Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 28

Sat, 26 Feb 2011

• 1. Re: kosher stores, rechovi (Chana Sassoon)
• 2. What is a Rav? (was kosher stores, rechovi) (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: What is a Rav? (was kosher stores, rechovi) (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: kal ve-chomer (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Is it Loshon Hora? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Noda b'Yehudah - How And When To Take Tzedaka From a Married Woman (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Noda b'Yehudah - How And When To Take Tzedaka From a Married Woman (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Fwd: Rav Chazkel Levenstein On The Capture Of Adolf Eichmamm ym"s (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 9. Re: Noda b'Yehudah - How And When To Take Tzedaka From a Married Woman (Zev Sero)
• 10. Tzitz Eliezer: Davening With A Gun (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: Tzitz Eliezer: Davening With A Gun (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Tzitz Eliezer: Davening With A Gun (Ben Waxman)
• 13. Re: Fwd: Rav Chazkel Levenstein On The Capture Of Adolf Eichmamm ym"s (Micha Berger)

R' menucha writes:

> Rn TK is cholek on the meshane Halachot, but my original question (and
> the reason this post was bounced by the moderators from areivim to
> avodah) is whether this is found anywhere in psak.

Maybe you are looking in the wrong place.

As I said on a previous posting to Areivim:

>there are (at least) two definitions of tznius:
 
>a) the avoidance of sexual arousal; and
>b) the avoidance of drawing attention to oneself.

What I didn't say there, but will say here is that while these two
definitions seem to be the two main definitions in common parlance, and I
actually think they are both wrong in using the term tznius to characterise
them.

The first to my mind is really and fundamentally lifnei iver.  The issue is
that there is somebody else out there (nazir, man) who is forbidden
something, and one is forbidden to assist them in sinning.  That is what the
root of the issue is with (a).  The primary issur is on the nazir or man,
but were one to assist by giving the nazir the wine in circumstances where
he would otherwise not touch it then one is over on lifnei iver.  This is
why a situation can be problematic even if there is absolutely no intention
on the part of the woman.  To take the example that has been batted around
here recently, a woman teaching late primary school children, I am confident
that there is absolutely no inappropriate motivation or actions on behalf of
the woman teacher.  But, given what pubescent boys are like, and that
puberty is occurring younger and younger, that does not mean that there
might not be aspects of lifnei iver if such boys are forced by the schooling
system to be taught by a woman.  I can therefore see both sides.  But
labelling it an issue of tzniut or pritzut to my mind is not accurately
catching the dynamic.

Now that is not to say that there are not women out there (think at the
extreme a prostitute) who deliberately attempt to place a stumbling block
(what I think would more accurately be called pritzus), but the question is
more an objective one, is an unrealistic stumbling block being placed (or is
in fact this the kind of hole in the road or obstruction that everybody has
to learn to negotiate, and for which one cannot expect others to be liable).

The reason I suspect that what is fundamentally a question of lifnei iver is
called tznius is that on the one hand we are all so desperate for women to
have positive mitzvos that they can call their own in an all consuming
fashion, that it is more attractive if packaged this way, and on the other
hand, it shifts the responsibility away from men to women, a true packaging
puts the emphasis on the real primary mitzva obligation, that of men.  But
if you think about it, a dead woman lying on the road (eg if she was well
preserved and the men in question did not know she was dead) might cause a
stumbling block just as well, and hence a breach of "tznius" showing how
little the intention and motivation of the woman counts in all of this.  It
seems to me hard to consider something that operates in the fashion as
having the quality of a mida, which I think everybody would agree tznius is.

The second category (b), is also called tznius when applied to women, but
the way it is articulated is really about conformity.  In that guise, it is
actually more heavily promulgated amongst men than women.  For men,
particularly in the charedi community, it is unacceptable to wear anything
other than a black suit, a white shirt and a black hat.  The equivalent
restrictions may be called tznius vis a vis women, but it seems to have the
same driving force.

Now (b) has a much more interesting halachic history than (a), because
throughout history there is a tension between allowing a level of
individuality versus the risk of such individuality following non Jewish
trends and a stress on the value of conformity and community.  The
discussion generally centres around the nature of minhag yisrael/das yehudis
with concern for chukkas hagoyim not to mention at times darchei emori
thrown in. 

If, for example as many meforshim say, das yehudis is about what Jewish
women (or men) do in a particular locale, and Jewish women (or men) in one's
particular group (and remember today minhagim are no longer defined by a
particular locale, many different minhagim sharing the same locality such as
Bnei Brak) all wear skirts above the ankles, or stremiels that go likes so
and socks that go like so, then arguably it is daas yehudis to do as they
do, if one follows that particular minhag, no different to whether one eats
rice on pesach or does not.

So if R' Menucha is looking for sources, I would start with the "if they tie
their shoelaces to the left ..." etc sources, as well as the daas yehudis
ones and look at the idea of conformity with community in halacha, not
particularly on the women's side (although all the daas yehudis literature
can be very useful) but also vis a vis male dress and actions.

So when the Mishna Halachos says that he wishes that all women wore ankle
length skirts, he may well be talking about a chumra in (a), and he could be
expressing the wish a bit like Rav Yakov Emden regarding rice on pesach (ie
where he wished Ashkenazim ate rice on pesach, so that they would eat less
matza, and hence have less chashash of real chometz) without necessarily
saying that in a locality where it is accepted that a certain type of dress
is pas nisht (or socks under trousers rather than over them) should not
continue to follow what is effectively their minhag.  

Not that does not get one into the whole question as to whether this level
of conformity is healthy or really intended by the halachic literature, or
whether the way that one group living cheek by jowl with another group
maintains different minhagim whether of dress or otherwise is right, or
whether it is in fact divisive, rather than unifying and not the way these
concepts were ever expected to be used.

Nor does it get into the question as to whether the philosophy so widely
taught (whether called untznius vis a vis the girls, or other bad things vis
a vis the boys) about an objective standing out and being individualistic is
in itself problematic.

But it seems to me regardless that, to try and claim back the term tzanua a
bit, that if you understand the correct use of the term tznius as deriving
from tzanua laleches im haElokim, you struggle to get to a position where
your way of walking with Hashem has to be exactly the same as everybody
else's, or else you are not tzanua.  There may be problems if the rationale
for the standing out is because you want everybody to look at you as it
gives you some feeling of power or what not, and this is also where possible
questions of yehura come in, but that is different from it not being
"tzanua" for one to stand out.  It is however, a common use of the term.

> menucha

Kind Regards

Heather

At 01:30 PM 2/21/2011, Rn Toby Katz wrote:
>OK OK just stumbled into a minefield, "What is a Rav?"  Not going to  write
>/that/ 5,000-page book any time soon, either.

The following is from A Unique Perspective: The Essays of Rav Dr. Joseph
Breuer, 1914 1973

Education and Qualifications of a Rov

In the essay The Frankfurt Yeshiva, Jdische Monatshefte, Vol. 7, 1920
Rav Breuer, ZTL, wrote (pages 53 55):

    There is probably no other vocation whose successful practice
    requires so varied and many-faceted an education as the rabbinical
    calling. A rabbi must be the teacher of his congregants. He must have
    a talent for reaching and influencing the minds and hearts of others.
    He also ought to be a good speaker, which can be a very demanding
    quality. The sermons of a rabbi from the pulpit are expected to
    be inspiring; teachings in the classroom lively and to the point;
    social conversation friendly; after-dinner speeches humorous;
    speeches at wedding ceremonies solemn; eulogies moving. In case
    he has the ability and desire to be a chazzan for Neilah, he must
    make certain not to disappoint the congregants with a presentation
    that offends the listening ear. And so he might also be a cantor.
    He must be able to communicate with the authorities and to preside
    at official meetings; this would require certain diplomatic and
    organizing abilities. It goes without saying that a rabbi ought to
    be versatile when it comes to literary abilities. A rabbi must be
    ready to answer any religious doubts of his congregants. He must
    be well versed in Jewish history. It might be helpful for a better
    understanding of the Hebrew language to have some knowledge of
    ancient languages and of the science of archaeology. He must be a
    philosopher and cognizant of modern thought ? and such a man of a
    thousand trades ought, in addition, also to be a Talmud Chocham.

    We have such a high regard for the position of a rabbi that we feel
    certain that he will want to have as broad an outlook as possible. The
    rabbi is not only, to use a pejorative phrase, an inspector of ritual
    slaughter; he is not only a Morah Horah for kosher and treifa. In
    fact, as guardian of Jewish religious law, every phase of life
    requires his psak din. His interpretations and instructions are to
    be applied far beyond the mere so-called rituals of Jewish life,
    for they extend to the broad reaches of the all-encompassing Jewish
    religious law, which regulates every aspect of mans life. It is
    wrong to say that Jewish religion is only a matter of feeling [and
    not observance], and it is equally wrong to say that thoughts and
    attitudes are personal matters of the individual [inconsequential
    to observance]. Innumerable pages of the Torah appeal to the heart
    and minds of our people [in calling for Torah observance]. He who
    tries to influence the minds of individuals in a spirit contrary to
    that of the Torah is as much an Apikoras as one who treats one of our
    rituals with contempt. If, then, the rabbi is expected to imbue his
    congregants with the proper knowledge and proper observance of Jewish
    law, he must be able to grapple with the specific practical problems
    and intellectual trends of his particular time. It becomes clear that
    the candidate for the rabbinate must acquire a wide area of knowledge
    in order to be a Morah Horah for the active life of his congregants.

    Half-knowledge in a rabbi is unacceptable ? it borders on
    blasphemy. The study program in the Yeshiva is geared to avoid this,
    for its central aim is to make of the rabbi a genuine Ben Torah.
    No Yeshiva sees its program as one in which Gaonim and Gedolim
    are systematically produced. Rather, the Yeshiva provides the
    opportunity for the qualified individual student to gradually develop
    into a Gaon or Godol. And the Yeshiva, the Talmudic training school?
    in contrast to other places of study with multi-faceted programs?
    is the only guarantor for such development.

    A powerful speaker, a brilliant author, a profound thinker ? all very
    impressive. But this powerful speaker, brilliant writer, profound
    thinker must also be a truly eminent Talmud Chocham, for otherwise
    his rabbinical qualities will just be those of a lifeless puppet.

Just think about what kind of a Jewish world it would be if we had many
such rabbonim today!

YL

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 02:39:27PM -0500, Prof. Levine quoted R' Dr
Joseph Breuer:
:     A powerful speaker, a brilliant author, a profound thinker ? all very
:     impressive. But this powerful speaker, brilliant writer, profound
:     thinker must also be a truly eminent Talmud Chocham, for otherwise
:     his rabbinical qualities will just be those of a lifeless puppet.

And to which he commented:
: Just think about what kind of a Jewish world it would be if we had many
: such rabbonim today!

You don't get a reality where most fit the ideal. What defining the
ideal does it tell us what we should be working toward. And I have to
say that in my experience, most of our typical LOR today does aspire to
be as eminent a talmid chakham as he can. And few shuls don't look for
this in a prospective rav.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:44:13PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I am struggling with trying to understand a kal ve-chamor. It obviously
: doesnt correspond to rules from standard logic.

I am actually happier with the possibility that QvC isn't standard logic.
It is listed among middos shehatorah nidreshes bahen, and rules of
logic that were well known in Chazal's day -- such as Aristotle's study
of syllogisms -- are not. The question of why QvC is derashah and not
sevara has bothered me.

And if so, then asking what justifies QvC is like asking what justifies
kelal uperat -- the Author told us the system works that way. It's not
a priori logic, it's a posited rule of the system.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 05:29:17PM -0500, Michael Kopinsky wrote:
: On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com>wrote:
:> 1) Do we have to say that LH has anything necessarily to do with whether
:> the person's reputation was ruined? If person A speaks LH to person B, but
:> person B doesn't believe the LH, it still is LH even if the person's
:> reputation was not harmed in any way.

: According to the Rambam, LH is damaging speech. This is different from the
: Chofetz Chaim's definition of derogatory speech.

There is a machloqes between the Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah. The gemara
(BB 39) says that once something is said in front of 3 people, it's no
longer subject to LH. Rambam (Hil Dei'os 7:5) takes this literally --
now it's public knowledge, and any further repetition will not cause
measurable harm. Rabeinu Yonah holds that the gemara means that anything
said in front of 3 was meant laudably or at least constructively. And
therefore repeating those words -- even now that that any collateral
damage is already done -- is prohibited.

R' Meish Taragon of Yeshivas Har Etzion ("Gush") suggests the following
sevara:
    Possibly the Rambam and the Rabbenu Yona debate the essence of
    the prohibition of lashon ha-ra. According to the former, lashon
    ha-ra is forbidden because of the damage which it will cause the
    victim - whether monetary, psychological or even to his reputation.
    Once the damage is inevitable, no prohibition applies. According to
    the Rabbenu Yona, however, lashon ha-ra is inherently forbidden as
    a devious or underhanded act. Even if I don't augment the damage,
    I have acted in a duplicitous and forbidden manner. Thus the
    presence of three people only helps us decide whether an ambiguous
    statement carries malicious or benign (and possibly helpful) intent.
    Any clearly malicious statement, though, is categorically prohibited,
    regardless of whether its issuance will increase damage or merely
    restate information which others will soon discover on their own.

BTW, RMT later writes that Tosafos (Eiruhin 15b) take a third position.
They hold that disparaging reports said in front of the subject are
not LH. They are assur for other reasons -- most frequently onaas
devarim, "malbin penei chaveiro", but not this particular issur of
LH. And similarly something said in front of three, which the speaker
should assume would reach the listener's ears, may be onaas devarim,
but wouldn't be LH.

And along these lines... It's the CC, not the Rambam, who repeats of the
maamar chazal (?) that LH kills three people: the subject, the teller
and the listener.

I would think the same machloqes would also apply when the subject can't
be harmed because they can't be identified. Even before getting into the
question of whether destroying a persona someone has been using for a
while and is thus a "known entity" in the on-line community constitutes
"damage". Rambam would permit, Tosafos would make you see if onaas devarim
or some other issur was involved in harming the reputation of a persona,
and Rabbeinu Yonah and the CC would prohibit.

Tir'u baTov!
-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

Feminists will probably not like this. Furthermore, what if the wife 
is the main wage earner in a family, as is the case in many Kollel 
families, and yet she does not make the financial decisions in the home?

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=1625

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 248:4) says that it is permitted to 
take a small amount of Tzedakah from a woman but if her husband 
protests it is forbidden to take anything from her. The Noda B'Yehuda 
says if a person who is very wealthy is not giving the requisite 
amount of Tzedakah for a person of his means, it is forbidden for the 
wife to try to make up for her husband's stinginess and give money on 
her own volition to Tzedakah.

Even if the wife is running the finances in the house it is forbidden 
for her to give Tzedakah if she knows that her husband is Makpid. If 
she does give Tzedakah it is forbidden to take the money from her. 
Even though Bais Din may force someone to give Tzedakah according to 
his means however the wife does not have the authority to do so on 
her own and anyone who takes money from her is stealing.

The Yad Avrohom (YD 248) brings from the Yam Shel Shlomo who seems to 
indicate that if the woman makes the financial decisions in the home 
then it is as if her husband made her a Shlucha and accepting from 
her even large donations is permitted.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20110223/ef3a3be6/attachment.html>

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 08:21:07AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Feminists will probably not like this. Furthermore, what if the wife is 
> the main wage earner in a family, as is the case in many Kollel  
> families, and yet she does not make the financial decisions in the home?
> From http://revach.net/article.php?id=1625
>
> The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 248:4) says...

I'm not sure the SA applies to the working kollel wife.

The SA and NbY lived in eras when it was taken for granted that the wife
didn't wave her claim to being supported, and therefore the husband owned
maasei yadeha. (More than that, since women aren't halachically expected
to make a parnasah, the majority of her effort might even be haadafah,
but I don't think we have to argue this.)

I would think a kollel wife, by waving her claim to mezonoseha gains
ownership of maasei yadeha, and could give it to tzedaqa if she so wishes.

See EhE 80:18 -- did I get that right?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The variation on this theme that I heard, from Rabbi Meir Schlesinger, 
is that Reb Chatzkel if you gave your typical yeshiva bachur 007 license 
to kill, with exemption from punishment in both this world and the next, 
he would become a serial killer (perhaps he said mass murderer - it 
amounts to the same thing).

KT,
YGB

On 2/1/2011 6:24 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> >From<http://revach.net/article.php?id=4954>.
>
> -Micha
>
>     Rav Chazkel Levenstein On The Capture Of Adolf Eichmamm ym"s
>
>     Rav Chatzkel says (Ohr Yechezkel: Middos - Laasos Nekama BaGoyim)
>     that we are all born with an ingrained trait of hatred. Unless we
>     rid ourselves of it, it will haunt us from time to time in our lives
>     even if we think we are above it. Often we may think that we are
>     preaching a good cause but it is a mere cover for our instinctive
>     trait of hatred coming in disguise.
>

On 23/02/2011 10:09 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 08:21:07AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> Feminists will probably not like this. Furthermore, what if the wife is
>> the main wage earner in a family, as is the case in many Kollel
>> families, and yet she does not make the financial decisions in the home?

>>  From http://revach.net/article.php?id=1625
>> The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 248:4) says...
  
> I'm not sure the SA applies to the working kollel wife.
>
> The SA and NbY lived in eras when it was taken for granted that the wife
> didn't wave her claim to being supported, and therefore the husband owned
> maasei yadeha. [...]
> I would think a kollel wife, by waving her claim to mezonoseha gains
> ownership of maasei yadeha, and could give it to tzedaqa if she so wishes.

I don't even think the NbY was describing the situation in his day; as
I've pointed out before, the standard Ashkenazi tena'im (at least the
ones I've seen and heard) provide that the couple should have equal
control over their property.   Therefore it seems to me that a wife has
just as much right as her husband to give tzedakah.  But perhaps that
t'nai wasn't common in the NbY's day and place, or perhaps he assumes
as part of the shayla that in this case there was no t'nai, because if
there was one then there wouldn't be a shayla.

In any case, if anyone wants to see the NbY inside, it's here:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1447&;pgnum=194

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

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=1756

Tzitz Eliezer: Davening With A Gun

Is it permitted to enter a Shul with a rifle or other weapon? The 
Shulchan Aruch states (OC 151:6) that according to some opinions it 
is forbidden to enter a Bais HaKnesses carrying a long knife. The 
Mishnah Brurah explains that a Bais HaKnesses is a place for Tefilah 
which lengthens a person life therefore it is not proper to bring in 
a knife which shortens a person's life. the Tzitz Eliezer rules 
(10:18) that not only is it forbidden to enter a Bais HaKnesses with 
a knife but even if one is Davening at home he may not have a knife 
on him while he is Davening since Tefilah lengthens one's life even 
if one does not Daven with a Minyan.

The Tzitz Eliezer also rules that this Din applies not only to a 
knife but also to a gun or any other type of weapon. Even though the 
Taz says that the Din only applies to a long knife and the Eliyahu 
Rabah says that only an uncovered knife is forbidden, however some 
Poskim prohibit Davening with a knife even if it is a short knife and 
even if it is covered. Therefore the Tzitz Eliezer concludes that 
l'Chatchilah if possible one should not bring gun into a Shul nor 
shall one have a gun on him if he is Davening at home. If it is not 
possible for him to remove the gun he should at least remove the 
bullets or cover the gun. (Of course this doesn't apply at times of 
danger when it is necessary to have a gun on you.)

However with regards to a soldier or policeman who carries a gun on 
him at all time there is a Sevarah to say that the gun is regarded as 
an article of clothing and therefore there would be greater room for leniency.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110224/df09e64a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:42:00AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://revach.net/article.php?id=1756
...
> Is it permitted to enter a Shul with a rifle or other weapon? The  
> Shulchan Aruch states (OC 151:6) that according to some opinions it is 
> forbidden to enter a Bais HaKnesses carrying a long knife...
> The Tzitz Eliezer also rules that this Din applies not only to a knife 
> but also to a gun or any other type of weapon. Even though the Taz says 
> that the Din only applies to a long knife and the Eliyahu Rabah says that 
> only an uncovered knife is forbidden, however some Poskim prohibit 
> Davening with a knife even if it is a short knife and even if it is 
> covered. Therefore the Tzitz Eliezer concludes that l'Chatchilah if 
> possible one should not bring gun into a Shul nor shall one have a gun on ...
> However with regards to a soldier or policeman who carries a gun on him 
> at all time there is a Sevarah to say that the gun is regarded as an 
> article of clothing and therefore there would be greater room for 
> leniency.

This sounds like it's something inherent in guns or knives, much like
cherev lo yaaleh al mizbechi, and nothing to do with whether the keli
is set aside as a devar mitzvah.

Following through that logic "out loud"...

So a shocheit or mohel shouldn't bring their knives in with them. Is that
only if they are holding it or wearing it? What about the common case of
a mohel who is setting up his equipment in shul during chazaras hasha"tz
and the latter part of davening?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

From: Prof. Levine [quoting a web page that cites the Tzitz Eliezer -micha]
> However with regards to a soldier or policeman who carries a gun on him at
> all time there is a Sevarah to say that the gun is regarded as an article
> of clothing and therefore there would be greater room for leniency.

Why a piece of clothing and not an essential piece of equipment that he
needs for his job, just like a cell phone and pager is essential for an
ambulance driver?

Ben

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:30:24AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
> The variation on this theme that I heard, from Rabbi Meir Schlesinger,  
> is that Reb Chatzkel if you gave your typical yeshiva bachur 007 license  
> to kill, with exemption from punishment in both this world and the next,  
> he would become a serial killer (perhaps he said mass murderer - it  
> amounts to the same thing).

I'm curious to know RCL's intent. I could read this at least two ways:

1- Kol hagadol michaveiro, yitzro gadol heimenu

2- Yeshiva bachurim get used to positing abstract rules without a
   general gefeel for morality, and thus would do evil if there were
   no rule against it.

And that's far from exhausting the possibilities.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 28
**************************************

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..."