Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 212

Fri, 03 Dec 2010

• 1. Hellenism and Judaism (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 5. Hand Washing During a Drought (Micha Berger)
• 6. wife lighting menora (Goldmeier)
• 7. Babylonian Jewry and Chanukah (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: One is Hashem in Heaven (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: wife lighting menora (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: wife lighting menora (Goldmeier)
• 11. Re: wife lighting menora (Liron Kopinsky)
• 12. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Dr. Daniel Israel)
• 13. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 14. Saturday Evening begin Prayer for Rain (Ari Meir Brodsky)
• 15. Re: Hand Washing During a Drought (Micha Berger)
• 16. Kiddushin and Bigamy (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Kiddushin and Bigamy (Zev Sero)

You can read RSRH's essay  at 
<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/hellenism_judaism.pdf>Kislev_II 
Hellenism and Judaism  (Collected Writings II)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101201/bc74fa52/attachment-0001.htm>

On 1/12/2010 12:51 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Zev Sero<z...@sero.name>  wrote:
>> So you keep saying, but where are you getting it from?
>
> Let's be brief. Rashi in 1:1 is arguing that the reading of bereishit
> ... shamayim vaaretz would mean "in teh beginning, G"d created heaven
> and earth" is untenable.

Yes.  But he gives his reason, and it is *not*, as you claim, that the
shamayim were created on the second day.  He gives his reason explicitly;
why do you feel the need to invent a completely different reason out of
whole cloth, especially one that's much simpler than the one he gives,
and therefore that he must have considered and rejected?


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

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> Yes. ?But he gives his reason, and it is *not*, as you claim, that the
> shamayim were created on the second day. ?He gives his reason explicitly;
> why do you feel the need to invent a completely different reason out of
> whole cloth, especially one that's much simpler than the one he gives,
> and therefore that he must have considered and rejected?

Both are equivalent. The point is, in 1:1, Rashi tells you it is
incongruous to posit that heaven and earth were created on the first
day. Later, he develops an alternate explanation, which is also
implicitly a response to his objections in 1:1.


-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

On 1/12/2010 1:17 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Zev Sero<z...@sero.name>  wrote:
>> Yes.  But he gives his reason, and it is *not*, as you claim, that the
>> shamayim were created on the second day.  He gives his reason explicitly;
>> why do you feel the need to invent a completely different reason out of
>> whole cloth, especially one that's much simpler than the one he gives,
>> and therefore that he must have considered and rejected?
>
> Both are equivalent. The point is, in 1:1, Rashi tells you it is
> incongruous to posit that heaven and earth were created on the first
> day.

No, no, no, no, no!   He does *not* say that.  They are *not*
"equivalent" at all, they are direct opposites.  He goes out of his
way *not* to say what you attribute to him, *because he does not*
*believe it*.  Tell me, how could he have been more explicit about
what he's saying?  How could he have been more blatant than he is,
that the sky and the earth *were indeed* created on the first day?
What could he have written differently, that would have got you to
agree to read it that way?


> Later, he develops an alternate explanation, which is also
> implicitly a response to his objections in 1:1.

*WHY* do you insist on such a peculiar reading, when Rashi has been
absolutely consistent from the very beginning, and has been saying
this very thing all along?  What forces you to go crooked when the
straight path is right there, unblocked?   When Rashi wants us not
to read the first pasuk as it seems to read, he tells us why.  Now
you tell us why you don't want to read Rashi as it seems to read?


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

The following exchange occured on Areivim...

>> I was at a wedding last night in Bnai Brak. The cup for washing cups was
>> about twice the size we use in my shul. The person in front of me filled
>> it up to the top for washing for the meal.
>> Personally I was disturbed that in a time of drought that one uses
>> many times the minimum shiur necessary.
...
> Chas veshalom.  The gemara says one who is cheap with netilas yadayim
> will become poor, and Rashi explains that this means one who uses only a
> bare revi'is.  Rav Chisda said "I wash with a full hand of water, and
> they give me a full hand of good".

To quote R' Yehudah Leib Maimon's Sarei haMei'ah (pp 272-273), tr Sperber:
    It once happened that Reb Yisrael Salanter, during his stay in Kovno,
    lived for a while in the house of a wealthy pious man, Reb Yaakov
    Karpas, and would dine at his table. Members of the household noted
    that when he washed his hands before the meal, he would do so with
    a minimal amount of water, even though a bucket full of water was
    prepared for him. They wondered in amazement: Should not a tsaddik
    like Reb Yisrael rule more stringently (mehadrin) to wash his hands
    with a plentiful amount of water! They went and spoke to Reb Karpas,
    who examined the matter and found that indeed Reb Yisrael would wash
    his hands with no more than a reviit haLog and no more. He too was
    most surprised, and when they sat together at a meal, he asked Reb
    Yisrael: "Forgive me, our Master, but this is a matter of Torah and I
    must learn about it. Why then does it suffice you to wash your hands
    with a reviit? Surely, it is a clear ruling in the Shulhan Arukh
    (Orah Hayyim 155:10), "even though the amount (for hand-washing)
    is a reviit, one should wash more plentifully." Why then do you,
    sir, not do so?"

    Reb Yisrael answered as follows:

    "I have seen that the maid brings the water from afar, from a well
    in the valley. Your house is situated high on the hill, and the
    maid almost collapses under the weight of her burden. AND IT IS
    FORBIDDEN FOR A PERSON TO BE OVERLY RELIGIOUS AT THE EXPENSE OF
    OTHERS." [emphasis added by RDS]

(I was once at a conference in Phoenix, and Rabbi Avi Fertig [CC-ed],
one of the presenters was behind me on line for netilas yadayim. Like at
many semachos, Shabbatonim and yemei iyun, the were pitchers of water
at a "washing station" with a cup and bowel to wash our hands into. I
noticed he washed his hands once each, rather than the usual twice on
each side. I mean, I too read -- I won't say "learned" -- this story,
but I didn't think of it when I saw man who had to go back to refill
the pitchers. He did.)

As for the berakhaah Rashi mentions, someone who is expansive
at the expense of others quite likely violates the following by R'
Shimon Shkop as well:
    Therefore it is appropriate to think about all the gifts of heaven
    "from the dew of the heavens and the fat of the land" (Bereishis
    27:28) that they are given to the Jewish people as a whole. Their
    allotment to individuals is only in their role as caretakers
    until they divide it to those who need it, to each according to
    what is worthy for him, and to take for himself what is worthy for
    himself. With this idea one can understand how charity has the effect
    of enriching the one who performs it, as the sages say on the verse
    "'aseir ta'aseir -- you shall surely tithe' -- tithe, so that you
    shall become rich -- shetis'asheir" (Taanis 9a). Someone who is
    appointed over a small part of the national treasury who does a
    good job guarding at his appointment as appropriate will be next
    appointed to oversee a sum greater than that, if he is not promoted
    in some other way. If they find a flaw in his guard duty, no fine
    qualities to be found in him will help, and they will demote him to a
    smaller task. Similarly in the treasuries of heaven which are given to
    man. If he tithes appropriately, he satisfies his job of disbursement
    as he is supposed to conduct himself according to the Torah, giving
    to each as is appropriate according to the teachings of the Torah,
    then he will become wealthy and be appointed to disburse a greater
    treasure. And so on, upward and upward so that he can fulfill his
    lofty desire to do good for the masses through his stewardship of
    the treasury. In this way a man of reliable spirit does the will
    of his Maker.treasuries of heaven which are given to man. If he
    tithes appropriately, he satisfies his job of disbursement as he is
    supposed to conduct himself according to the Torah, giving to each as
    is appropriate according to the teachings of the Torah, then he will
    become wealthy and be appointed to disburse a greater treasure. And
    so on, upward and upward so that he can fulfill his lofty desire to
    do good for the masses through his stewardship of the treasury. In
    this way a man of reliable spirit does the will of his Maker.

Is someone who spends a lot of water at the expense of its availability
for the necessities of others because of a desire to be machmir or
(worse) a desire to get a berakhah for wealth a good steward for Hashem
to entrust the Jewish People's resource of water?

I would argue even the berakhah wouldn't materialize.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

The Ram"a says the Yesh Omrim that is the basic minhag ashkenaz (I 
think) based on the RAMBAM that everyone in the house should light their 
own set of candles.

The mishna brura adds that this does not include the wife because of the 
rule of "Eeshto K'Gufo".

I don't know if the MB is the only one to say this exception, but I have 
not found it elsewhere, though it seems to have become the common psak, 
at least among the ashkenazy yeshivishe community in Eretz Yisroel.

Where else do we find a wife being excluded from a mitzva because of the 
exception of eeshto k'gufo? I could not think of any other mitzva where 
we exclude her like this. If this is the only one, what is different 
about Chanukah candles that we exclude her (and this is so despite the 
women being central to the miracle, ala Yehudis who cut off the 
governors head) than by any other mitzva?

Kol tuv
Rafi Goldmeier

For many years I have been bothered by the following.

There was a large Jewish population living in Babylonia during the 
time that the events of Chanukah played out. Yet, I have never seen 
any mention of the Jews living in Bavel coming to the assistance of 
the Jews in EY during their struggle with the Syrian-Greeks. Why is 
this? Surely at least some of the news of what was transpiring in EY 
must have reached the Jews in Bavel.  Why didn't they either come to 
help or at least send assistance?

Perhaps I am simply ignorant of history, and there are sources that 
tell of such assistance. If so, then please enlighten me.

YL

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:16:22AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote (on another thread):
> But the shamayim is higher than that.  Even taking the literal view
> that shamayim is a physical object directly above a flat disc-shaped
> earth, its distance is the same as the earth's diameter, which is far
> more than a mile or two.  It's inconceivable that they could have
> built a wall all the way up to touch the shamayim.

I have two problems with this:

First, shamayim is from eish umayim, whereas the shell around the
universe, the raqi'ah, is of more solid stuff "hammered flat" (thus
the name).

Second, I don't think identifying "shamayim" with the shell fits the
machloqes R' Yehudah and Rush Laqish on Chagiga 12b. R' Yehudah says
there are two heavens -- shamayim ushemei hashamayim.

Raish Laqish names 7: vilon, raqi'ah, shechaqim, zevul, ma'on, makhon
and arvos.

Vilon is visible during the daylight hours only. Sounds to me like the
blue or gray "thing" overhead.

The raqi'ah is the only other shamayim we can see, and it's where we can
find the sun, moon, stars and mazalos. So it would appear to include the
shell that holds the kokhavei sheves as well as the as the transparent
ones that hold the kokhavei lekhes. (Reish Laqish lived /after/ Chazal
accepted from the Greeks that the kochavei lekhes are fixed to their
respective spheres, rather than roaming around a single one.)

Zevul hold Y-m shel maalah and "banah beisi beis zevul lakh".

Ma'on holds the mal'akhim who sing shirah (at night).

Makhon is the otzar in "otzaro hatov", and holds qelalos (like destructive
dew) away from the world.

Arvos is the treasury of tzedeq, michpat, chesed, chayim, shalom,
berakhah...


I'm making this up, but it's not absurd to say:

R' Yehudah -- there are two threnesses: the one over our heads, and
the non-physical

Reish Laqish -- there are 7: the sky, space, and 5 levels of spirituality.

In both the Rambam's metaphysics as well as that of the meQubalim they
didn't consider physical vs spiritual to be a clear dicotomy so much as
a progression. In Qabbalah, each world causing the world below; in the
Rambam, Hashem causing the highest class of mal'akhim who in turn are the
cause of those in the next class and so on down to the galgalim (in Reish
Laqish's raqi'ah) and the world beneath the sun. In both cases, things
get less and less daq until you get chomer. (And even within chomer,
there is eish, avir, mayim and aretz, each more gas and presumed to be
at equilibrium at a lower place than the previous element.)

So it could very well be that they took this machloqes amora'im to
be about this very issue. R' Yehudah held that there is physical vs
spiritual existences. Reish Laqish describes gradations.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 03:36:04PM +0200, Goldmeier wrote:
> The Ram"a says the Yesh Omrim that is the basic minhag ashkenaz (I  
> think) based on the RAMBAM that everyone in the house should light their  
> own set of candles.

I understand the machloqes is that Sepharadim hold that if one is lighting
the mehadrin min hamehadrin of mosif veholeikh, then one isn't lighting
neir lekhol echad (the mehadrin version). However, Ashkenazim assume that
MMhM must include mehadrin, that one is lighting a set of mosif veholeikh
for each person.

See R' David Brofsky's piece in this year's Chanukah Package from Gush
<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/chag71/chan71.htm>.

...
> Where else do we find a wife being excluded from a mitzva because of the  
> exception of eeshto k'gufo? ...

Excluded from hiddur mitzvah as defined by one side of a machloqes. The
chiyuv mitzvah is neir ish ubeiso, one per family. That's tenuous enough
to perhaps explain why ner Chanukah is unique.

But I would like to suggest something else. The basic chiyuv is neir
ish ubeiso... for a husband and wife to light separately therefore might
ch"v imply pirud and a lack of shalom bayis. (Just thinking out loud.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

On 2/12/2010 7:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>
> I understand the machloqes is that Sepharadim hold that if one is lighting
> the mehadrin min hamehadrin of mosif veholeikh, then one isn't lighting
> neir lekhol echad (the mehadrin version). However, Ashkenazim assume that
> MMhM must include mehadrin, that one is lighting a set of mosif veholeikh
> for each person.
>
> Excluded from hiddur mitzvah as defined by one side of a machloqes. The
> chiyuv mitzvah is neir ish ubeiso, one per family. That's tenuous enough
> to perhaps explain why ner Chanukah is unique.
>
RG; you misunderstood me. I am not saying the ashkenazim hold wife is 
exempt, unlike the sefardim.

RAMA says everyone lights, and MB adds that that is except for the wife. 
I did not find that exception made in other seforim of ashkenazy psak, 
except those basing psak on the mishna brura. The aruch hashulchan 
doesnt mention it (though he also prefers only one person light, but 
when he talks about the minhag of all the bnei bayis lighting he does 
not mak the exception of the wife).

so why does the MB exempt her, and why is this different than other 
mitzvas?
> But I would like to suggest something else. The basic chiyuv is neir
> ish ubeiso... for a husband and wife to light separately therefore might
> ch"v imply pirud and a lack of shalom bayis. (Just thinking out loud.)
RG: This is a possibility, even though we are mehader to do more...

> Where else do we find a wife being excluded from a mitzva because of the

> > exception of eeshto k'gufo? ...
>

Something I have been thinking on this:
It seems to me that Neirot Chanukah is a mitzvah on the gavrah (like putting
on tefillin). As such, you are not yotzei if you have chanukkah candles that
were lit in a non-kosher place and then moved. Rather, you need a ma'aseh
hadlaka in a kosher location to fulfill the mitzva. Further, once the
candles have been light, the mitzva is 100% completed, even if the candles
go out in less than 30 minutes. As such, the mitzvah is the hadlaka itself
and not the existance of light.

(Does this then imply that you are yotzei with stolen oil?)

With this in mind, can you say that since Ishto k'Kufo, she is actually
mekayim the physical act of hadlaka through her husband? Are there any
mitzvot asei she'hazman LO grama are there that women would be able to
fulfill through the gavrah of her husband?
On the other hand, we don't say by pesach seder that women can be yotzei
arba kossot through their husband drinking...


Happy Chanukkah,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101202/f86053df/attachment-0001.htm>

On Nov 25, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> ... the original author of the psalm (who is presumably Moshe Rabbenu) ...

Adam HaRishon, according to B"R.


On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:10 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> We have already mentioned the Rambam that if he was convinced that the world
> was eternal he would have accepted that. Only because a finite time
> earth was conceivable was he willing to not accept Aristotle.

OTOH, I do wonder if he had concluded that Aristotle had given a
conclusive proof and re-interpreted the verse accordingly, would he have
attained the same place in the mesorah? He was controversial as it was.

--
Daniel Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:10 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> We have already mentioned the Rambam that if he was convinced that the world
> was eternal he would have accepted that. Only because a finite time
> earth was conceivable was he willing to not accept Aristotle.

I still think this is a misunderstanding of the Rambam. He is
writing about there being only a single truth, and therefore that the
contradiction was necessarily impossible.

Had their not been a clear precedent from "our sages and prophets",
AND had the proof for eternity been more solid. the Rambam says could
have reinterpreted the verse.

See Moreh 1:25, where the Rambam explains the difference between declaring
anthropomorphications to be metaphor or idiom, and our case:
    WE do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain
    passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not
    more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal
    being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable
    interpretation. ... For two reasons, however, we have not done so,
    and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe.

    First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof:
    those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain
    statements that can be refuted by proof, must and can be interpreted
    otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a
    mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not sufficient reason
    for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text, and explaining
    it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an
    equally good argument.

    Secondly, our belief in the Incorporeality of God is not contrary
    to any of the fundamental principles of our religion: it is not
    contrary to the words of any prophet. Only ignorant people believe
    that it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture: but we have shown
    that this is not the case: on the contrary, Scripture teaches the
    Incorporeality of God. If we were to accept the Eternity of the
    Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is
    the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there
    is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to
    the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles
    and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from
    Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively....

(I quoted as far as I did because the subject of nissim as violations of
nature is also a recurring one.)

But it's not that you can or can't reinterpret the whole thrust of mesorah
because Aristo proved something -- it's that the situation can't arise.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Dear Friends,

This is a friendly reminder to Jews outside of Israel that our daily
prayers should include the request for rain, beginning with Maariv this
Saturday evening, December 4, 2010, corresponding to Motzei Shabbat,
28 Kislev, 5771, the fourth night of Chanukka. The phrase "Veten tal
umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into
the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach.
I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event,
especially those who may not be in shul at that time.

We begin requesting rain in the Diaspora on the 60th day of the fall
season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a).
For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a
fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish
calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we
do: 
http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for
providing the link.)

Also, in case you have not yet read the number-theoretic explanation of
why Yaakov sent Esav 220 goats in the Torah portion we read 2 weeks ago,
see here: 
http://cheshbon.weeklyshtikle.com/2010/11/goats-and-amicable-numbers.
html


Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka,
-Ari Brodsky.

-----------------------
Ari M. Brodsky
ari.brod...@utoronto.ca

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:24:26AM +0200, R Eli Turkel wrote to Areivim:
: Apropos of Chanuka if someone has 2 candles the second night and his neighbor
: has none he should give one to the neighbor as it preferable that both
: keep the basic mitzva rather than he keep mehadrin while his neighbor doesnt
: have any. The true mehadrin is helping the neighbor.

Is it?

Or should I give my neighbor a perutah, so that he could pay me to be
mishtateif in the mitzvah? Maybe he should sleep over, so as to remove
any question of where to light.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

RSZN, on Areivim, pointed us to <http://www.forward.com/articles/133568>,
a story about someone who thinks he can marry a second wife al pi halakhah
as long as there is no civil registration violating NY State law.

The names sound Sepharadi, so I'll assume these aren't descendents of
people who accepted Rabbeinu Gershom's charamim. Still, it's minhag at
this point not to remarry without a heter mei'ah rabbanim.

I was wondering if the qiddushin would even be chal. Presumably he said
"kedas Mosheh veYisrael". Isn't minhag part of "das Yisrael"?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 3/12/2010 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> RSZN, on Areivim, pointed us to<http://www.forward.com/articles/133568>,
> a story about someone who thinks he can marry a second wife al pi halakhah
> as long as there is no civil registration violating NY State law.
>
> The names sound Sepharadi, so I'll assume these aren't descendents of
> people who accepted Rabbeinu Gershom's charamim. Still, it's minhag at
> this point not to remarry without a heter mei'ah rabbanim.
>
> I was wondering if the qiddushin would even be chal. Presumably he said
> "kedas Mosheh veYisrael". Isn't minhag part of "das Yisrael"?

You obviously didn't read the story.  The man gave his first wife a get,
and al pi halacha is completely free to marry someone else.  There is
no reason why he should wait for the civil divorce to come through.
The Torah has no objection to him marrying again, and the law has no
objection to his shacking up with another woman while still married,
so where is the problem?  The *only* effect of his kidushin and nisuin
with the second woman is to turn what would be zenus into a mitzvah;
thus it is a pure religious observance, and any attempt by the state to
the ban is in blatant violation of the first amendment and therefore
void.


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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 212
***************************************

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..."