Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 164

Tue, 16 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: gezeira on gezeira (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: God who knows the future (Joel C. Salomon)
• 4. Two Luchos (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: gezeira on gezeira (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: gezeira on gezeira (Akiva Blum)
• 7. Re: gezeira on gezeira (garry)
• 8. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Allan Engel)
• 10. New Halachot (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 11. on halachic methodology (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 12. Reporting Child Abuse - A Clarification (Ben Waxman)
• 13. Re: Reporting Child Abuse - A Clarification (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: simanim and their effects.... (Micha Berger)

>> So the ban on smoking is...smoke?

> No, a pesaq based on a pre-existing deOraisa and given current knowledge

So's this.  If interlocking the fingers is dangerous, and there's an issur
on doing dangerous things, then it would follow that an issur is justified.

In any event, I've never heard that interlocking the fingers is *assur*.
Rather, it's a bad thing to do.  I have itchy fingers, and have never
been able to keep for long from interlocking them in order to rub them
against each other.  Whenever my father would see me doing so he would
tell me to stop, but he never once said it was assur, or reacted as he
would if I were doing something assur.  It was more on the level of
"don't pick your nose".


-- 
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

                    
                

On 16/08/2011 1:43 PM, garry wrote:
> I know this is elementary, but....
> If I use a plate to eat cold chicken, and then wash it, I can't use that plate for cold cheese.
>
> Isn't this at least one double gezeira (gezeira protecting another gezeira?)

Is treating poultry and venison as fleishig a gezeira?  Or just a rabbinic
law?


-- 
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

                    
                

On 08/16/2011 10:09 AM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> I also heard or read somewhere that because Dina was supposed to be a
> boy and changed to a girl, she was infertile.  (Which I realize
> contradicts a midrash that she did have a child, "Shaul ben haCanaanis.")

Some months ago I read an article (I don?t remember where; one of the YU
journals, perhaps?) that suggests a mechanism for the gender-switch:

It seems that while women have two X chromosomes, only one is active in
any given cell.  The choice of which one is active happens when the
embryo has only a small number of cells (on the order of 8 or 16, IIRC).
 In each cell, one X chromosome turns off, and stays off in all that
cell?s descendants.  See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation>.

In some rare cases, an X and Y chromosome can be fused.  If the sperm
cell carries such an X+Y chromosome (it normally has only one of X or
Y), then the child will be XXY, which usually yields an infertile male.
 At the time the X chromosomes turn off, in approximately half the cells
it will be the X+Y fusion and in the rest the X solo that stays active.

But ? if by some improbable chance (1:2^16), or by miracle, *all* of the
X+Y fusions are deactivated, then the child will be a *fertile* female.

--Chesky

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 01:34:49PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote to Areivim:
>                                             [A]s RSRH points out, five of 
> the Aseres Ha Dibris are bein Adam L'Makom and five and bein Adom the 
> Chaveiro and each tablet was the *same size*!

R' Yechiel Perr (RY Far Rockaway) said he heard R Matisyahu Solomon say
the following, and I found it in the Mabit...

The luchos had very different numbers of words. The Mabit says this is
because the words on the second luach were written much larger than those
on the first. Each diberah took up the same area, the shorter text was
simply written larger.

Picture what the effect was when Moshe brought down the luchos. The
diberos bein adam lachaveiro were visible much further away, in a huge
font. Only once you got closer could you make out those bein adam laMaqom.
The first impression, though, was BALC.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

On 8/16/2011 12:43 PM, garry wrote:
> I know this is elementary, but....
> If I use a plate to eat cold chicken, and then wash it, I can't use that
> plate for cold cheese.

Says who?  We don't do it, because it's easy to screw up, but there's 
nothing halakhically wrong with it so long as you wash it well.

Lisa

From: On Behalf Of garry
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August, 2011 8:43 PM
> I know this is elementary, but....
> If I use a plate to eat cold chicken, and then wash it, I can't use that
> plate for cold cheese.

> Isn't this at least one double gezeira (gezeira protecting another
> gezeira?)

Basar bechalav is full of double type harchokos. More importantly though,
I never heard of a problem here. Some sort of source, perhaps?

Akiva

On 8/16/2011 11:33 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 16/08/2011 1:43 PM, garry wrote:
>> I know this is elementary, but....
>> If I use a plate to eat cold chicken, and then wash it, I can't use 
>> that plate for cold cheese.

>> Isn't this at least one double gezeira (gezeira protecting another 
>> gezeira?)

> Is treating poultry and venison as fleishig a gezeira?  Or just a 
> rabbinic law?

What would be the purpose of such a law if not as a gezeira?


On 8/16/2011 11:51 AM, Akiva Blum wrote:
> From:  On Behalf Of garry
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 August, 2011 8:43 PM
>> I know this is elementary, but....
>> If I use a plate to eat cold chicken, and then wash it, I can't use that
>> plate for cold cheese.

>> Isn't this at least one double gezeira (gezeira protecting another
>> gezeira?)

> Basar bechalav is full of double type harchokos. More importantly though, I
> never heard of a problem here. Some sort of source, perhaps?

My apologies if my assumption was incorrect. Is it permissible to use
the same plates for meat and milk if the food is always cold?

On 8/16/2011 12:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 16/08/2011 1:22 PM, Allan Engel wrote:
>> If this summary is correct, there appears to be no basis for this
>> prohibition from the Torah, Mishna or Gemoro.
>>
>> Isn't it forbidden to create new halochos?
>
> So the ban on smoking is...smoke?

No, that's an application of a halakha that already exists.  There's no 
comparison whatsoever to creating a brand new issur.

Lisa

IIRC, the issur of kitniyos emerged due to practical concerns of chometz
contamination, and was therefore a chumra on an existing issur, rather than
an entirely new one.

If no evidence exists of danger of interlocking fingers, and no mesora of
danger through Torah SheBaal Peh (unlike, for example, fish and meat) it's
surely a brand new prohibition?

Also, the original article states:
"The Ben Ish Hai ...cites this *Halacha* in the name of the Arizal"

Halocho, not minhag.



On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> So the ban on smoking is...smoke?
>>>
>>
>  No, a pesaq based on a pre-existing deOraisa and given current knowledge
>>
>
> So's this.  If interlocking the fingers is dangerous, and there's an issur
> on doing dangerous things, then it would follow that an issur is justified.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110816/2108eece/attachment-0001.htm>

"> Isn't it forbidden to create new halochos?

So the ban on smoking is...smoke?"  

No, it's not a new halacha; it's simply a new application of an old halacha
just like, for example, banning jumping out of airplanes would not be a new
20th century halacha.

Joseph Kaplan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110816/329bf78d/attachment-0001.htm>

http://vesomsechel.blogspot.com/2011/08/more-on-more
thodoxy.html?utm_source=feedburner&;utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign
=Feed%3A+VesomSechel+%28Vesom+Sechel%29 


on possible fallacies in morethodoxic analysis  in re shelo assani isha 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110816/4d6577c7/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is a long email which comes from a list in which my wife
participates (religious therapists). It is written by Nachum Klafter,
MD (doctorklaf...@cinci.rr.com) and discusses many of the issues which
we touched upon in the recent "do we report" dialogue, but in much
more depth. I am sending it to Avodah because the amount of Torah in
the email. My thanks to Doctor Klafter who agreed to allow me to share
his words.

Ben

____________________________________

I have received several emails off-list from clinicians and Rabbis asking
me to respond to the last round of posts in this discussion by explaining
what exactly the differences are for therapists according to the rulings
by the R.C.A. and Agudah.

The intent of recent posts has been to defend the position of the Agudah
and to stress the importance of receiving guidance in all halakhic
issues from qualified poskim. I do not disagree with that sentiment,
but I think that the position of the Agudah has been misrepresented.

In the course of our discussion on the list-serve about halalkhic issues
involved in reporting, the dialogue in this thread turned to the topic
of whether sexual perpetrators may or may not be delineated as a rodef
(a person pursuing an innocent victim in order to commit murder or rape
on an ervah). This was in response to my earlier post where I cited the
case of rodef as one example of where it is obviously permissible to
report Jewish criminals to the secular legal authorities. As a result
of this digression in the thread, I believe that there is an inaccurate
perception that the disagreement between the R.C.A. and the Agudah
is about what categories of abuse may or may not be reported to the
authorities. This is not the case, as I will explain.

To review: There were two rulings issued recently by the two major
organizations of Orthodox Rabbis in North America about reporting child
abuse to the authorities.

1. The Rabbinic Council of America ruled in April 2010 that there is
an obligation to report credible allegations of sexual abuse to the
secular legal authorities, and that there is no prohibition of mesira in
doing so. This RCA reiterated this position on July 25th 2011. The full
text is attached to this email. There are four important components to
their ruling:

+ All Jews who have first-hand-knowledge or a reasonable suspicion
  of sexual or physical abuse of children are obligated by Torah Law to
  report this immediately to the secular legal authorities. Failure to
  report constitutes a biblical violation of "You shall not stand idly
  upon the blood of your brother.."

+ The prohibition of mesira simply does not apply when making reports
  of sexual or physical abuse to the secular authorities.

+ Mandated reporters, such as therapists, must follow the mandated
  reporting laws imposed by the secular authorities even in cases where
  Jewish Law would not require that a report be made.

+ If someone is truly uncertain whether the facts he or she has
  become aware of are reasonable grounds for suspicion, he or she
  should seek guidance from a rabbi and/or mental health professional
  as appropriate. However, in a case where it is clear that the basis
  for suspicion of abuse is valid, and all the more so when one has
  first-hand knowledge, it is not necessary to ask a rabbi for a ruling
  before calling the secular legal authorities.

2. The Agudath Israel's statement of July 22, 2011 includes the following
key provisions:

+ All Jews who learn of credible allegations that a child is being
  sexually or physically abused are obligated by Jewish Law to report
  this to the secular legal authorities. This obligation, based on "tikkun
  olam" and "other important principles" (unspecified the their ruling),
  pushes aside any prohibitions (i.e. including mesira).

+ According to this opinion, the level of evidence required in order to
  achieve "probable cause" (raglayim la-davar) is a halakhic matter which
  requires a decision by a qualified posek. In other words, according to
  this statement issued by the Agudah, before anyone calls the secular
  authorities, he or she should first consult with a qualified rabbi in
  order to determine if the basis for suspicion is sufficient evidence to
  file a report.

+ The obligation to report, according to the Agudah, is based only on
  Jewish law considerations and not on any mandatory reporting
  provisions in the secular law. In other words, according to the Agudah,
  a therapist or any other mandated reporter must also first consult
  with a posek before reporting suspicions of abuse to the authorities.

Practically speaking, the only difference in their ruling for the
lay public is whether a Rabbi must be called first before reporting
first-hand knowledge or a reasonable suspicion of child abuse to the
secular authorities.

There are other potential implications of the Agudah's ruling for mandated
reporters, including Orthodox mental healts. Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, an
attorney and the E.V.P. of Agudath Israel of America, has stated that he
does not believe that this ruling will lead to any mandated reporters
violating the law. Not everyone is reassured by his statement. (My own
understanding is that, like anything else, it would depend on the rabbi
you are asking.) In any case, this opinion requires that a mandated
reporter speak about the facts with a qualified posek so that each
situation can be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.

These two opinions are based on different understandings of the
prohibition of mesira. The R.C.A.'s statement is based on two halakhic
principles: (1) The laws of mesira are pushed aside when reporting people
who pose a danger to others, people who menace and harass others, people
whose actions impugn the reputation of the community, and even for those
who are simply so disruptive that they cause a public disturbance. These
categories obviously include sexual and physical abusers of children. (2)
The R.C.A statement follows another widely accepted opinion in halakha:
Generally speaking, in a nation which enforces the law equitable and
humanely, it is not forbidden to report or press criminal charges
against Jews who are violating reasonable laws which were enacted for
the betterment of the society. That is why the R.C.A.'s ruling states
that mandated reporters are always obligated to adhere to the mandatory
reporting laws, even in cases where according to Jewish Law there is
no obligation to report. According to this opinion, the prohibition of
mesira applies only in societies where there is no procedural justice,
such as nations where Jews are seized by anti-Semitic rulers for
no legitimate reason. The gedolei ha-poskim of the 20th century who
have ruled in this manner include the Aruch HaShulchan, Rav Elyashiv,
Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg z"l, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach z"l, and Rabbi
Shmuel Wosner. This view is also followed by the R.C.A.'s own poskim
and dayanim. I have personally discussed these matters with three:
Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, and most recently with
Rabbi Michael Broyde (who has written extensively and frequently answers
halakhic questions on this topic).

The Agudah is following a different opinion about mesira, which holds
that even in societies whose legal systems are fair to Jews and whose
authorities generally enforce the law equitably and humanely (such as
America) there is nevertheless a prohibition against informing on Jews
who are violating the secular law. However, the view expressed by the
Agudah agrees that there are many situations where mesira is not only
permitted but mandated by the halakha; in fact there is no disagreement
about this among any halakhic authorities. The classic cases where mesira
is permitted, in any society, are specified in Choshen Mishpat 388. The
view expressed in the Agudah's statement further agrees that sexual and
physical abuse of children falls clearly within those cases which must
be reported to the police because the prohibition of mesira has been
pushed aside. However, unlike the R.C.A.'s ruling, if we could imagine
a case where Jewish Law does not require that we inform the secular
authorities, the opinion expressed by the Agudah holds that even in
America and Canada the prohibition of mesira remains in effect. That
is why the Agudah's opinion states that the secular law's provisions
for mandated reporting are irrelevant to the question of of whether
reporting is permissible. According to this opinion, either there is
an obligation to report according to Jewish Law (such as in a case of
sexual or physical abuse), or there is a prohibition of mesira which
precludes reporting (even for mandated reporters).

Rabbi Broyde's lengthy article which explains the rules and legal
principles which govern the prohibition of mesira, as well as the
various views of the great poskim of the last century, can be found here:
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/mesiralaw2.html

It appears that some list-serve correspondents believe that the opinion of
the Agudah (and the clarification reported in the media by Rabbi Shmuel
Kamanetsky) is predicated on the notion that the only instances where
reporting is permissible are when the molester or abuser is adjudicated as
a rodef. Following this incorrect assumption, one list-serve contributor
goes on to cite the classic cases from the Talmud of incestuous or
adulterous rape, in order to distinguish them from other cases of less
serious sexual abuse where the perpetrator would not be a rodef.

This is incorrect. In fact, both opinions (the Agudah's and the
R.C.A.'s) agree that physical abuse of a child, or sexual molestation
of a child which does not involve actual rape, must be reported to
the secular authorities. Their disagreement is only over whether
there is a requirement to first check with a Rabbi about whether the
basis for one's suspicion rises to the threshold of probable cause
('raglayim la-davar'). Their disagreement is not, for example, about
whether a molester who fondles the genitalia of young children must be
reported. The opinion expressed by the Agudah clearly holds that such
a person must be reported (though only after consulting with a Rav to
determine if the evidence is sufficient). This has nothing to do with
whether a molester has the actual din of rodef.

In fact, in the same siman in Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 388),
we learn about a number of other cases where people may or must
be reported to the authorities despite the fact that they are not,
literally, rodfim. This includes counterfeiters (388:12), people who
disturb the public (388:12), and people who assault others by hitting
them (388:7). In fact, the Rema rules in 388:7 that a person who has
been assaulted by someone ("adam ha-mukah me-chavero") is allowed
to press charges with the secular authorities against his assailant
after the assault has already occurred. However, the assailant is not
a rodef. In other words, the victim of this assault is certainly not
allowed to purchase a gun the next day and kill his assailant. However,
he is allowed to call the police the next day and inform on the assailant
by filing criminal charges. People who cause a public disturbance are
not rodfim in any sense of the word; they are not even dangerous; they
are simply a disruptive nuisance. Nevertheless, we may report them to
the authorities. The rabbis of the Agudah and the R.C.A. all agree with
this. They all further agree that if we are allowed to call the police
after a physical assault against an adult, we are certainly allowed to
call the police to report sexual and physical abuse of children (though
the Agudah requires that a posek review the evidence first, in order to
avoid spurious reports). And, again, the Rema is addressing a situation
where the legal authorities are anti-Semitic feudal despots who we presume
will treat the assailant is very harshly. There is certainly reason to
be more lenient about mesira in America, Canada - not to mention Israel,
where the legal authorities are Jews.

There are some reports in the Jewish media which imply that the Agudah's
requirement of 'raglayim la-davar' (that only suspicions which are
based on substantial evidence should be reported) will interfere with
the reporting of sexual abuse. I think this is unfair. In fact, the
R.C.A.'s opinion states the same thing, but trusts the reporter to make
that determination and does not require the input of a halakhic decisor:

    As always where the facts are uncertain one should use common sense
    and consultations with experts, both lay and rabbinic, to determine
    how and when to report such matters to the authorities. False
    accusations are harmful to those falsely accused - but unreported
    abuse or endangerment can be life-threatening, as we have recently
    been tragically reminded.

Essentially, the Agudah's ruling expresses an opinion which is so
concerned about the potential havoc caused by baseless suspicions
being reported to the government that it requires rabbinical review. The
Agudah's statement is nevertheless an acknowledgment that in contemporary
Western society, Rabbonim and lay communal leaders are not empowered to
effectively intervene and protect children who are being physically or
sexually abused. We need to make use of Child Protective Services or
similar agencies in our communities and jurisdictions. It is mandated
by halakha that we do so.

I will also mention that there is good research being done which has
found that enforcement of mandatory reporting laws does, in fact, reduce
the incidence of sexual abuse. Those of us on the Nefesh International
list-serve have received some relevant references to scientific articles
which document this.

In summary I will again quote Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, who can hardly
be called a 'left-winger'. He recently wrote the following:

  It is time to forever bury the myth that reports of pedophilia can be
  managed and dealt with by committees of rabbonim, even for a short
  time. It is time to bury the myth that there is a serious halachic
  barrier to going to authorities to deal with credible reports of such
  behavior. Enough baalei halacha have told us that there is no barrier.

  Choshen Mishpat 388:12 tells us that those who vex the public can
  be handed over. Any pedophile does at least that, and poses a danger
  of doing much more. Moreover, mesirah of a molester exposes him to a
  safek of danger; pedophiles pose a much greater danger level to many
  more victims.

  It is natural and good that many people were not eager to rush to
  modes of address that themselves could be too sweeping and harsh,
  with terrible consequences to people and their families. They
  thought that various types of modus vivendi were possible. By
  now they should realize that this is not true. Rabbonim
  cannot handle the issue. We have enough evidence of this..
  (http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/201
  1/07/14/yadeinu-shafchu-es-hadam-hazeh/#ixzz1UP7xBP8J)

Nachum Klafter, MD
Cincinnati, OH
doctorklaf...@cinci.rr.com

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:27:15PM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
: Practically speaking, the only difference in their ruling for the
: lay public is whether a Rabbi must be called first before reporting
: first-hand knowledge or a reasonable suspicion of child abuse to the
: secular authorities.

... and if there is no immediate threat that can't wait the length
of the consultation.

There are also two versions of the Agudah statement. R Dr Klapper is
giving R' Zweibel's peshat. According to R' Shafran, if you harbor no
doubts, there is no need to go to a rav.

Also, the RCA also talks about consulting rabbis and professionals in
case of doubt.

The differance between the RCA and RAS's presentation of the Agudah's
position is more that one says "contact the police, consult with pros
and rabbis if you're unsure" and the other says, "contact your rabbi --
who presumably knows to consult professionals in the field -- unless
you are certain". A difference in tenor, and thus possibly in how the
instructions get followed lemaaseh.

BTW, it's leshitasam. MO, which sees Western Civ as tools for qedushah
first, and only then considers the risks involved, phrases it as calling
secular authorities unless you're in doubt. The norm is to work with
civil authorities (working with Western Civ), the need to ask a she'eilah,
the exception. The Agudah, which has the chareidi focus on Western Civ as
a challenge that once circumvented may still have some tools for avodas
Hashem, talks about speaking to a rav unless your sure. The shei'eilah
is the default, and only once checked does working with the Western Civ
authorities make sense.

Both are also very close to R' Meir Sternbuch's position, as presented
in RDEidensohn's sefer.

Changing tracks now to a 2nd sub-topic...

: There are other potential implications of the Agudah's ruling for mandated
: reporters, including Orthodox mental healts...

I don't understand why mandated reporting is all that relevent.

There are two conflicting sides: one the one hand, mesirah is a major
issue. OTOH, the risk to victims is a more primary issue, as is the
chiyuv of uvi'arta hara'ah miqirbekha. To quote citations posted on
his blog by RDEidensohn:

    Rav Yehuda Silman (Yeschurun volume 15 page 662):.... The commentaries
    explain that the obvious reason for not needing witnesses but they
    could rely even on circumstantial evidence is because this was
    not a court procedure to punish wrongdoers. Rather it was either
    done to obey the law of the kingdom or it was to stop someone from
    sinning. The Rashba is cited in the Beis Yosef that witnesses are
    not needed in such a case...". That is because we are concerned
    only with the knowledge of truth in order to stop the harm and to
    make protective measures against iniquity. Furthermore according to
    what I said that even a doubtful rodef is permitted to be killed,
    it is obvious that it is permitted for us to take protective action
    even if we have unresolved doubts.

and

    Similarly in BM 83. When Eliyahu complained that Rav Yosse was
    reporting Jews to the authorities and he replied that he was mandated
    to do so. Eliyahu didn't say that it was prohibited and therefore
    he should take the consequences. He just said to run away.

    There are poskim such as the Maharam Shick who say this is really
    not about the prohibition of moseir but rather about the propriety
    of squealing. The Maharam Shich says that we learn that a gadol
    doesn't do the reporting but that it is permitted for a lesser being.

Mima nafshach....

If there is sufficient risk / knowledge of ra'ah (uvi'arta hara'ah
miqirbekha) to matir any mesirah aspect, then one is chayav lehalakhah
to report even if not mandated.

And if the doubt is greater than that, or the abuse lesser, then it's
assur even if one is mandated by civil law. I would think the mandated
reporter would have to risk fines and jail.

Regardless of what you think the line is between those two possibilities,
AISI the halakhah ought to be the same whether or not it requires
violating civil law.

: In summary I will again quote Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, who can hardly
: be called a 'left-winger'. He recently wrote the following:
: 
:   It is time to forever bury the myth that reports of pedophilia can be
:   managed and dealt with by committees of rabbonim, even for a short
:   time. It is time to bury the myth that there is a serious halachic
:   barrier to going to authorities to deal with credible reports of such
:   behavior. Enough baalei halacha have told us that there is no barrier.

:   Choshen Mishpat 388:12 tells us that those who vex the public can
:   be handed over. Any pedophile does at least that, and poses a danger
:   of doing much more. Moreover, mesirah of a molester exposes him to a
:   safek of danger; pedophiles pose a much greater danger level to many
:   more victims.

This presumes the conclusion. Here all we're talking about is deciding
whether or not the claim of pedophilia is sufficiently based for RYA's
theory to apply to this particular incident.

Also, we're not talking about "managed and dealt with by committees of
rabbonim", but only deciding whether or not the threat is real enough to
warrant giving it to the civil authorities to manage and deal with. In
fact, the Agudah's statement's departure from status quo ante is that
they no longer expect the community to handle it themselves. Things were
reduced to only involving the rabbi to decide whether the accusation
is plausible enough to be acted upon. While some might feel the Agudah
didn't go far enough, they should realize that the Agudah's statement
is a huge step *toward* how they would like things to be.

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

I'm not clear what your question is, but here is how I relate to simanim...

The iqar is to ask HQBH for a shanah tovah umsuqah. As in any tefillah,
not because begging G-d for things ought to get you something He wouldn't
have otherwise thought was what your life needed. But because by turning
to Him with your needs, you become a person who is more likely to benefit
from more aid rather than more challenges. Thus lehispallel is famously
in hitpa'el, something the person praying does to himself.

If you ask Hashem for that shanah tovah umsuqah with the aid of a gesture,
the baqashah makes a greater impression, and th is more effective.

In short, the simanim are kavanah tools. Nothing more.

(However, given the metaphysical nature of thoughts, a mequbal might have
a more poetic, metaphoric, eloquent and detailed description of how that
kavanah is connected to that aid. But I take that to be the same basic
idea, but with more detail.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 164
***************************************

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..."