Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 143

Sun, 24 Jul 2011

• 1. Re: Pas Akum and Shabbos (AES)
• 2. Re: Kabalat Shabbat (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. ONE HAND vs. TWO HANDS (Richard Wolberg)
• 4. Re: ONE HAND vs. TWO HANDS (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: dina demalchuta (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. dina demalchuta (Eli Turkel)
• 7. : Re: Kofin Oso (Chana Luntz)
• 8. Re: Kofin Oso (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: dina demalchuta (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: dina demalchuta (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: dina demalchuta (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: ONE HAND vs. TWO HANDS (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Kofin Oso (garry)
• 14. Six psalms in Kabolles Shabbos (garry)
• 15. Re: Six psalms in Kabolles Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: dina demalchuta (Akiva Blum)
• 17. can we marry them????? (karaites) (Harvey Benton)

RAM quoted R' Yitzchok Levine quoting from
http://www.thehalacha.com/attach/Volume4/Issue4.pdf

re: Stella Doro cookies:

> One should try not to buy pas akum foods 26 (even for a
> snack) 27 out of honor for Shabbos, 28 even if one normally
> eats it during the week.

RAM wrote:

I would hope that NONE of us "normally eat pas akum foods during the
week". We might eat pas palter, but as far as I know, pas akum is
assur.
....
It is very disappointing and troubling to see pas palter being
referred to as pas akum. I'll stop here, before my yetzer hara starts
ranting.

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

Well, FWIW, in a different issue of the author's "Halachically
Speaking," he does refer to Stella Doro cookies as pas palter and not
pas akum.  See page 5 of
http://www.thehalacha.com/attach/Volume5/Issue15.pdf

KT and GS,
Aryeh

Galsaba asked:

> Kadish Derabanan that comes after "Bamme Madlikin" in Kabalat
> Shabbat.
> ...
> I would think that as this Kadish belongs to Kabalat Shabbat,
> he should stay at the same place where he davened Kabalat Shabbat,
> ie, on the Bima, and only when they finish he should walk to the
> Amud to start "Barchu" of Arvit.
>
> I would like to hear thoughts of people in the group.

I find this to be quite logical, but it should be tempered with
consideration for tircha d'tzibura. So I suggest that while the Shatz
should be at the Bima for the beginning of Kaddish, he should leave the
Bima before Kaddish ends, so that he will reach the Amud in time to say
Borchu right after Kaddish.

If the Shatz is saying Kaddish himself, I don't know which consideration should take precedence.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Mom Is 55, Looks 30...
Her clever $5 wrinkle therapy angers Botox Doctors. Find Out How!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e29b64e27108150e66st01vuc

R' Micha wrote: Doesn't it? You're assuming Hashem's "one hand" is specifically one,
as opposed to saying Hashem said place one hand and left it up to Moshe
to do what he wants with the second.

So, his right hand was deOraisa, and his left was a rabbinic or personal
embelishment in order to express his wholeheartedness -- that he didn't
leave his other hand free to potentially do something else.

How can you say I'm ''assuming'' HaShem's one hand is specifically one? HaShem
SPECIFICALLY says: Lean your HAND... (One hand, not two).  What could be more specific? 
With your argument, you can say that when HaShem told Moshe to speak to the rock, the
speaking was d'Oraisa and his striking the rock was a rabbinic or personal embellishment.
After all, striking the rock was more powerful and certainly was an embellishment. 

Sorry, I can't buy that argument. It isn't cogent. It isn't consistent with how exacting the
Torah has been up to now. To say that Hashem left it up to Moshe to do what he wants
with the second hand is, as the Yiddish expression goes, ''mit groben finger'' (pardon the pun).
If Hashem left it up to Moshe to do what he wants with the second, then what if Moshe wants 
to cover his eyes with the second hand in order to increase his level of kavanna? I think it was
obvious that the second hand would do nothing but remain by his side. I stand by my original 
argument. If Hashem wanted Moshe to lay both hands, He would have commanded: Lean your hands...
Hashem knows the difference between singular and plural.

So my response to the question is ''teiku.''




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110722/0bb7a80f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 02:02:08PM -0400, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: How can you say I'm "assuming" HaShem's one hand is specifically one? HaShem
: SPECIFICALLY says: Lean your HAND... (One hand, not two)...

Yes, so the mitzvah from G-d is to lean one hand.

Does Hashem say "and not the second"?

We have a mitzvah to say Shema every morning -- does that mean that
Hashem told us not to say the Amidah too? Or, we fulfil the Torah's
command of Shema, and also say other things.

Your question presumes that Hashem said "lean one hand" meaning "and not
two". It would seem MRAH understood Him to be saying "and I am not telling
you what to do with the other". Giving Moshe room to lean with that one
hand AND the other.

:-)BBii!
-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

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> I would personally think that owning the forms that misreport
> one's income, even if one never sends them in, is a violation of
> even va'aven. EvE includes owning the tools to be dishonest in
> business. Owning them -- not even using them. As Rashi quotes
> chazal in his commentary on the pasuq, to actually use two sets
> of weights, measures or books would be theft, and wouldn't have
> required this distinct prohibition.

I understand EvE to refer to a 15 ounce weight which is labeled "one
pound", or a spring-type scale whose spring is adjusted for that same
effect. I don't know how that would apply to a *blank* form, which is a
pareve tool to be used either honestly or dishonestly.

Perhaps when RMB wrote "owning the forms that misreport one's income", he was referring to forms which have already been filled in?

Or perhaps the situation is this: Suppose a person had income which he is
not hiding, but he is misreporting. He really ought to report the income on
Form ABC. But instead, he plans to report it on Form XYZ, which he is
really not entitled to, but he will do it anyway, because XYZ will result
in a smaller calculation. Perhaps in such a case, it is a violation of EvE
to have even a blank XYZ in his home?

In any case, even if it is not possible to come up with a practical haycha
timtza of RMB's point, I still thank him for reminding us of an easily
forgotten d'Oraisa which we should at the very least be aware of.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e29b92a157e41517b7st04vuc

Zeev continually asserts without sources that one need not "volunteer"
to pay taxes.
I have several times referred to the article of Eli Clark which is ignored.

Apologies for the length but obviously just attaching the link doesnt
work as it gets ignored
So I will attach portions of it here

Thus, the Gemara establishes that evading a fixed tax collected by a
government tax collector is prohibited by Halacha. The Rambam
formulates this rule in his Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Gezelah ve-Avedah
5:11), where he explains that tax evasion constitutes stealing from
the king. He adds (ibid. 5:18) that this rule applies only to a king
whose currency is accepted throughout the territory, which reflects
that the citizens have consented to his rule and accepted that he is
sovereign over them. This requirement, which is codified in the
Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 369:6), assuredly is satisfied by the
government of the United States or any other democratically elected
government.4 In the case of a gentile tax collector, some authorities
suggest that indirect tax evasion may be permitted.5 This position is
based on the statement of the Gemara (Bava Kama 113b) that it is
forbidden to steal outright from a gentile, but indirect theft (for
example, failing to repay a loan) is permitted. However, where such
indirect theft could result in chillul Hashem, it is unanimously
prohibited. Moreover, one is forbidden from cheating a gentile tax
collector who is honest 6or acting solely as the king's agent.7

In contemporary times, poskim (decisors) have also taken a clear
position on the issue. For instance, R. Moshe Feinstein writes to a
person who engaged in tax evasion that it is "vadai (certain)" that he
must repent for his actions and never do so again.8 The context
suggests that the individual's tax evasion occurred in the United
States.

Because tax evasion is a violation of Halacha, it is likewise
forbidden for a Jew to enable another Jew to evade tax. This
prohibition derives from the Torah's command (Vayikra 19:14), "Lifnei
iver lo titen michshol," do not put a stumbling block before a blind
person. The Gemara (Pesachim 22a) explains that this rule prohibits
extending a cup of wine to a Nazir (who is forbidden to drink wine) or
the limb of a live animal to a non-Jew (who is forbidden to eat such a
limb). However, the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 6b) also limits the
prohibition regarding providing wine to a Nazir to a case of "trei
ibrei de-nahara," two sides of the river, i.e., where a river
separates the Nazir from the wine he wishes to drink. In other words,
one violates the prohibition of lifnei iver only when the Nazir or
other prospective sinner is unable to commit a particular sin without
one's assistance. Yet, where others are available to assist a person
in committing the sin, one who provides such assistance would not
transgress the Biblical commandment of "lifnei iver," though one
would, according to most authorities, violate a rabbinic prohibition
against "mesaye'a yedei ovrei averah," assisting the committers of
sins.9

If one makes a purchase from a Jewish merchant who does not collect
and pay sales tax, one has enabled the merchant to violate the law
which, under the principle of dina de-malchuta dina, constitutes a
violation of Halacha as well. Indeed, this case clearly resembles the
one addressed in the Gemara (Bava Metzi'a 75b), which states that
every individual who facilitates a loan transaction involving the
payment or collection of interest is guilty of lifnei iver, including
the witnesses to the loan and the scribe who draws up the loan
document. So too in the case of the person who patronizes a
tax-evading merchant, the shopper's payment for the purchase enables
the merchant to violate the Halacha.

As we have mentioned, whether such facilitation constitutes a Torah
transgression or a rabbinic one depends on whether the merchant would
be able to commit the sin of tax evasion without one's assistance. How
does this rule apply to purchasing from a merchant who evades sales
taxes? Two possibilities present themselves. It is possible that the
willingness of other customers to patronize a particular merchant may
reduce one's own purchases to a violation of the rabbinic prohibition
rather than the Biblical one. On the other hand, the Halacha may deem
each individual customer to be violating the Biblical prohibition,
because each separate sales transaction that goes unreported to the
tax authorities may represent a separate transgression on the part of
the merchant. According to R. Herschel Schachter, R. Joseph B.
Soloveitchik z.t.l. stated that patronizing a Jewish merchant who
cheats on his taxes violates the Biblical prohibition of lifnei iver.

Halachically speaking, there is no question about the permissibility
of the evasion of taxes. Tax evasion is both a sin and a crime. It
violates numerous biblical prohibitions, including that of chillul
Hashem. In addition to active tax evasion, Halacha prohibits enabling
others to commit the transgression. These rules unquestionably apply
in the United States and most Western countries, where the tax system
is administered in an even-handed and objective fashion. Therefore,
the halachic community must not -- cannot -- tolerate the continued
evasion of taxes in our midst. If one would not patronize a restaurant
owned by a religious Jew who serves non-kosher food, then one should
not patronize a store owned by a religious Jew who cheats on his
taxes. Even paying cash for an item is forbidden where circumstances
suggest that the purchase will not be reported to the appropriate tax
authorities. Nor is tax evasion justified by a motive to dedicate the
extra money to a mitzvah, such as tzedaka (charity) or supporting
talmud Torah (Torah study). As is well-known, the Torah invalidated
the mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-averah, the mitzvah that is brought about by a
transgression.13

The Torah demands absolute integrity in business matters. According to
the Gemara (Shabbat 31a), when we face Divine judgement, we are asked
a series of questions about how we lived our earthly lives. For
example, we are asked: Kavata itim le-Torah? Did you establish time
for Torah study? Tzipita le-yeshu'a? Did you anticipate the
redemption? It seems fair to assume that the questions are ranked in
order of importance. Yet, the first question is not about Torah study
or awaiting the coming of Mashiach. The first question we are asked by
the Divine Judge is: Nasata ve-natata be-emunah? Did you conduct
business honestly?

In summary Zeev disagrees with RMF, RHS, RYBS among others. Instead of
being so strident I suggest he prove his point instead of attacking
others

-- 
Eli Turkel

I wrote:

> > Note also that from a straight reading of the maskana gemora, there
> > is ultimately no requirement of beis din to be the one forcing, just a
> > Jew rather than a non Jew (although in the hava mina there is, since
> > there is clearly only a mitzvah to listen to the Chachamim if they are
> >genuinely Chachamim)
> 
> How so?  How is "tolah atzmah beviryonim" any better than "biydei
> akum"?
> The undesirable result is the same, "mafka'as atzmah miydei ba`alah".

Most people appear to link Rav Mesharsha's concern to going to arkos ie
l'fnehem vlo l'fnei akum.  With a yisroel hediyot there is no such concern.

Note this is all according to the Rambam - since we started off by
discussing the Rambam's understanding of rotze ani.  And further as
explained by the Kesef Mishna/Beis Yosef who understands the Rambam to
priorise this gemora over the one that I quote later in this bulletin (ie
Gitten 88b)) and to posken like Rav Mesharshia and say that a get produced
from force of a non Jew if the din notei is "posul", ie invalid d'rabbanan,
but valid d'orisa and not "ano get" which would mean it was invalid d'orisa.
Note by the way the big nafka mina (which is also of key relevance to the
case which started this all off).  If a get is only pasul d'rabbanan, while
a Rav will not let her remarry l'chatchila, if she did remarry "lo tetze" ie
they will not force to to leave and the vlad is kosher.

Of course the majority of other rishonim posken like the gemora in Gitten
over the gemora in Baba Basra, especially given the strong language of the
rejection of Rav Mesharshia there and hold that as non Jews are just not
involved in matters of gitten, any involvement (except just hitting him and
saying do what the Yisroel tells you to do) completely invalidates the get
d'orisa.  

> BTW, thank you for citing this gemara, I've been trying to recall where
> I'd seen it, because it's a major part of the source for the position
> I've been advocating here, that a woman is not entitled to a get just
> because she wants one.  Here the gemara says it explicitly; that the
reason a
> get me`useh is pasul is so that a woman who wants out of her marriage
> should not be able to simply hire goons and force her husband to divorce
her.

Nobody is saying that she is entitled to a get just because she wants eg to
go off with somebody else.  What is being said is that, if she finds having
relations with him repulses her, she is entitled to a get.  That does not
mean she can go off to the non Jews and get them to arrange matters even if
she is entitled to it.  And note, this is as true of any of the crystal
clear cases in the gemora where a get can be forced, eg a muke shchin. Even
though she is absolutely according to everybody entitled to go to beis din
and demand a get, she cannot hire non Jewish goons and beat it out of him.
That get would be just as posel.  


> Now if BD were able to force any husband to give a get just because his
> wife wanted one, then why would it occur to any woman to go to the
> akum?
> She could go to beis din and get the same result!  Obviously a BD lacks
> the power to order a get in ordinary circumstances;

There are several leaps in logic here. 

Firstly, while most people see a large spectrum between "because his wife
wanted one" at the one end and "where the marriage is objectively determined
to be one that no reasonable woman could put up with".  Your assumption is
that there is no middle ground.  Once middle ground is acknowledged, then
wherever Beis Din sets the bar on the middle ground, there will always be
situations where the woman will get no benefit from going to Beis Din.

Secondly your assumption is that there are no disadvantages to a woman (or
anybody) going to beis din due to beis din procedures and evidentiary
requirements.  So long as beis din operates as a court system, requiring
evidence (and possibly the attendance of, or the ability to find the other
party) there will always be an advantage, were it to work, to hiring a goon,
as that can be quicker, easier and cheaper (and can search the man out, even
in different countries, as we have seen).  

Thirdly there are often other advantages to using a non Jewish court system
(or even non Jewish goons), such as monetary divisions etc even if the get
was not an issue (as we see in many cases today where the get itself is not
contested but where there is a preference to go to non Jewish courts).  Were
the get not required to be in beis din, a lot of the leverage that the beis
din has in dealing with other aspects of the divorce disappear.  Especially
in the time of the gemora, there was no assumption that a get was given in
beis din.  It had to be properly written in front of witnesses with all the
halachos, but if a bunch of non Jews beat him up and then rounded up a
couple of knowledgeable witnesses and a scribe, then it would be all done
and dusted.  At least if a Jew does the beating up, there is no reason not
to go to Beis Din for the monetary aspects, but if one is getting into the
non Jewish system, the logical next step is arkos.

> Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

RZS writes:

> And of course post-cherem-dRGMH Ashkenazi men are in the same
> situation,
> since in ordindary circumstances a man can neither divorce his wife
> without her consent nor marry someone else.  So if he wants a get he
> must
> persuade her to consent.


You keep saying this, but it is not true.  Or at least, the implication of
symmetry is not true (even leaving aside the heter meah rabbonim aspect).

If a man finds a woman repulsive, then ... how shall I put this on a family
list ... nothing happens.  It is a basic biological fact.  But if a woman
finds a man repulsive, the man may not even know.  The whole concept of
karka olam and the imbalance vis a vis the ya'arog v'al yavor dinim is based
on this biologic fact.  A man cannot be compelled to have relations
completely against his will, a woman can.  That creates a huge imbalance
within a marriage.  It is this imbalance that taina of maos alai comes to
address.  
 
> --
> Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
> z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 05:52:14PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Perhaps when RMB wrote "owning the forms that misreport one's income",
: he was referring to forms which have already been filled in?
...
: In any case, even if it is not possible to come up with a practical
: haycha timtza of RMB's point, I still thank him for reminding us of an
: easily forgotten d'Oraisa which we should at the very least be aware of.

And recall, it's not only a deOraisa, it's a to'eivah. Having the tools
to cheat, even if one doesn't actually cheat in business, is a to'eivah.

Say someone fills out a second set of books that never get looked at --
he was oveir the issur. Or filled out the 1040 but didn't yet decide
whether to file it or an honest one and still keeps it around until he
does -- he was already oveir.

Or if he does use it -- that would be two distinct issurim violated.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On 7/22/2011 3:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 05:52:14PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> : Perhaps when RMB wrote "owning the forms that misreport one's income",
> : he was referring to forms which have already been filled in?
> ...
> : In any case, even if it is not possible to come up with a practical
> : haycha timtza of RMB's point, I still thank him for reminding us of an
> : easily forgotten d'Oraisa which we should at the very least be aware of.
>
> And recall, it's not only a deOraisa, it's a to'eivah. Having the tools
> to cheat, even if one doesn't actually cheat in business, is a to'eivah.
>
> Say someone fills out a second set of books that never get looked at --
> he was oveir the issur. Or filled out the 1040 but didn't yet decide
> whether to file it or an honest one and still keeps it around until he
> does -- he was already oveir.
>
> Or if he does use it -- that would be two distinct issurim violated.

I'm not convinced that cheating the government is the same, 
halakhically, as cheating a person.  R' Eli wrote "This requirement, 
which is codified in the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 369:6), 
assuredly is satisfied by the government of the United States or any 
other democratically elected government."  But that's an assertion, and 
I don't think it's necessarily supportable.

A democratic government is not the same as a monarchy.  In a monarchy, 
you either accept that the king rules over you or you don't.  There's no 
middle ground.  In a democracy (or a democratic republic, rather), the 
majority enforces its will on the minority, and the minority has *not* 
necessarily accepted that the majority has a right to do what it does. 
Since that minority is in a constant struggle to overturn what it deems 
to be wrong actions by the majority, you can't claim that the government 
is accepted in the same way that a monarchy is.

I think there has to be a shikul on a case-by-case basis.  With 
proposals floating around for a 90% tax bracket (no joke), the question 
has to be asked.  In addition, the halakha views tax as a head tax.  A 
progressive tax can be viewed as a punitive tax, which may be more akin 
to a fine than a tax.  I don't think we say it's forbidden to avoid a 
punishment.

Lisa

So how does it work in a situation where there police, for all practical 
purposes, are not enforcing the speed at all (with rare exceptions)? I was 
told that an Israeli court ruled that for various reasons the police can't 
use laser speed detectors until they make some changes. Assuming that this 
is true, then the police can't catch speeders, except for the very 
occasional person going some ridiculous speed who they catch in a chase. In 
fact they aren't even trying. Am I obligated by DDD to go the speed limit 
(putting aside the wisdom of driving too fast for safety reasons and 
endangering other people)?

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
>
> There is a question how far DDD goes beyond the realm of finances.
>
> As halakhah lemaaseh, R Belsky holds that speeding more than 10 MPH
> above the speed limit, or whatever speed is generally enforced, is
> prohibited under DDD. 

If Moshe could add a day to the preparations for mattan torah on his own
understanding, then he could certainly add a hand to Yehoshua's smicha,
in order to do the mitzvah with "kol atzmosai".

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:52:13 -0400
From: Zev Sero<z...@sero.name>
> On 21/07/2011 1:50 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
>> Note also that from a straight reading of the maskana gemora, there is
>> ultimately no requirement of beis din to be the one forcing, just a Jew
>> rather than a non Jew (although in the hava mina there is, since there is
>> clearly only a mitzvah to listen to the Chachamim if they are genuinely
>> Chachamim)

> How so?  How is "tolah atzmah beviryonim" any better than "biydei akum"?
> The undesirable result is the same, "mafka'as atzmah miydei ba`alah".

> BTW, thank you for citing this gemara, I've been trying to recall where
> I'd seen it, because it's a major part of the source for the position I've
> been advocating here, that a woman is not entitled to a get just because
> she wants one.

The reason Beis haMikdash II was destroyed was because they judged there 
according to Torah law.

I was taught that the six psalms in Kabollos Shabbos that lead up to 
L'cha Dodi represent the six days of the week (with mizmor shir, of 
course, representing Shabbat).  I have not been able to find any 
discussion that connects the content of each  psalm with the specific 
acts of creation for the day, or with the specific sefiros.  (I have 
found some gematria on this, but I'm looking for content).  Is anyone 
aware of such connections, or where I might find a discussion about 
them?  Are there connections?  Thanks!

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 08:53:30PM -0700, garry wrote:
> I was taught that the six psalms in Kabollos Shabbos that lead up to  
> L'cha Dodi represent the six days of the week (with mizmor shir, of  
> course, representing Shabbat)...

Did you see http://poetryofprayer.blogspot.com/2011/07/week-of-psal
ms-peoples-ultimate-journey.html
R' Avi Baumol (Efrat) posted on this topic since you asked.

RSRH treats the sequence as the process of history, which is related.
See his Psalms. I adapted his basic theme in footnotes in Ashirah Lashem
<http://www.aishdas.org/siddur.shtml)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org [mailto:avodah-
> boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Eli Turkel
> Sent: Friday 22 July 2011 9:12 PM


> Zeev continually asserts without sources that one need not "volunteer"
> to pay taxes.
> I have several times referred to the article of Eli Clark which is
ignored.
> 
.........
> 
> In summary Zeev disagrees with RMF, RHS, RYBS among others. Instead of
> being so strident I suggest he prove his point instead of attacking
> others
> 

I didn't see anything here suggesting that there is actually some sort of a
mitzva to pay taxes. You owe the money, and if you don't want to make a
chillul Hashem or get into trouble, you should take the initiative and pay,
but nothing that has a mitzva of DDD.

Akiva

are the karaites considered jewish??
i recently was told that R. Moshe
only considered them jewish le'gabei
saving them from the nazis
i do not know if this is true, but i was 
wondering why would they not be con-sidered
jewish:
if by theology: (does someone who does not 
believe in the ikrim (rambam's or anyone else's), 
make them not jewish??
if by yichus (don't they have the best yichus 
among anyone on the planet??) 
and finally, if if by practice; 
then anyone (reform, conservative
off the derech, or whoever happens to be lapsing
in one or many mitzvot (which probably includes
all of us.....) should also not 
be considered jewish.....
hb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110724/b44fe700/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 143
***************************************

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..."