Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 052

Friday, September 18 1998

• Kaddish Sh'l'm
• RE: Aloi ReGel
• Re: More on Sheva Berachot
• Aliyah leRegel
• The Chasam Sofer Does *Not* Say That!
• Re: Methodology of Psak, was Avodah V1 #50
• Re: More on Sheva Berachot
• Re: More on Sheva Berachot
• Re: Kaddish Sh'l'm
• The Chassam Sofer *Does* Say That & Methodology of Psak
• Moavi v'lo Moavis
• RE: Moavi v'lo Moavis
• Re: More on Sheva Berachot
• R: The Chassam Sofer *Does* Say That & Methodology of Psak
• Re: Yeridas HaDoros
• Re: Moav v'lo Moavis
• Re: Disputing previous generations and the Conservaitve Movement.
• Moavi v'lo moavit
• Re: Avodah V1 #51 Churban and Sanhedrin
• RE: Moavi v'lo moavit

>1- I noticed yesterday that by changing the nekudos, one can read 
>"Kaddish Shaleim" as "Kaddish Shalam". Requests for peace, which is
shalam in Aramaic, is the jist of what's added to Chatzi Kaddish to make
Kaddish Shaleim.  ("Yehei sh'lamah rabba", "Oseh shalom")
>Perhaps the kaddish got its name not in contrast to Chatzi Kaddish, but
>thematically, in similar style to the name of "Kaddish D'Rabbanan".
	Why the change from "shlama" to "shalam"?  Also,  why is only Kaddish
with Tiskabel called Kaddish Sh'l'm' and not Kaddish Yasom, which has the
same yehei shlama raba and oseh shalom?

Gershon

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Thanks for mentioning the point about Simcha - eating the Korbon Shalomim. 
That woman or man have the Mitzvah of women eating Shalomim in the Bais
HaMikdosh.

I have a few problems with this;
        1) Does this mean that the whole family including nursing mothers
went to Yerushaliem for all the Yomim Tovim?
        2) If there is a Mitzvah of eating Shalomim every day in the Bais
Hamikdosh the men will have to separate from their wives in order not to
have a problem of Tavul Yom, for the whole Yom Tov.
        3) What Simcha is there only eating meat but not being allowed
normal martial relationships the whole Yom Tov?

Kol Tuv

M Mendel

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:37:18 -0400
From: cbrown@bestware.com
Subject: RE: Aloi ReGel

Me:>>>It appears that our Yomim Tovim are NOT family festivals. Rather that
men and women celebrated the festival in their own and separate ways. The
men going to Yerushaliem and the women staying at home with the children.
Even the men living in Jerushaliem would have to separate from their wives
in order to be able to enter the Bais Hamikdosh BeKadoshou. And not have
the problem of a Tavul Yom entering the Azura.<<<

Your Reply:If one assumes the mitzva of simcha applies to women, or even if
one
assumes the mitzva is solely the man's obligation to be mesameach (see
Sha'agas Arye), the thrust remains the same - reglaim ARE family festivals,
e.g.a simple reading of Rama in Hil Sukka is that a man is patur from
sleeping in the sukkah because he will be alone without his wife! The tevul
yom problem must be considered, but that alone does not suffice to draw the
conclusion you made.

I still haven't seen the question of what kind of b'rachos comprise sheva
b'rachos.

I would think this is an important factor as to whether and when the concept
of b'rachah livatalah is applicable. For example, if SB are like those of
sh'monah eisrei, perhaps extra or repeated b'rachos would follow the rules of
tephillas nidavah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5925 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 18-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

> From: Mendel <Moled@compuserve.com>
> Subject: RE: Aloi ReGel
> It appears that our Yomim Tovim are NOT family festivals. Rather that men
> and women celebrated the festival in their own and separate ways. The men
> going to Yerushaliem and the women staying at home with the children. Even
> the men living in Jerushaliem would have to separate from their wives in
> order to be able to enter the Bais Hamikdosh BeKadoshou. And not have the
> problem of a Tavul Yom entering the Azura.

Take a look at Chagigah 6. Women and children came along, too, on the trip
to Yerushalayim.
Kesivah vaChasimah Tovah, Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HaMakor  http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor  Torah Reference Library
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI: http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless I am looking at the wrong Chasam Sofer (Kesuvos, Chiddushim mishnas
Taksab, 11a d"h Elah Lefi Zeh), rereading the CS, he does not permit women
to serve as Ponim Chadashos - he explicitly means to say the "BeMakheilos"
precludes this. This was not obvious until I read the paragraph from
beginning to end (which, I did, because I could not believe the CS would
ignore Rishonim in ruling as such).

If there is another CS, please let me know.

If not, then I have a favor to ask of someone. Someone, I am not sure who,
forwarded our discussion to another person, off list, who mocked the Sova
Semachos for not quoting this CS. If there is no other CS, that person was
out of line, and, I would appreciate the group member who forwarded our
conversation to that person notifying him of such.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

And such a theory which would include Shabbos but exclude women is...
(and I apologize if the theeory was already advanced and I missed it).

Isn't it possible the opinion of Ritva is a function of the stautus of
women in the days of the Rishonim?  In other words, it is not a ptur of
women qua being a women, but a ptur of a women not enhancing simcha because
of her lesser role in social circles.  Perhaps that is the reason other
rishonim did not address the issue; it was simply inconceivable in 12th
century France/Germany for a women to have a public presence that would
impact a social gathering to the extent necessary to constitute ribbuy
simcha.  Is it a stretch to say times have changed...?  I'm speculating.

Kesiva V'chasima tova to everyone!
-CB

That would be true, were the Nimmukei Yosef and Ritva not both to have
cited the Tosafos about Shabbos, approved of it, and then gone on to
disqualify women nonetheless! Thus, you are forced to find according to
these Rishonim a theory that explains the internal consistency of sevara
involved, which would eliminate, seemingly, any extrapolation l'kulla on
the basis of the leniency of Shabbos.

Only the Shemoneh Esrei's - that correspond to Korbonos have potential to
be Tefillos Nedava, if I am not mistaken. Not other berachos.

YGB


On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Micha Berger wrote:

> I still haven't seen the question of what kind of b'rachos comprise sheva
> b'rachos.
> 
> I would think this is an important factor as to whether and when the concept
> of b'rachah livatalah is applicable. For example, if SB are like those of
> sh'monah eisrei, perhaps extra or repeated b'rachos would follow the rules of
> tephillas nidavah.
> 
> -mi
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5925 days!
> micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 18-Sep-98)
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
> http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

R' YGB wrote:
> Only the Shemoneh Esrei's - that correspond to Korbonos have potential to
> be Tefillos Nedava, if I am not mistaken. Not other berachos.

Once again, I didn't take the time (or enough words) to explain myself clearly.
I wasn't offering the idea of extra sheva b'rachos qua tephillas nidavah.

Rather, there's some reason why a tephillas nedavah isn't a b'rachah
livatalah. It seems to imply that proper usage of the b'rachos isn't
necessarily "just enough to fulfil the chiyuv", and therefore extra
recitations aren't necessarily "batalah".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5925 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 18-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Me:
>                                       Requests for peace, which is
>shalam in Aramaic, is the jist of what's added to Chatzi Kaddish to make
>Kaddish Shaleim.  ("Yehei sh'lamah rabba", "Oseh shalom")

Gershon Dubin writes:
: 	Why the change from "shlama" to "shalam"?  Also,  why is only Kaddish
: with Tiskabel called Kaddish Sh'l'm' and not Kaddish Yasom, which has the
: same yehei shlama raba and oseh shalom?

The gender change makes sense since the word "kaddish" is masculine.

Names being what they are, Kaddish Yasom's most distinguishing feature is
still who says it, and not the content. You couldn't expect it to be named
thematically.

-mi

PS: I tried to make it clear I thought this was a "cute vort", that was NOT
aimted at being historically accurate. Just a possible kavvanah post-facto.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5925 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 18-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

An alert reader called me and referred me to another Chassam Sofer, in
Kesuvos, on 7a, in a the later edition, from Tak'ag, where he says
explicitly as a davar pashut that women and children *do* count as panim
chadashos, so, I humbly recant. After having seen that Chassam Sofer and
going back again to Taksab, I see that, in fact, the earlier CS, reread
*again*, is arguing on the Hafla'a on how to use "Makheilos", and does not
himself use it for "Panim Chadashos."

So, I am stuck with my peli'ah on the CS's disregard of the Rishonim here.

On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 cbrown@bestware.com wrote:  > And such a theory which
would include Shabbos but exclude women is...  > (and I apologize if the
theeory was already advanced and I missed it).

You are a lamdan. Figure one out. The reason you gave, to say the least,
is extremely distasteful.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

How often did Moavios convert to Yiddishkeit? Had it ever happened before Rus?
And if it did, must we assume the halachah p'sukah had reached Boaz and his
contemporaries.

Could have been that the prohibition against Moavios was presumed by the hamon
am, but since it had to have come up so rarely, there was no established
halachah (or at least none known) for Boaz to rely on.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5925 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 18-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

whoever said that a moavi can't convert? he just can't marry a jew. (see the
rashis on lo yavo mamzer etc. that lo yavo means lo yisa yisraelis).

AP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: micha@aishdas.org [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 10:42 AM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Moavi v'lo Moavis
> 
> 
> How often did Moavios convert to Yiddishkeit? Had it ever 
> happened before Rus?
> And if it did, must we assume the halachah p'sukah had 
> reached Boaz and his
> contemporaries.
> 
> Could have been that the prohibition against Moavios was 
> presumed by the hamon
> am, but since it had to have come up so rarely, there was no 
> established
> halachah (or at least none known) for Boaz to rely on.
> 
> -mi
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by 
> Syria 5925 days!
> micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 18-Sep-98)
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
> http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
> 

It is distateful for me to disagree with my Rebbe, but I thought that 
only Shemoneh Esrei of Mariv is Tefilla Nedava the other SE's are 
chiyuvim.
Shabbat Shalom and Birchas ketiva vechatima tova

> 
> Only the Shemoneh Esrei's - that correspond to Korbonos have potential to
> be Tefillos Nedava, if I am not mistaken. Not other berachos.

In your  curt response do you mean: (a) you find assuming that the rishonim
dealt with their historial realia distasteful (b) the assumption that women
had inferior status in the middle ages distasteful  (c) the notion that
women's status has changed since the middle ages distasteful?

Obviously I think you are incorrect whichever you choose, but I just want
to be sure where you stand.  If there is some ptur of a women qua being a
woman, such as by edus, I would agree with you wholeheartedly.  However, if
the ptur is sociological - i.e. the geder hadin is simcha and the rishonim
simply disqulaified women bec. their presence at a public gathering was on
the sidelines, then I don't see why you reject the notion.  A theoretical
question: would the presence of an eved constitute panim chadashot, e.g.
lets say the famous Tevi was at R' Gamliel's sheva berachot?  Wouldn't you
argue that a slave does not constitute a significant person viz. the din of
panim chadashot?  And isn't is reasonable to say that it is the same
thinking that lead to the exclusion of women?  And since Chazal laid no
hard and fast rules here but simply provided a broad geder of panim
chadashot/simcha we are free to expand that definition should sociological
notions change, much like many women work despite the Rambam writing that
leaving the home is a breach of tzniyut, or women doing haseiba on Pesach
as an isha chashuva though the gemara gives a ptur?

Defense rests.

-CB

-CB



          You are a lamdan. Figure one out. The reason you gave, to say the
          least,
          is extremely distasteful.

The recent discussion brought a number of thoughts to mind:

1- Is the "midgets on giants" a convergant series? IOW, does the amount of
yeridah over time mean that there's a maximum "height" we'll reach (in the
limit), or is there no limit? (And if there is a limit, would computing it be
in violation of "lachashov es hakeitz"?)

2- It would appear that yeridas hadoros is only a statistical tendency of how
lima'aseh things are working out. It tells us where the middle of the bell
curve is moving, and does not rule out the possibility of a "Rav tana hu
upalig" residing standard deviations above that mean.

3- Halachah k'basrai seems to be an intra-era rule. Halachic authority plotted
over time would then make a saw-tooth graph, slowly increasing until a big
plummet, then slowly increasing again, but never really reaching the bottom of
the previous wave. (Best if viewed with a fixed-width font.)

             /|
            / |
           /  |
              |  /|
              | / |
              |/  |   
                  |  /|
                  | / |
                  |/  |

4- What causes these plummets in authority? It would appear IMHO to be not
merely a historical disruption, but also the acceptance by the k'lal of an
authoritative text. With this supposition, the willingness of rishonim to
argue with gaonim, or tannaim with members of the zugos is fully understandable
-- there is no text demarking the end of those eras. While historically they
are different tekufos, halachically they aren't.

So far we've had three such texts: the mishnah, the bavli, and the shulchan
aruch with mappa. I'd therefore define the Beis Yoseph and the Rama as the
transition people for Sepharad and Ashkenaz, respectively.

If someone could bring a counter-proof, where someone who is an acharon by my
definition is willing to argue with a rishon (aside from the known exceptions
to the general yeridas hadoros) please let me know.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5925 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 18-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Me:
> How often did Moavios convert to Yiddishkeit? Had it ever 
> happened before Rus?

To which Avraham Pechman responded:
: whoever said that a moavi can't convert? he just can't marry a jew. (see the
: rashis on lo yavo mamzer etc. that lo yavo means lo yisa yisraelis).

Sorry, I took it for granted that there was nearly a 1-to-1 between Moavim who
convert and those who intend to marry Jewish women. Those who don't convert
certainly may not marry into the people.

I was therefore arguing that marriage between a giores Moaviah and a Jew is
rare because the existance of gioros Moavios is uncommon.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5925 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 18-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

cbrown@bestware.com wrote:

 
> Chazal could not have *changed* the halacha to allow a Moavit, because the
> halacha had never been fixed as prohibiting it!  What Chazal did was apply
> a new derasha to resolve an old issue that had been a matter of debate.
> Although the license to darshen and perhaps some of the rules (acc. to some
> Rishonim) was given miSinai, it is difficult to assume all derashos were
> known miSinai. 

> Obviously at some point in history the rules of derush as well as our right
> to legislate through dersuh was lost.  The dangers from the Conservative
> movement lay elsewhere.
> 
> -CB

I never inteded to say that ALL drashos were given at Sinai, Just some 
derashos. It is not illogical to say that a drasha like "Moavi v'lo 
Moavit" was given at Sinai.  Certainly Chazal had "permission" to 
darshan on their own and whoever came up with the best "drasha" won the 
"Halacha" contest, in that the gemmorah would paskin like him, barring 
that there were no psukim to contradict him.  I am positing that the 
Halacha of Lo Yovo LaKahal by Moav and the drasha applying it only to 
men was already known at that time.  Rashi is only informing us of that. 
I will admit that it is possible that the drasha was made at that point 
in time (Boaz's point in time), but It doesn't seem to flow from the 
narritive of sefer Rus (not that I am such an expert in Navi).  Was the 
drasha halacha l'moshe misinai or was it a drasha that was made 
afterwards (before Boaz, though).  I don't know.  But I believe 
conceptually that some drashos were given at Sinai and some were 
chidushim by Chazal.

As to the later post of YGB  questioning the dangers of Conservative 
Judaism:

YGB writes:

>What danger?

From a movement that has no longer has *any* scholarship to ground it 
>and
>follows the winds of current morality in determining its stances?

>The days of danger from the Conservative movement have passed, 
>eternally,
>into history.

>YGB



Those dangers certainly do exist! Perhaps their "scholarship" has 
declined in recent years but their influence has incresed,. I was 
recently at a wedding of a relative where half of the sheva brachos 
under the chupa were made by women.  the Eidi kedushin were 2 men and 2 
women, all apointed by the Chasan (and Kallah).  Both bride and groom 
are members of the conservative movement, one a "musmach" of JTS and the 
other a candidate for smicha (the bride).  It was a double ring ceremony 
(she said "Harei Atah Mekudash li Kedat Moshe VeIsrael") The Mesader 
Kedushin was the Vice Chancellor of JTS. The kesuvah was Pasul... 5 
eidim signatories: 2 men, 3 women. Many of the freinds of the chasan and 
kalah,who are, also, either musmachim of JTS or candidates for smicha 
themselves) are in Chinuch and are teaching their brand of judaism in 
community schools in small towns that have all three "branches" of 
Judaism attending. Traditional concepts of modesty in dress and 
activities... non existant, even in the bride. (There was social dancing 
on the part of all the unmaried JTS students.)

These are serious and sincere  people teaching their members the ways of 
"Authentic Torah Judaism" (according to them).  They "Darshaned" that 
women can be eidim. Their Gitin are pasul. Their children of remarriages 
are mamzerim, possibly.

The Conservative movement used to be  a comfortable place for an 
unaffiliated jew to go and only a very few of the leadership were 
corrupted and corrupting.  But, with the advent of the Solomon Schechter 
school system, more and more of the unobservant conservative layman are 
sending their children to these dayschools. and a lot of them are 
becoming "Frum" conservative Jews.  They all walk around with yarmukees 
and you cant ebven tell them apart from the orthodox. They interact and 
intermingle with orthodox and its hard to tell who's who without a 
scorecard.  I am told that this is especially true on the upper west 
side of New York. And what about all the pressure on Israel by the 
conservative movement ot recognize their converts?

Need I go on?  I think the danger are very real.

HM

Harry Maryles wrote:

<<<David Glasner wrote:

>  Moreover, we do know of
> instances in which new interpretations of p'sukim were advanced to
> change the accepted halachah.  The one that comes to mind
immediately
> is "Moavi v'lo Moavit" to allow Boaz to marry Ruth.  I think that it would
be
> quite a stretch to argue that the halachah had not previously been to
> prohibit marriage to a Moabite woman and that the drasha in question
> was not newly advanced to support a change in the halachah.  There
> may be other examples, but I would have to look at the Dor Revi'i to find
> them.

I don't know why you feel that this is such a stretch in drush.  It has 
always seemed like quite a plausable interpretation of the pasuk to me. 
Furthermore, this implies that, in order to prevent Boaz from violating 
a clear D'oraisa, Chazal changed a halacha post facto to allow Boaz a 
Moabitess!  If anything, THAT is the stretch and a somewhat ludicrous 
one at that. Obviously, this drasha ("Moavi v'lo Moavit")must have been 
Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai and known all along.>>>


I think that it's a stretch because we don't make the exact same drashah
to permit marriage to a mamzeret or to a Mitzrit.  The strict logic either
works or it doesn't.  Your suggestion that my view puts Chazal in a
pejorative light is understandable.  Indeed, I unintentionally supported
such an implication by writing "to allow Boaz to marry Ruth."  But look at
it another way.  Perhaps Chazal were so moved by the nobility of Ruth's
character, her messirat nefesh for her mother-in-law and her love for
K'lal Yisrael that they did not want to her to remain an agunah and
wanted  to enable her full assimilation into the nation.  Emunas
Chachamim requires one to believe that if Chazal decided to change the
halachah their intention was l'shem shamayim, not to curry favor with
Boaz.  And what was Boaz's motivation in seeking to marry Ruth, if not
l'shem shamayim?  Moreover, the Rambam's definition (intro to Zeraim) of
halachah l'Moshe miSinai (which I grant is not unproblematic) specifically
excludes any textual derivation of the type Moavi v'lo Moavit.  Now you
might say that the drasha was one of those textual drashot like "pri etz
hadar, kapot temarim" that the Rambam believes was given mipi
haShemua and was never controversial.  But apparently "Moavi v'lo
Moavit" was controversial because David's legitimacy was in fact
challenged based on his Moabite ancestry.  If so, the drashah, according
to the Rambam, was not mipi ha-Shemuah.

<<<One of the dangers in accepting that later generations are allowed to 
change interpretations in halacha is that the Conservative movement is 
claiming the ability to do exactly that.>>>

Sorry, but your quarrel is with the Rambam.  Look it up, Mamrim 2:1. 
Nevertheless, I don't see why you should think that accepting that the
halachah could be changed by the Beit Din haGadol would put you on a
slippery slope leading straight to JTS.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

     Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:28:31 -0400 (EDT) 
     From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) 
     Subject: Re: Writing the Mishna
     
     >  Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> expressed uncertainty about the 
     >  power
     >of Sanhedrin outside of the lishkas hagazis.
     
     .
     
     re: macholokos and the Sanhedrin.
     
     Again based upon Rabbi Dr. MS Feldblum based upon the Rambam...
     
     While their was an active Sanhedrin in the Lishko,
     there were machlokosim - they were settled in the Sanhedrin.  (based 
     upon the Rambam that the Beis Din Hagadol was the IKKAR Torah she'bal 
     Peh.)
     
     The churban increased machlokoes becasue the issues were no longer 
     consistenly resolved.
     
     (The case of Semicho for a korbon is a special case)
     
     Some of this is discussed in the Iggeres deRabbeinu Sheriro Gaon.
     
     So the fallout of the churban with regard to halocho included:
     
     1) An increase in mahclokes  (i.e. disputes reamiend unresolved)
     
     2) Halocho lost a certain elasticity and became much more fixed and 
     bassed upon precedent - eventually being codified.
     
     3) The central authority decayed and eventually evaporated.  Eretz 
     Yisreol lost primacy to Bovel.
     
     Shono Tovo
     Rich Wolpoe
     

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Glasner [mailto:DGLASNER@FTC.GOV]
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 2:15 PM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Moavi v'lo moavit
> 
> 
> ...I think that it's a stretch because we don't make the exact 
> same drashah
> to permit marriage to a mamzeret or to a Mitzrit.  The strict 
> logic either
> works or it doesn't...
> 

The exclusion of moavis is not because of the masculine "moavi". It's
because of the next pasuk - "since they did not provide you with bread and
water" - which the gemara (yevamos and elsewhere) darshans that the issur of
moavi is only on those who should have been hospitable, excluding women who
just don't (didn't) do that. Such logic certainly does not apply to mamzeret
or mitzrit.

AP

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]