Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 28

Wed, 19 Feb 2014

• 1. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save (Micha Berger)
• 2. 30 Adar I (David Cohen)
• 3. Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger and Warder Cresson (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yisrael? (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: Sephardiot Wearing Tefillin (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Re: Postnup Parties Get Happily Married Orthodox (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: Time for the Deceased (was: Why does Moshe use logical... (Kenneth Miller)
• 8. Philosophers and philosophy (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. Yahrzeit - R' Yitzchak Zirkind zt"l (Micha Berger)
• 10. RHS on daas torah on non-halachic issues (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: 30 Adar I (elazar teitz)
• 12. Re: RHS on daas torah on non-halachic issues (Harry Maryles)

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: Asse lema'an shemekha does not mean that we play no role in the process, it
: means that we, as petitioners, see our needs suddenly in terms of our role
: in G"d's service, and hence we ask that we be allowed to fulfil our destiny
: in G"d's service and that it be granted that this happen in a manner that
: allows also for the fulfillment of our request. I.e., since G"d desires
: that His reputation be spread among humankind, I therefore ask G"d to heal
: my sick relative lema'an shemo, so that I and he or she will be able to
: thank G"d publicly and proclaim His Name through this healing.

To say what I think is RAF's point (if not it's mine) in different terms:

The request:
Hashem, please grant me wealth so that I can share it with those in need.
is very different than the request:
Hashem, please grant me wealth so that I can enjoy wealth.

Now let's say the person making the request, like most people, has mixed
motives. Perhaps one or the other is more primary but both are in play.
(Actually, likely each is more primary in different ways -- the brain
of a good person could really want it to help people, meanwhile his
subcnscious negi'os have different priorities.)

So, the first tefillah changes the mispalel by his articulating the more
positive motivation. It does more to make the person the kind for whom
a "yes" is more appropriate.

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:27:17PM -0500, Michael Poppers wrote:
: Apparently, one central issue behind RMBluke's Qs is that because H' is
: Omni___ and doesn't "change His mind," MRAH's plea for *bY* (recorded in
: this week's *sedra*) is puzzling.  My tuppence: akin to what some describe
: as *tzimtzum*, H' left room for a "mind change" with His "*hanicha* [*li*],"
: and we subsequently hear that "*vayinachem* [*H'*]"; and perhaps one can
: expand on this concept of a world deliberately created with room for such
: "change" as part of understanding *t'filos* and/or certain phraseology we
: use based on *ma'asei avos* and the guidance of CHaZaL and past
: *g'dolim*/transmitters of our *m'sora*.

This raises the whole issue of a Personal G-d. The Rambam discusses the
two ways we can describe G-d: (a) philosophically, we can discuss what
He isn't (the "via negativa"), and (b) we have attributes that describe
how His Actions appear to us.

Where I think the Rambam breaks from the rishonim whose thought more
of us follow (the Kuzari, Rashi, Ramban, Ran, the Ikarim, etc...)
on this is that the Rambam in the first cheileq of the Moreh says that
G-d-as-perceived is a Role Model. The idea of actually relating to G-d
on a personal level doesn't fit the Moreh or Yesodei haTorah. (Except,
perhaps, as a crutch for the spiritually/intellectually limited.)

Chazal taken at face value do appear to promote relating to Hashem in
personal terms, and indeed that it what the majority of rishonim and
acharonim who address the topic assume. I think this is why Chazal
describe "vehalakhta didrakhav" as "mah Hu Rachum, af atah [heyei]
rachum", etc... but the Rambam in Hil Deios pereq 1 inserts a word:
"mah Hu *niqra* Rachum..."

We (non-Maimonidians) speak of "Avinu haRachaman", "Avinu Malkeinu", or
"Yedid Nefesh" not only as metaphors, but also as ways we are supposted to
be relating to Him. Not that He posesses Rachamim the way we do, but that
we can have a relationship with G-d-as-Revealed, even while intellectually
knowing that it's a partial revelation of an incomprehensible Truth. (As
RMP put it using the Ari's model of Creation, what we see post-tzimtzum.)

The connection to G-d is supposed to be on all levels. Which means that
our emotions also require an anchor; something the abstract G-d of the
philosophers cannot provide. Hashem therefore shows us a Persona we can
love.

This conflict between machashavah amuqah and emunah peshutah is a case
where the gap between brain and heart is to our advantage. We can
sustain and even foster both, it doesn't require compartmentalization
beyond what is inerently built into the human condition.

But getting back to RMBluke's question about davening... The Rambamist
has problems explaining why tefillah looks like a request. After all,
it's all introspective and self-change, from which an Impersonal G-d
has a new me to assess what to give to.

The rest of us lacks this problem. Even though it's illogical in this
case -- in a correct assessment of our and the world's needs, we would
know why we don't have what it is we are asking for. It is still natural
and emotionally necessary to turn to a Parent with our needs. We don't
need to think about how its the turning to Him itself tht makes us worthy,
because that actually undermines the personal relationship the baqashah
format is setting up.

: All the best from
: *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
: (BM *sedra*: P'Ki Sisa :))

Happy Birthday!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
>> If someone dies on 30 of Adar I when is the yahrzeit in an ordinary year.

This is anecdotal, but the 8 kedoshim of Merkaz haRav hy"d died on 30 Adar
I, 5768.  I know that the family that lives in my community observes their
son's yahrzeit on 30 Shevat in ordinary years, and I believe that the
public commemorations in ordinary years have been around then as well.

May we only have reasons to be marbeh besimcha on Rosh Chodesh Adar from
now on.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140217/af897246/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/k2shznx

Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger (1798 ?1871) was a German 
rabbi and author, and one of the great leaders of 
Orthodox Judaism. He was born at Karlsruhe and 
died in Altona. He studied under Rabbi Abraham 
Bing in W?rzburg, where he also attended the 
university. Because of his well-known greatness 
as a Torah scholar, questions were sent to him 
from across the globe. The following question 
relates to a story that occurred in Jerusalem.

    According to Jewish Law, there is a list of 
activities that are prohibited on the Jewish 
Sabbath. Although resting on the Sabbath is one 
of the most important commandments for a Jew, the 
Talmud tells us that a Gentile is actually 
forbidden from resting on the Sabbath, and must 
perform one of the ?prohibited? actions to be 
considered a righteous gentile. The following is 
the question presented to Rabbi Ettlinger with 
regard to this issue. (Responsa Binyan Tzion 91)

?Here in Jerusalem on Tuesday the twenty third 
day of the month of Adar Sheni of the year 
(5)608, a non Jew came from Morocco and was 
circumcised for the sake of conversion, and 
accepted all the mitzvoth. On the following 
Shabbat, he had not fully recovered from the 
circumcision and thus not entered the Mikvah 
(ritual bath to finalize the conversion). A rabbi 
was informed that the convert is very careful in 
his observance of the Sabbath. However another 
rabbi claimed that due to the fact that he did 
not yet enter the Mikvah he must not observe the 
Sabbath and must perform one of the prohibited 
acts. It was late in the day and the convert was 
told what he must do. Consequently he violated 
the Sabbath by writing a few letters. After the 
Sabbath when the Rabbis in town heard of the 
ruling they disagreed claiming that after 
circumcision he is considered a Jew and must not violate the Sabbath.?

The non-Jew referred to above is Warder 
Cresson.   See the rest of this post for more 
information about Cresson,  who was most certainly a fascinating character.

I added the following comment after this article.

Please see my article about Warder Cresson that 
appeared in the Jewish Press on 9/27/2007 titled 
"From Quaker to Shaker to Orthodox Jew" It can be read at

  http://tinyurl.com/k8tj9wn

Warder's family did not share his interest in 
Judaism, and, in fact, tried to have him declared 
insane for converting to Judaism! This led to one 
of the most famous trials of the 19th century. See my article for the details.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140217/29239acd/attachment-0001.htm>

I'm starting to get interested in this thread now that we're making 
snide remarks about Kant,  but I have no idea what's going on. Could 
someone involved offer a short synopsis.  What do dead people have to do 
with the question about Moshe?

Some of the Zohar's observations about time might have been appealing to 
Kant.  Could someone simply be trying to be exoteric?

David Riceman

RZS wrote:

>The Shiltei Giborim (why the apostrophe?) was not a refugee; he was born in
Italy, about 10-20 years after girush Sefard.  Also I don't think he's
usually considered a rishon.  However, the >language in question is not his
own, but a verbatim quote from the Riaz, who was definitely a rishon, from
13th century Italy.

>I wonder, though, who exactly were these "chitzonim" in the Riaz's day, who
held that women are obligated in tefillin?  Not the Karaim, since AFAIK they
don't believe in tefillin at all.  And >radical C was 700 years in the
future.
>So who was he worried about, that justified an issur on women wearing
tefillin?

I don't think the language suggests that anybody was saying women were
*obligated* in tephillin (do even the Conservatives say that?), and no I
can't imagine there were loads of women running around wearing tephillin
either.  But what he clearly is very worried about is this outrageous psak
that women can blow shofar (or have shofar blown for them) and even worse
make brachos.   Ie It seems to me highly likely that Italy was indeed on the
fault line between the Ashkenazi practice - which generally allowed (and
allows) women to perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama with a bracha - a
practice that was justified primarily on the basis of Michal Bas Shaul and
tephillin, even though its major application was elsewhere and which
followed Rabbi Yosi, and the other divisions in psak on the subject, with
numbers of Rishonim holding that women were/are not permitted at all to
perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama (although they may be permitted to sit
in a sukkah or hold a lulav without a bracha) holding that in the machklokus
in the gemora between Rabbi Yehuda (and Rabbi Meir) and Rabbi Yosi (and
Rabbi Shimon), we should be poskining like Rabbi Yehuda (which is where the
Shiltei Giborim is coming from) and various other Rishonim who agreed at
least part way with Rabbanu Tam that we should posken like Rabbi Yosi (even
if there was then a debate about his further extension to permit the
bracha).

If there was a movement of Ashkenazim into Italy, then the Riaz/Shiltei
Giborim would have been faced with all these arriving women insisting on
something (hearing shofar) the Riaz felt was completely against the halacha
and their husbands quite happily allowing this practice - which would have
made them chitzonim indeed.

>Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and

Regards

Chana

R"n Chana Luntz disagrees with the idea that the wife must claim mekach
taus immediately for it to be effective. She offers a scenario where some
time can elapse, and yet her claim of mekach ta'us should still be valid.

> I wouldn't have thought so. If you buy a widget and it turns out
> that it is completely different from what it was billed as being,
> you might spend a period of time trying to work out if you can find
> a use for it in its current form before deciding that you cannot
> without invalidating the mechach taus. I would agree that if she
> had then lived happily with him for a period of time after learning
> the truth, that would be different, but there is no suggestion of
> that, just that she then took the time to work out whether or not
> he was indeed "fit for purpose" before concluding he was not.

I would like to offer a different scenario that I've been curious about for
quite a while. Suppose the wife becomes aware of certain facts which, if
she would have known them beforehand, she would not have consented to the
marriage. Now that she has become aware of these facts, she has become
immediately and strongly opposed to the marriage, and most definitely wants
out. BUT she does not know that this option is available to her.

She never heard of the concept of mekach taus before. Or maybe she has
heard of it in Choshen Mishpat, but she doesn't know that it works for
marriages too. All she knows is that she was taught that when she accepted
the ring under the chupa, she was explicitly rejecting any and all
preconditions, so that she is unconditionally married. She was never taught
that this only applies to *general* preconditions. She was never taught
that there is an exceptional class of conditions for which she *can* put in
a claim of mekach taus.

So, in her ignorance, she thinks that a get is her only route out of the
marriage. She sets about finding a rav who can help her with the
proceedings, but this takes longer than a few minutes. Probably longer than
a few hours, or even a few days. And during this time, she thinks that she
is fully married to him. She doesn't like that idea, but she is resigned to
it. Not resigned to it in the sense that "This husband is better than
nothing", but resigned in the sense of "What choice do I have?"

So she continues to live with him - perhaps even having relations with him.
RSZ points out that "ein adam oseh be'ilaso be'ilas znus", but she sees no
znus there - in her mind, she's fully married! Meanwhile, she plots her
escape, however long it takes. She finally finds a rav to help her, and she
tells him her story. What does the rav answer? Perhaps he tells her: "If
you had objected immediately upon discovering this information, we could
give you an annulment. But now we'll have to figure out how to give you a
get."

But it it possible that he might say: "You are like someone who thought
that cholov yisrael is a requirement, and that mistaken belief does not
constitute acceptance of a minhag. You are like someone who never knew that
he was converted as a child, and now has the option of cancelling that
conversion. Similarly, you could have simply walked away from the marriage
when you found out, but you did not know that you could do so; now that you
do know, we can annul that marriage."

Is it possible that this idea would not work? Is it possible that for
"mekach taus" to work, the wife has to walk out immediately, even if she is
unaware of this option? If so, then the effect is that "mekach taus" only
works in cases where the husband is so objectionable that the wife is
willing to be an agunah rather than stay with him. Can the threshold really
be that high?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Do THIS before eating carbs (every time)
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/530391732acff117230adst04vuc

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> I need to demonstate logically that olam haba (to speak Rambam;
> shamayim in Ramban-speak) isn't a physical location?
> 
> Pretty much every rishon has done that. Not just for G-d, but for
> mal'akhim and neshamos -- any thing that has no chomer. Yesodei
> haTorah pereq 2. Also, much of the Moreh cheileq 1. The idea of
> physical location without chomer would have been as unthinkable to
> the Rambam (or the Kuzari, or the Ramban...) as my own assumption
> that the suggestion wouldn't be on the table.

Yesodei haTorah 2:3 says that the mal'achim are creations which have form,
even though they do not have matter. This is consistent with my description
of radio waves and kedusha waves in my previous post. YT 2:8 stresses that
even the highest of the mal'achim are unable to fully comprehend their
Creator, because after all, they are mere creations.

In other words, just because something isn't physical, that does NOT mean it is outside of time.

> Fine, the experimental data is sufficient to make the point. Your
> GPS works because your time moves at different rates (relative to
> others') based on your velocity, acceleration and how much gravity
> you are subject to (relative to theirs).
> 
> The fact that there is no one universal clock for all physical
> processes is an experimental finding, regardless of the theory.
> And more data pours in to confirm this point.

This lack of a "universal clock" has been used to demonstrate simultaneity
is not absolute; depending on one's frame of reference, two events may or
may not have occurred at the same time. (More info at https://en
.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) To me, this is an
adequate proof -- presuming that relativity is correct -- that IF Hashem is
aware of all events past and future, THEN He must be outside of the
physical world and not subject to relativistic effects.

My if/then above presumes a basic point, namely that Hashem's awareness of
past and future in experiential, not informational. We've often suggested
that Hashem sees the universe as a 4D sculpture, seeing all moments in the
same glance. Such a view would perforce place Him outside of relativity.
But I've been presuming that when the not-yet-born sees the past and
future, it is merely informational - he has knowledge of past and future,
much as a navi does. But this does not place him outside of relativity. If
I were to give you a copy of tomorrow's newspaper, then I would be the one
who violated relativity, while you are merely the recipient of the
information. I submit that the not-yet-born is not a god, and cannot
possibly see the universe as a 4D sculpture the way Hashem does.

As I recall, when Adam Harishon was created, he too was able to see from
one end to the other. Perhaps this is what confused the mal'achim into
thinking that he was a god. I offer this post to suggest that even if he
did see from one end to the other, it was not in the same way that Hashem
sees it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

In the thread "Time for the Deceased (was: Why does Moshe use logical...", R' Micha Berger asked me:

> BTW, do you object when people deduce the Rambam's meaning by
> clarifying the point in Aristotle he is basing himself on? What
> if it's not a guess, but the Rambam informs you he is using Greek
> philosophy for this particular issue?

I'm glad you asked me this. It's only a tangent to the current discussion, but I think it's an important topic for Avodah, perhaps worthy of its own thread.

In my yeshiva days, I went through Yesodei Hatorah a couple of times,
though I admit it was much less deeply than you've learned it. I was always
deeply impressed by Rambam's logical arguments, and how they flowed from
propositions to conclusions. I accept that he mentioned greek philosophers,
but I never noticed it at the time. I did notice that Rambam made many
unsupported statements (for example, about the nature of mal'achim,
referenced above) and I always presumed that it was what he learned from
his rebbeim, who got it from theirs, who in turn got this Revealed Truth
from Moshe Rabeinu or some other navi.

It was only when I joined Avodah that I began hearing about things like
Rambam "basing himself on a point in Aristotle", and I am still extremely
uncomfortable with it, which is NOT to say that I reject it entirely. I do
realize that philosophy is an advanced field of study, and that I have no
right to reject a complicated idea simply because it hasn't been
dumbed-down sufficiently for me to follow it. For example, I have no
objection to using phrases like "block time" or "4D sculpture" or
"relativity" as a convenient shorthand for complicated ideas, as long as
we're careful not to give those ideas more authority than they deserve.

And that's why, when discussing ideas which are beyond any sort of
empirical observation, I had been somewhat shocked to hear suggestions that
(for example) the Rambam might even bother listening to what Aristotle had
to say about angels. I guess I have to accept that this was indeed the
science of his day; it would be just as reasonable for Rambam to consider
Aristotle's conclusions, as for today's gedolim to consider Einstein or
Hawking.

I accept Rambam's explanation of Hashem's unity and incorporeality because
it is so logical and so consistent with the Sh'ma. If it was originally
formulated by Plato or Aristo or whoever, then I am grateful for their help
in explaining to to me, but they are not authoritative in any sense, and
I'm ready to drop it in a moment, just as we'd drop references to
relativity if a better theory would come up.

And that's why I objected to the statement that

> And both REED and Kant agree that time's arrow is phenomenlogical,

Tell me what Rav Dessler says about time's arrow, but I don't care what Kant says.

But it turns out that you ARE telling me what *Rav Dessler* says about time's arrow:

> But REED is tapping into Kant! He mentions in one of his maamarim
> on time not this one, in late cheileq 1) that he is basing himself
> on a German philosopher, and R Aryeh Carmell (the meivi la'or)
> names Kant specificly.

So now I am going to back off a bit, because even if I have the chutzpah to
challenge my learned friend R' Micha Berger, I am much more reluctant to
challenge Rav Dessler. And that's why I'm starting this new thread, to
explore these ideas.

Perhaps my question can be phrased like this: On what basis can we have a
Torah discussion about the nature of mal'achim, or the experiences of the
not-yet-born? Are we limited solely to what get from Torah Sheb'ksav and
Torah Sheb'al Peh, or is there something that the scientists and
philosophers can offer? And if so, where do they get it, and why might we
believe it?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Do THIS before eating carbs (every time)
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/53036bc81dfdf6bc7185ast03vuc

R' Sault Guberman sent me the following to share with the chevrah.

R' Yitchok Zirkind, one time member of the Crown Heights Beis Din, long
time member of Avodah, a frequent poseiq's poseiq, who was involved in
numerous learning contests for children, was niftar 2 years ago.

R' Saul Guberman sent me the following:
    I received a message from his daughter that his yahrzeit is today
    and it would be greatly appreciated by the family to do something
    small or large
    L'Iluy Nishmas
    HaRav Yitzchok A"H ben HaRav Eliezer Tzvi Zev Shlita

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

RHS has a recent talk in Bet Shemesh on Daas Torah on non-halachic issues
It is about a 1 hour shiur followed by questions

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/807758/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachte
r/Da-as_Torah_-_What_Are_Its_Halachic_Parameters_In_Non_Halachic_Issues

1) His basic point is that everything should be asked of a posek including
who to marry.
Whom to vote for is a shaila

However the posek should be one "on the same wavelength" as the questioneer.
Obviously a MO Jew should not ask a Meah Shearim rav a daas torah question
and vice-versa

2) The posek can answer only if he knows all the facts. Just having the bot
in the shiur is not enough and certainly to know everything about the woman
Similarly a posek cant decide about rallies against Soviet Union without
consulting experts
RYBS spent an hour talking with a professor ecpert in Soviet affairs before
backing SSSJ with rallies.
RYBS explains that rabbis in the holocaust made wrong decisions because it
was a time of hester panim and no one knew the facts. Rav Leib Mallen and
Rav Zelig Epstein disagreed with Rav Chaim Ozer and ran away from Vilna.
When asked how they could disagree they answered it was before the time of
Daas Torah -). R Chaim Ozer said that there would never be a Jewish state.
People in the 1930s just couldnt conceive of a such an event.

3) One should ask only a posek with experience on answering questions. The
Steipler and Rav Schach were not poskim.

If I had been at the shiur I would have asked about the halacha that one
doesnt need to listen to one's parents about whom to marry. IMHO even if
the posek knows the man and woman very well no outsider can decide such a
question. It is well known that RYBS's parents were not thrilled at his
choice of a wife (no yichus).

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140218/ca70ce9c/attachment-0001.htm>

REli Turkel asked:

>If someone dies on 30 of Adar I when is the yahrzeit in an ordinary year.
A similar question applies to born on 30 Adar I and when is the bar mitzvah<

     In shul tonight (GRA shul in Sha'arei Chesed) there was a small
display of (mostly) self-published s'forim, one of which, by one Rav Tzvi
Cohen of B'nei B'rak, was a fat tome entitled "Shana M'uberes."
Therein, he cites two opinions about the bar-mitzva: (1) 1 Nissan,
attributed to the Steipeler.  It is not a written p'sak, but rather mipi
hash'mua. but he mentions the shomeia by name (one with which I am not
familiar);
and (2) 30 Shvat, quoting Minchas Yitzchak, Binyan Tzion (by the ba'al
Aruch laNeir), and Mishpatecha l'Ya'akov (by the son of the Arugas haBosem).

     Time did not permit me to peruse the yahrzeit question as thoroughly,
but, while there are two opinions, the consensus seems to be 30 Shvat.
 Included in that consensus is the Steipeler, who explains the difference
between yahrzeit and bar mitzva: YZ is the commemoration of a date, and the
date of decease was the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar.  BM, on the other
hand, takes place on the first day of the fourteenth year, and since the
birth took place after the 29th of Adar, the thirteenth year is not
complete until its 29th day of Adar has passed.  Of course, one could argue
that the first year was from 1 Adar II through 30 Shvat, and thus 30 Shvat
thirteen years later completes the thirteenth year, but the Steipeler
obviously feels that if he was born after 29 days in Adar, his thirteenth
year is incomplete until _its_ Adar 29 has passed.

EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140218/c1078509/attachment-0001.htm>

Interestingly - IIRC RHS's mentor RYBS did not ask anyone whether he should marry his wife.?

HM
?
Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 


Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/



On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:30 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
RHS has a recent talk in Bet Shemesh on Daas Torah on non-halachic issues
>It is about a 1 hour shiur followed by questions
>
>http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/807758/Rabbi_Hers
>hel_Schachter/Da-as_Torah_-_What_Are_Its_Halachic_Parameters_In_Non_Hal
>achic_Issues
>
>1) His basic point is that everything should be asked of a posek including
>who to marry.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140218/326b029b/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 32, 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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)