth, on the basis of a midrash Talpiyot combined with another 
rabbi's testimony. Midrash Talpiyot was authored by Rabbi Eliyahu ben 
Shlomo Avraham, and was published in 1698

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100216/93525a51/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:06:11AM -0500, j...@when.com wrote:
:> Doesn't this reverse cause and effect? We allow kohanim to duchen
:> because we don't posit a safeiq unless we have reason to. That's what
:> chazaqah means -- we presume that this case follows the rule of thumb.
:> (Technically that's what the Sheiv Shemaatsa would call a chazaqah
:> disvara, in distinction to a chazaqah demei'iqara.)

: I think you are confusing the chazaka itself with the validity and the
: validity of the validity of the chazaka; I was attacking the validity
: of the validity of the chazaka and not chazaka itself or the validity
: of the chazaka.

Yes, which is what I think you're doing in error. The LOR in question
attacked the applicability of the chazaqah to one particular case,
not whether or not the chazaqah ought to remain in general.

:> We allow kohanim to duchen because we don't posit a safeiq unless we
:> have reason to.

: This is false; we allow kohanim to duchen not because we do not posit a
: safek unless we have to but rather because they have a father who duchend
: in conjunction with the fact that he would not have duchened if he was
: not permitted to duchen; a chazaka AND it's stipulated requisites.

In your own terminology, what we both said is correct:
:                                      ... The eiruv is only considered
: kosher consequent to mainly the presence of x, y and z:

: x: two kosher aidim who testified that the eiruv was up at a certain
: time prior to shabbos.(validity of the chazaka)

: y: non-existence of a certain level of bad weather subsequent to x
: (validity of the validity of the chazaka)

I said the parallel to y, and you said the parallel to x. That doesn't
make what I said incorrect.

: z: assumed negation of change ("Status quo chazaka" - this is the most
: common type of chazaka...

Chazaqah demei'iqarah might be more common than chazaqah disvarah
(the rule of thumb / somthing-like-a ruba deleisa leqaman). However,
I'm not sure it would work on its own for a chezqas kehunah.

The only chazaqah demei'iqarah is that once you establish that the family
really are kohanim, you would need to prove that they became chalalim.

However, here even their lineage from Aharon is part of the question. It
would therefore be a chazaqah disvara -- a rule of thumb that a family
that claims to be kohanim are.

BTW, the terminology I'm using for subtypes of chazaqah are borrowed
from the Sheiv Shemaatsa right before explaining his shitah that they
do not work identically. (A chazaqah disvara doesn't add any weight
to a side of a doubt where there is already contradictory testimony --
terei uterei, whereas a chazaqah disvara does.) Point being, the shared
word "chazaqah" doesn't mean we can generalize from one to the other.

: According to the Rabbi I spoke to; most if not many kohanim today have the
: presence of w, probably lack the non-presence of "t", have the presence
: of x, have the presence of y, yet lack the presence of both z and u;
: unless the kohen holds by RMF before he realizes he has to divorce his
: wife and by the Rivash only after...

You're taking a senif lehaqeil among others that the LOR wants to combine
to rely upon bedi'eved and turning it into a solid argument to be used
in general. The level of proof for the particular context of the question
isn't the same as the norm.

(Much like RMM's recent attempt to take one line of reasoning RYYW used
only in addition to others, in a context where there were other reasons
not related to qol ishah to be meiqil, and asserting that it should always
hold to reduce the scope of qol ishah in a manner no poseqim propose.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what do need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:15:59PM -0500, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: From 
: http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/06/do-gentiles-have-more-teet
: h-than-jews.html
: 
: There is a famous position of Aristotle.
: Why have men more teeth than women?
: By reason of the abundance of heat and blood which is more in men 
: than in women.
: -- "<http://www.exclassics.com/arist/arist37.htm>Of the Teeth.", Aristotle

: And the following from Bertrand Russell:
: Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although 
: he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this 
: statement by examining his wives' mouths.
: <http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/>Bertrand 
: Russell, Impact of Science on Society (1952) ch. 1
: British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

How many people had a full set of teeth. And of those who did, would
Aristotle know they did? And given where money would be spent by Greeks
of his period, I would bet far more men had more teeth than women.

It is thus unlike the verifiability of:
: As someone noted in a comment recently, Rav Kanievsky similarly 
: believes that Jews differ physically from gentiles in the number of 
: teeth, on the basis of a midrash Talpiyot combined with another 
: rabbi's testimony. Midrash Talpiyot was authored by Rabbi Eliyahu ben 
: Shlomo Avraham, and was published in 1698

But if Medras Talpiot is a true medrash, the 33rd tooth it ascribes to
nakhriim is not talking about dentition.

BTW, we discussed this back in Nov 2001.
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TALMUD%20AND%2
0SCIENCE

There the primary topic was 8th month babies, and I wrote:
: On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 01:29:06PM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
...
:: However, this is generally an observable phenomenon. Could Chazal not
:: have observed whether this was true or not?

: Quite possibly not. The experimental method was not invented yet.
: Infant mortality was high, I am sure it was higher for 8th and 7th month
: babies. But until someone actually sits down and collects statistics,
: it is quite possible no one noticed that 8th month babies are more
: likely to survive than 7th.

: BTW, an interesting problem for those of us who deny nishtaneh hateva --
: Aristotle writes that women have fewer teeth than men. Okay, teeth did
: not last as long as they do now. But still, how could you not know?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:34:05PM -0000, Chana wrote:
: RMB writes:
...
: > A convert who isn't meqabel ol mitzvos isn't a ger. But we're not
: > psychic, so we have to rely on watching behavior, listening to what the
: > person says, and relying on chazaqos that the qabbalah is real.

: > When the person has an alternate motive, it becomes far more difficult
: > to rely on the chazaqah. And so, as the Rambam writes (Issurei Bi'ah
: > 13:14):...

: The reason why I am surprised is that you still appear to be poskening from
: the Ramban when:

: a) from Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 268 Si'if 3 it appears very clear
: that he poskens like Tosphos and the Rosh and not the Rambam; and

Except that I still don't find it clear. He writes, "chutz miqabalas
hamitzvos sheme'aqeves..." which although is the language of the Tosafos
and the Rosh WRT requiring a beis din (3 kesheirim meeting during the
day) does not prove he holds like them WRT sefeiqos in the qabalah due
to the person having ulteriar motives. And the Rambam is more machmir,
requiring the other steps to also require BD, not that qabbalas ol mitzvos
before a BD is less mandatory.

: b) the Bach (Yoreh Deah 268, s. v. vechal inyanav, end) understands this
: particular Rambam (it is 13:17 btw) as meaning that the Rambam holds that a
: conversion is valid even if "no kabalat mitzvot took place at all." (the
: language is "d'kasher af al pi she lo l'shem kabbalat mitzvoth kol ikar"),
: this being in macholus to Tosphos and the Rosh.

: Ie at least the Bach understands the Rambam to have these chashashos because
: of his understanding that no formal kabala need be made..

I do not see that as the SA's take. He says that QOM needs a BD, and
that according to the Rif and the Rambam the other two steps also require
a BD.

Thus, the SA understands all three rishonim as needing QOM before a BD --
even bedi'eved. The question here is what to do when there is a rei'usa
(maybe they are fooling us or themselves for their ulterior motive)
to the chazaqa we rely upon in place of psychically knowing that the
QOM that was before that BD was real.


IOW, both of us left that previous conversation believing that our point
was made.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 50
**************************************

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..."