Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 12

Wed, 14 Jan 2009

• 1. Threats Against A Judge (Harvey Benton)
• 2. Re: Threats Against A Judge (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Answering "Amen" To Various Brakhoth (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: A Prayer During Operation Cast Lead (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 5. Re: Threats Against A Judge (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: Din Moser (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: 7MBNoach: Stricter or Less-Strict? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Threats against a Judge (Harvey Benton)
• 9. Re: Threats against a Judge (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Threats Against A Judge (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Dying al Kiddush Hashem (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Din Moser (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 13. Re: Din Moser (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: The importance of a woman's name (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 15. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (Richard Wolpoe)
• 16. maps (Eli Turkel)
• 17. Birchot Habanim and Negiah (David Cohen)
• 18. Re: Birchot Habanim and Negiah (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 19. Re: Din Moser (Yitzhak Grossman)

RZSero wrote:
That's an explicit lav of "lo taguru".? As the Sifri says, "perhaps you will
say I am afraid of so-and-so lest he kill my son, or burn my grain-stack,
or chop down my trees".? There's no question that one may not give a false
psak, and that this overrides pikuach nefesh...

HB: If this is the case, that one must give up his life for a Psak, then
why isn't it listed as one of the 3 things one is required to give up his
life for rather than violate?? KT, HB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090113/f30087bf/attachment-0001.htm>

Harvey Benton wrote:
> RZSero wrote:
>> That's an explicit lav of "lo taguru".  As the Sifri says, "perhaps you
>> will say I am afraid of so-and-so lest he kill my son, or burn my grain-
>> stack, or chop down my trees".  There's no question that one may not
>> give a false psak, and that this overrides pikuach nefesh...
> 
> HB: If this is the case, that one must give up his life for a Psak, then 
> why isn't it listed as one of the 3 things one is required to give up 
> his life for rather than violate?  KT, HB

Nor is kibush ha'aretz listed, and yet it's completely obvious that it does
override pikuach nefesh.  The same applies to lo taguru; by its nature it's
obvious that it requires mesirut nefesh.  The three listed exceptions are
those that don't require mesirut nefesh by their very natures, and indeed
bnai noach are *not* required to be moser nefesh for them, but Jews are.

-- 
Zev Sero                    A mathemetician is a device for turning coffee
z...@sero.name               into theorems.                   - Paul Erdos

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:12:30PM -0600, R Chanoch Bloom wrote:
: On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 05:29 -0600, R Jay F Shachter wrote:
: > It is regrettable that R' Pinxas Teitz is no longer alive to defend
: > himself...               A brakha can be recited in any language that
: > you understand.  The shliax tzibbur could have recited the entire
: > prayer service, except for birkath kohanim (which was probably not
: > done in R' Teitz's synagog), in English. Now, if you can fulfill your
: > obligation by listening to a brakha in English, assuming you
: > understand English and understand what is being said, then surely that
: > is no worse than listening to a brakha in bad Hebrew, assuming you
: > understand what is being said.

: I'm not sure where you get that it's OK to be shaliach tzibur if your
: pronunciation is bad. After all SA OC 53:12 says not to appoint a
: shaliach tzibbur who pronounces his alefs like they're ayins or
: vice-versa. RDYosef confirms in Halacha Berurah 53:24 that this hakpada
: is still relevant, unless there's nobody else qualified.

If it's Hebrew as per the local havarah, what makes it "bad"?

To put it another way... Say there are two guys in an Ashkenazi shul
who are pedantically inclined and pronounce a ches that is softer than a
chaf and each do their own notions of what was once the Ashkenazi ngayin
(the one that is only remembered by the /n/ in "Yankef"). Is the shul
supposed to only give the amud to these two gentlemen?

I raised the question of how to distinguish between accepted havarah
drift and error before. Ayin and alef is only one case. What about "sav"
and the Edot haMizrach who say "tav" even when refuyah? It clearly
reflects the limitations of local languages. What about a chataf patach
that is as long as a patach? "Yehiyeh" instead of "yihyeh"? The Askenazi
tendency to emphasize mil'eil instead of mil'ra? Which are "bad", and
which are simply "different"?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:06:29 -0500 I wrote:

> we burn a
> Sefer Torah written by a Min since Halachah assumes that it has
> certainly been written "Leshem Avodas Kochavim" (Rashi Gittin 45b s.v.
> yi'saref, Maggid Mishneh Tefillin 1:13, Taz YD 281:1 and Shach YD
> 281:1). Masorati are not ovdei avodah zarah any more than Muslims are.

Someone correctly pointed out to me off-list that my assumption that
the Halachah of 'yisaref' doesn't apply to a Sefer Torah written by a
non-Orthodox Jew, as long as he isn't an idol worshiper, is not quite
so clear.

1)  Although the Poskim I cited all mention AZ, Rambam doesn't.  He
simply writes (Yesodei Ha'Torah 6:8) "for he doesn't believe in the
holiness of the Name and he has merely written it believing it to be as
other things".  It is still not clear, though, that this would apply to
a believing Jew, even if he rejects some fundamental dogmas, such as
certain aspects of Torah Min Ha'Shamayim.

2)  Several Aharonim (Mahariz Hajes ibid., Gilyon Maharsha on SA ibid.,
Resp. Yehudah Ya'aleh YD 273) had an alternate text of the Rashi I
cited: "Min Yehudi.  she'aino ma'amin le'divrei Hazal".  As R. Leiter
notes in his Mi'Torasan Shel Rishonim, though, these Aharonim seem not
to have realized that this is clearly not authentic, but merely an
emendation for the censor.

3)  RMF (IM OH II:50) makes my original point, that according to Rashi
(the correct text, as we have it), the Halachah wouldn't apply to
"apikorsim such as Reform 'Rabbis', who still don't believe in AZ".  He
still suggests, however, that Rashi may accept Rambam's point that a ST
that they have written has no holiness because of the writer's lack of
acceptance of the Name's specialness, and that although Rashi does not
obligate one to burn it for that reason, one is still permitted to do
so, just as he may burn any ordinary object that has no holiness.  As
I've mentioned earlier, this may not apply to a non-Orthodox individual
who does believe in the Creator.

4)  See Ozar Me'forshei Ha'Talmud (Gittin ibid., column 1183) for a
discussion of these issues, from which I took these sources, and which
includes additional ones.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

Zev Sero wrote:
> Nor is kibush ha'aretz listed, and yet it's completely obvious that it 
> does
> override pikuach nefesh.
This may be true (it's a machloketh), but it's certainly not "completely 
obvious".  See Sefer haHinnuch #425, Minhath Hinnuch ad. loc. s.v. 
"v'chathav harav ham'haber" (#3 in the M'chon Yerushalayim edition).

David Riceman

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:05:19PM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
: Aren't the dins of rodef and moser different? ...

Looking at the Rambam, Hil' Choveil pereq 8...

In halakhah 1, the Rambam says there are two kinds of mesirah. It seems
that moseir bemamon chayav leshaleim, and that includes someone who causes
imprisonment (8:4). The other kind, a moseir beguf, /is/ logically a type
of rodeif.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Oneshim are stricter for benei Noach, though. So many more violations
are dinei nefashos. Sanhedrin 57a. 57b says there is no requirement of
hasra'ah, and eid echad, even a qarov, is sufficient. In terms of the
content of the issurim themselves...

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:17pm EST, Zev Sero wrote:
: Harvey Benton wrote:
:>But 1. We have the concept of Maalin Bakodesh ? and 2. Specifically with 
:>regards to Geirus, we say that if 2 sisters converted to Judaism, though 
:>they are technically permitted to the same husband in Judaism because of 
:>their new status, we don?t allow it, so that people should not say that 
:>the Sisters went from a higher standard (pre-Geirus) to a lower standard 
:>(post-Geirus).  It appears from this, that we hold Judaism to be of a 
:>higher standard in strictness than the 7MBN.

: On the contrary.  The basic halacha is that this is permitted; but in
: order to prevent the *perception* that they have gone down in kedusha,
: the rabbanan forbade it.  Without this later takanah, it would still
: be permitted....

But not because the 613 are more lenient. Rather, because a geir
keqatan hanolad dami. Before, no "keqatan hanolad". The laws of arayos
are /more/ strict; it's just here it wouldn't look that way, so they
enacted a taqanah.

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:41am GMT, Allan Engel wrote:
: There is an opinion that under certain circumstances, abortion would be
: muttar for Jews but not for non-Jews. The Mishna in Oholos that regards the
: mother's life as paramount over the unborn child applies only to Jews.

I recommend RHM's post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n028.shtml#05>
and <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n175.shtml#01> by
RMTorczyner.

In <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n174.shtml#02> RYGB suggests
the following possibility:
> I do not claiim to understand the theology of it, but let us
> free-associate: The Tzitz Eliezer, in his famous teshuva on Tay-Sachs
> abortions, notes that according toR' yaakov Emden harigas ubbarin is in
> the category of hotzo'as zera l'batala (before tey are viable). There
> is no issur of HZL by non-Jews, so perhaps it was necessary to go all
> the way up to Shefichas Damim instead.

He follows up to RMT's post in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n178.shtml#13>:
> I was negligent in myself not referring to the Igros Moshe's retort to
> the Tzitz Eliezer in which he claims that harigas ubarin is retzicha
> without a chiyuv misa; and I believe R' Chaim Brisker is of the same
> opinion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

CC: RHM, RMT, RYGB

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

RZSero wrote:
Nor is kibush ha'aretz listed, and yet it's completely obvious that it does
override pikuach nefesh.  The same applies to lo taguru; by its nature it's
obvious that it requires mesirut nefesh.  The three listed exceptions are
those that don't require mesirut nefesh by their very natures, and indeed
bnai noach are *not* required to be moser nefesh for them, but Jews are.

HB:? There are exceptions to kibush haaretz, such as being afraid, etc.
Perhaps there are exceptions here too; depending on precieved threat
levels, and the case being judged.? Does someone have to give up his life
for a 20 dollar judgement?? Is he allowed to pasken wrong, and then give
the agrieved party the 20 dollars back?? Or must the judge stand his ground
and give the correct psak no matter what?

Also there is an issue of putting OTHER lives in danger, e.g. his familys.?
Does his obligations to fullfill a mitzvah, to the letter of the law,
justify someone else possibly dying?? KT, HB

Harvey Benton wrote:
> RZSero wrote:
> Nor is kibush ha'aretz listed, and yet it's completely obvious that it
> does override pikuach nefesh.  The same applies to lo taguru; by its
> nature it's obvious that it requires mesirut nefesh.  The three listed
> exceptions are those that don't require mesirut nefesh by their very
> natures, and indeed bnai noach are *not* required to be moser nefesh
> for them, but Jews are.
> 
> HB:  There are exceptions to kibush haaretz, such as being afraid, etc.

Kibush ha'aretz is a milchemet mitzvah, and therefore nobody is exempted,
even a bride and groom.  But even in a milchemet reshut, the Torah says why
a coward is sent home, and it's not because he's in greater danger than
others, but because he will infect others with his fear.  He's sent home
for the same reason that he'd be sent home if he had infectious TB -- so as
to keep the other soldiers healthy.  (Which raises the question of why he's
*not* sent home in a milchemet mitzvah; perhaps in a milchemet mitzvah we're
assured that Hashem will protect us from this particular danger.)
 

> Perhaps there are exceptions here too; depending on precieved threat
> levels, and the case being judged.  Does someone have to give up his
> life for a 20 dollar judgement?  Is he allowed to pasken wrong, and
> then give the agrieved party the 20 dollars back?	Or must the judge
> stand his ground and give the correct psak no matter what?

On the contrary, a judge must treat a case of a prutah just like one of
10K dinar.  "Kakaton kagadol tishma'u".


> Also there is an issue of putting OTHER lives in danger, e.g. his
> familys.  Does his obligations to fullfill a mitzvah, to the letter of
> the law, justify someone else possibly dying?

The Sifri says explicitly "lest he kill my son".  The only question raised
by the poskim (as discussed in the article I linked to) is whether a judge
may recuse himself from the case, and not pasken at all.  Nobody even
suggests that he may give a false psak.


-- 
Zev Sero                    A mathemetician is a device for turning coffee
z...@sero.name               into theorems.                   - Paul Erdos

David Riceman wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> Nor is kibush ha'aretz listed, and yet it's completely obvious that it 
>> does
>> override pikuach nefesh.
> This may be true (it's a machloketh), but it's certainly not "completely 
> obvious".  See Sefer haHinnuch #425, Minhath Hinnuch ad. loc. s.v. 
> "v'chathav harav ham'haber" (#3 in the M'chon Yerushalayim edition).

I haven't got it handy to look at, but how can it not be obvious?  War,
by definition, endangers life.  When nobody died in the war against Midian
this was recorded as an astounding miracle; the implication is that in
every other war, including those of kibush ha'aretz, people were expected
to die.  A mitzvah to go to war necessarily implies a requirement to put
oneself in a danger which one would be allowed to break shabbos in order
to avoid.


-- 
Zev Sero                    A mathemetician is a device for turning coffee
z...@sero.name               into theorems.                   - Paul Erdos

Well, I think RARR wrapped up his discussion of the question in his
shiur on Dec 14
<http://www.yuto
rah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/730002/Rabbi_Aaron_Rakeffet-Rothkoff/2008-12-1
4_The_Chatam_Sofer_solves_our_problem>
or <http://kitzur.com/kitzur.com/crz2>.

In it, he brings a teshuvah of the Chasam Sofer in which the CS calls
someone killed on the road a "qadosh". Similar to the case of the
yeshiva boy R' Shach called a qadosh.

But the maqor RYBS found for him wasn't so much grounds for calling a
person killed for being Jewish without being given a choice an "eved
Hashem". Which RARR argued justified calling them qadosh. (Eved Hashem,
we noted on list, is a rare and previous compliment. See RJJB's summary
of RMBroyde's article in Hakirah III
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n114.shtml#09>.) See the bottom
of Sanhedrin 47a, turning onto amud b.

Tehillim 79:2 reads
    Nasenu es nivlas avodekha
    ma'akhal le'of-hashamayim
    besar chasidekha
    lachayso-aretz.

The gemara says that "chasidekha" are those who lived as chassidim,
but "avodekha" are those who acheived atonement by being killed against
halakhah.


This whole discussion we had back in early Dec, as well as while listening
to RARR's shiurim, I was waiting for someone to further develop a chiluq
one person mentioned in passing (a month later, I'm having a hjard time
finding who). Since I think I reached the point where RARR is changing
topic, I'll post it now.

The whole discussion was about who is called "qadosh", and the sources
were all about the dinim of dying al qiddush Hashem. Those are different
things. Here is my suggestion for why someone would be a qadosh even if
not for dying al qiddush Hashem.

Dying al qiddush H' means the person is serving as a gavra, a nosei,
who chooses leqadeish sheim Shamayim. However, a devar mitzvah and
a davar shebiqdushah are also qadosh, not as gavra but as cheftza,
the object by which the qedushah is made manifest. A person who isn't
given a choice isn't a nosei, but is he any less than another nisa?
I would argue that even without dying al qiddush Hashem, he

Would someone who was killed for being a Jew have any less grounds for
being qadosh than my tefillin?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: Kitzur.com is much like tinyurl, but bringing them traffic might in
a small way help a Jewish and Israeli business.

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:56:35 -0500
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:05:19PM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
> : Aren't the dins of rodef and moser different? ...
> 
> Looking at the Rambam, Hil' Choveil pereq 8...
> 
> In halakhah 1, the Rambam says there are two kinds of mesirah. It seems
> that moseir bemamon chayav leshaleim, and that includes someone who causes
> imprisonment (8:4). The other kind, a moseir beguf, /is/ logically a type
> of rodeif.

No.  Rambam (Hovel 8:10) and SA (HM 388:10) explicitly state that even
a moser of "mamon kal" is a rodef; it is a mizvah to kill him; and
"kol ha'kodem le'hargo zachah".

Incidentally, they also state there that this Halachah applies even
today, even though we don't judge dinei ne'fashos, answering a question
raised earlier in this thread.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

Yitzhak Grossman wrote:

> Incidentally, they also state there that this Halachah applies even
> today, even though we don't judge dinei ne'fashos, answering a question
> raised earlier in this thread.

This follows from the fact that it doesn't depend on a BD.  The reason
we don't have dinei nefashot today is because we haven't got a BD.  Since
the killing of a rodef or moser is not given over to BD but is in the
hands of every person, it follows that there's no reason it should have
gone away.  Further, it is logically obvious that a rodef must be killed
in all ages and by whomever has a clear shot; it's not so obvious that the
same applies to a moser, but halacha treats moser as a kind of rodef, so
the same criteria apply.  Nevertheless, at least some anecdotal evidence
from the USSR and from WW2 suggests that it was customary to convene a
BD of 23, when possible.

-- 
Zev Sero                    A mathemetician is a device for turning coffee
z...@sero.name               into theorems.                   - Paul Erdos

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:28:29 +0200
"Shoshana L. Boublil" <toram...@bezeqint.net> wrote:

> Twice in the course of Bereishit, Hashem seems to make a fuss about a woman's name.
> 
> The first time is Chava.  For she is Eim Kol Chai. She is not a
> cipher. She is the mother of all who live. For a  book known for its
> brevity, this is a long sentence.

Oh, this sort of thing always goes both ways; Ralbag's first
interpretation of the verse (he subsequently proposes a rather less
exceptionable one) is basically that women are subhuman:

"And Adam named his wife Havah, when he realized the weakness of her
intellect, i.e., that the degree of her intellect is not much superior
to that of other living creatures, although she does have an
intellect.  For most of her function is indeed prepared for her in
bodily things, due to the weakness of her intellect, and for her
function of serving the man, and it is therefore unlikely that she will
achieve completeness of the intellect, but she is still more honored
than [the other living creatures], and they are all for her service."

Commentary to the Torah, Bereishis 3:20

[The exegetical problem that Ralbag is addressing here is one which
concerned many of the Rishonim, that 'Aim kol hai' does not
semantically seem limited to humans.]

Note that as the Briskers say: "ich zog nor vos shtait"; I am merely
stating Ralbag's view, not endorsing it. The larger point here is the
remarkable malleability that the Bible has demonstrated, often
functioning as a mirror of the views of its exegetes.  RnSB is
something of a feminist; she looks at the text and derives from it
feminist, woman-friendly messages. Ralbag is emphatically *not* a
feminist; he looks at the text and sees, well, something rather
different ...

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

>
> How are we supposed to know what is a valid practice, and what is a Minhag
> Shtus?  Do we only find out about a Minhag's validity after a 100 years of
> its use??
>
> Good Shabbas and Go Israel!!
>
>
>
>
Minhaggim shoud be scrutnized,  and so should texts.  Just because we have a
textual source for fasting on 10th of Teves were it fto fall on Shabbas does
not mean that this is "good  halacha" or in any way normative.

Minhaggim that have stood the text of time at least can point to peer review
of sorts.  Any minhag that is "shtus" would have been protested.

For exmaple there is a VERY widespread Minhag of chatting in shul.  But we
note that chachamim and G'dolim in MANY generations have protested this
highly popular Minhag.  So the fact that it has a widespread mimetic basis
does not prove anything.

OTOH there are other minhaggim which have not aroused protest.  The
Kabblists of Tsefat started the Minhag of Kabbals Shabbos, but I am unware
of any siginificant protest.  I AM awre that some communites did not
institute Kabbals Shabbos until relatively recently, but I am not aware of
any serious oppostion to its imposition.

The larger issue of ANCIENT is a bit different.  That is because if a Minhag
was REALLY old enough it might go back to late Talmudic times or Ga'onic
times. That would lead one who is traditional to assign a higher-level of
"authority" to such a minhag. But that ONLY works if the Minhag is not
highly problematic and/or seems to have been widely accepted etc.  At a
certain time "al titosh toras imecha" sets in.

As I've posted before, often a minhag is merely a mimetic PROOF or an ealier
p'sak.  Lemashal: Take Chezkas Habattim. It does not prove a sale in and of
itself, but in the absence of a written shtar the Chazak works. Similarly if
a community has a specifc practice and it cannot point to a specific doument
[e.g a Teshuva] the mimetic Minhag is like a Chezkas Habattim, a form of
testimony to a p'sak whose origin is lost.

But remember, Chezkas habattim does NOT work in the case of mach'ah.  So if
when a Minhag starts out with many protesters then it SHOULD be scrutinized.
-- 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards,
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090114/7deb8e3d/attachment-0001.htm>

<<You often see Rashi explaining that this or that city or mountain or plain
is north of this or east of that, based on pesukim.  You can tell that he  had
to figure out the geography of E'Y (and of Egypt and Bavel) by working it  out
from Tanach.  It's possible that he did have maps but likely that  he did not.>>

Maps in the modern sense of the word did not exist in Rashi's day (see
for example
the Medeba map). Hence, as Zev points out Amoraim and certainly Rishonim
made mistakes in the geography of Israel. As Toby points out Rashi's knowledge
of geography is based on Tanach and not from direct knowledge


-- 
Eli Turkel

I do not want to again bring up the topic of negiah and derech chiba which
has been discussed many times. However, i am looking for sources on its
application to relations by marriage, e.g. son-in-law and mother-in-law or
daughter-in-law and father-in-law.

A specific example. In a home on friday night, where the father's minhag is
to give the birchat habanim and banot by placing a hand (or both hands) on
the head of the child, can he do so with his daughter-in-law? I could not
find sources. Any help or ideas?

David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090114/e72cf019/attachment-0001.htm>

R' David I. Cohen:
A specific example. In a home on friday night, where the father's minhag is
to give the birchat habanim and banot by placing a hand (or both hands) on
the head of the child, can he do so with his daughter-in-law? I could not
find sources. Any help or ideas?
------------



KT,
MYG

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:52:55 -0500 I wrote:

> No.  Rambam (Hovel 8:10) and SA (HM 388:10) explicitly state that even
> a moser of "mamon kal" is a rodef; it is a mizvah to kill him; and
> "kol ha'kodem le'hargo zachah".
> 
> Incidentally, they also state there that this Halachah applies even
> today, even though we don't judge dinei ne'fashos, answering a question
> raised earlier in this thread.

While this is technically correct, I should have noted that as a matter
of actual Halachah, one who is "moser mammon kal" in contemporary
times might not have the status of rodef, since the assumption of the
Poskim that any mesirah has the potential to lead to the (unjust) death
of the nimsar, which is the basis for the aforementioned Halachah, may
no longer hold. For an excellent survey of the literature on this and
related points, see section III of R. Broyde's classic, comprehensive
article on Mesirah, a version of which is available here:

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/mesiralaw2.html

"III. Informing on People When Government is Committed to Procedural
Justice: Five Opinions of Contemporary Decisors

How do the halachic rules of informing apply to a just government of
laws -- with non-discriminatory laws properly enforced by police who
obeys the laws, and who punish people in accordance with its laws -- is
the question this section will address."

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 12
**************************************

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..."