Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 137

Thu, 16 Jul 2009

• 1. Re: Categorical imperative (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: Categorical imperative (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 3. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Meir Shinnar)
• 4. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Meir Shinnar)
• 5. shabbas/yom tov invites... (harveyben...@yahoo.com)
• 6. Re: shabbas/yom tov invites... (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: Why is Shul Worship Inherently Attractive (Chana Luntz)
• 12. kinos (M Cohen)
• 13. Re: Categorical imperative (David Riceman)
• 14. best v. worst; (harveyben...@yahoo.com)
• 15. Re: best v. worst; (Simon Montagu)
• 16. Re: best v. worst; (Saul Guberman)

Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> David Riceman <drice...@att.net> wrote:
>   
>> Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
>>     
>>> Which Rishonim expound Divine command theory?
>>>       
>> Rashi Berachos 33b s.v. "Midosav".
>>     
> Rashi says there that the purpose of the commandments is "to impose on
> Yisrael the decrees of His edicts ("huke gezerosav") to publicize
> ("le'hodia") that they are His servants and the keepers of His
> commandments and the edicts of his decrees ("gezeros hukosav")".
>
> I don't see much evidence in this for a strong version of DCT:
>
> "A strong version of Divine Command Theory includes the claim that
> moral statements (x is obligatory) are defined in terms of theological
> statements (x is commanded by God)."
>   
You read the Rashi but apparently forgot to look at the gemara on which 
it comments.  What's wrong with saying "ad kan tzippor yagiu rahamecha?" 
"Mipnei she'oseh midosav shel HKBH rahamim...."  What Rashi is excluding 
is that God is imposing the mitzva of shiluah hakan for its own sake; he 
is imposing it to let the Jews know he is our God.  Notice that the 
Rambam (in MN 3:48 as cited by the Ramban below) understands the gemara 
similarly, though he rejects this amoraic opinion, and the Ramban 
(Devarim 22:6)  rejects this interpretation.  I'd say the naive 
understanding of the Rashi is like the Rambam, though, if you prefer, 
the Rambam is more explicit ("ein ta'am l'mitzvot ela heifetz haborei").

David Riceman

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:40:46 -0400
David Riceman <drice...@att.net> wrote:

...

> You read the Rashi but apparently forgot to look at the gemara on which 
> it comments.  What's wrong with saying "ad kan tzippor yagiu rahamecha?" 
> "Mipnei she'oseh midosav shel HKBH rahamim...."  What Rashi is excluding 
> is that God is imposing the mitzva of shiluah hakan for its own sake; he 
> is imposing it to let the Jews know he is our God.  Notice that the 

The idea that the purpose of a commandment is "to let the Jews know he
is our God" is not at all the same thing as the notion that God's
commandments have value merely insofar as they *are* His commandments.

> Rambam (in MN 3:48 as cited by the Ramban below) understands the gemara 
> similarly, though he rejects this amoraic opinion, and the Ramban 
> (Devarim 22:6)  rejects this interpretation.  I'd say the naive 
> understanding of the Rashi is like the Rambam, though, if you prefer, 
> the Rambam is more explicit ("ein ta'am l'mitzvot ela heifetz haborei").

I don't quite understand the sense of this paragraph, but in any event,
I want to clarify (in case anyone else is, like me, confused or mislead
by the phrasing) that the phrase "ein ta'am l'mitzvot ela heifetz
haborei" is the view that Rambam is *rejecting*, not accepting,
although he does attribute it to the Mishnah.

http://
he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8:%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%9
C_%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%94_%D7%99%D7%A9_%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%9D

or

www.kitzur.com/4gsb

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

> RRW
> My opinion: women should not "ape" men but come up with feminine
> alternatives for WTG's instead. This is not just about not being
> egalitarian, it's about being an alternative and not an echo!
> (Remember Barry Goldwater? :-)
>
> Illustration:
> Friday evening:
> Have women sitting in a circle and alternating reciting p'suqqim in  
> Shir
> Hashirim - perhaps w/o a leader.
>
> Then maybe Eishes Hayyil...
>
> Morning do same for pesuqqei d'zimra.
>
> Maybe skip Torah reading and go straight to haftara
> - unless torah reading has a "shira" in it.
>
> My 2 cents
>

Nothing intrinsically wrong, and this tries to address the problem -  
the issue that the solution sounds ersatz and artificial, rather than  
reflecting what we have learned public tefilla is...

>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp1255"
>
> Joseph C. Kaplan:
>> But that's just the point -- men do NOT violate tzni'ut as LITTLE
>> as possible; they violate it as MUCH as possible if you accept RHS  
>> and
>> RMB's definition of tzni'ut for men.
> RRW
> WADR this is a straw man
>
> RHS, RMB gave an ideal view - not necessarily THE pragmatic one
>
> I backed them up with a svara from a different context
>
> J Kaplan's upshlug has naught to deal with the ideal but with the
> realia...
>
> -------------------------
>
> Once a rav in Hartford gave a speech opposing giving $$ for kibbudim.
> And he even gave a disclaimer - this will kill the whole business!
> :-). IOW he realized he was reading from a sefer and that this ideal
> would conflict with the shul's ability to find its budget. So he gave
> a wink and nod but explained the mussar of not chasing kavod.
>
> He certainly had little or no expectation of being mevatel the shul's
> own successful auctions for kibbudim!
The problem is that there is no evidence that this was ever an ideal.   
Your rav in Hartford was addressing a classical issue in the problems  
with kibbudim - the basis by which kibbudim are distributed - should  
it be on the basis of money, communal power, or some other measure of  
merit - and there is an extensive literature that views distributing  
kibbudim by merit as the ideal, and using money as the basis as  
problematic. This is  an ideal which, on a practical level, is  
difficult to implement - although attempts at at least partial  
implementation do exist, and your rav did not function in a vacuum  
(one can think, for example, on the literature about giving rishon to  
a kohen am haaretz over a talmid chacham...)

With this claimed ideal, prior to RHS's speech, we have not been given  
any source that would suggest that this was ever an ideal (the  
citation from RYBS actually suggests otherwise) - and no attempt ever  
to implement this presumed ideal even on a partial basis.  A partial  
implementation of this presumed ideal wojuld clearly have been  
feasible in many situations - but we don't have any evidence that it  
actually ever was even attempted - even as  quixotic effort (a la the  
Rav in Hartford).  Ideals which claim to be halachic should have some  
measure of halachic literature and practice to support that they are  
an actual ideal....(and indeed, the only proposed application of this  
ideal is for women's communal roles )


Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090715/d8208e24/attachment-0001.htm>

> RAF
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:00:20PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
> : Thus, according to RMB, the reason many consider shul centered  
> worship
> : more fulfilling than home based worship, is that shul centered  
> worship
> : is showoff worship.
> RMB
> A bit more baldly put, but basically yes. One nuance I would add to  
> that
> is that I'm contrasting it to quiet-behind-the-mechitzah worship as  
> well
> as home worship, something you can't really address in the way you cut
> this tangent.
>
> In short, my reply will be off topic to your point, because I'm not
> looking at shul as showoff, I'm looking at a particular attraction
> people have toward shul because it allows a possibility of showing off
> that davening at home doesn't have.
>
>

One of the issues with many of the discussions about women's issues is  
that many presume to know the motivations of those involved, and find  
them passul.  This "game" is problematic, especially when done by  
people who don't have close knowledge of what is actually occuring.

I think RMB is misreading something which is actually quite  
different.  In the MO community, the move for a long time has been  
away from the large shuls with hazzanim to the Young Israel model of  
participatory davening.  While for some this reflects an issue of  
showing off, as a communal model the values that this shift reflected  
(and still reflects) is the value the community puts on participation  
- that everyone can play a role.  Even with the older shuls with  
hazzanim, getting a kibbud - even as minor as being one of the five  
people opening the aron (as happens in some large suburban shuls), the  
issue isn't the honor per se - but that one participates in the  
functioning of the community as a community.  This involves both the  
administration of the shul and the community - but, as the davening is  
the major part of the shul community, it involves being a part of the  
community in its central activity as a shul - davening. Many shuls try  
on yamim noraim that everyone gets at least one kibud - not just for  
honoring (and payment..), but it makes the people involved feel part  
of the community (every gabbai, rav and membership committee member  
knows the importance of making people feel that they are part of the  
community)

In my shul, we have someone who does not have much of a background. He  
quietly came to the gabbaim and said that he knows that he is unable  
to be a shliach tzibbur (even for psuke dzimra), but he is a trumpet  
player, and therefore wanted us  to consider him to blow shofar - as  
one of the few things he could do for the community.  He was extremely  
happy that we understood (he did an excellent job). That sense - that  
one has to participate in the community davening - is one that is very  
strong.


Many (?most) women brought up in a modern community in the last 20  
years have a similar sense - they wish to be part of the community -  
and that means not being a spectator, but having some  communal role.   
What that role is needs to be defined, and it is not necessarily an  
egalitarian impulse - roles have to be dfiend.  However,  if they do  
not have any communal role, it means that they are not part of that  
community.  In the past, that involvement involved aspects outside of  
the actual tefilla - sisterhood, kiddush committtee, tzedaka  
organizations.  Because of educational issues, participation in the  
tefilla itself was of more minor concern (and viewed as unreachable).   
Today, the lack of participation in the tefilla is viewed as a  
statement that they are not part of the tefilla community.  That is  
problematic.  This isnt an issue of showing off - but of participation.

Meir Shinnar

1. if someone were to?set a hammer and nails (or a skillsaw/electric drill,
etc.) in front of a person with a?pile of 2x4's on shabbas/yom tov; would
that person be over on lifnei iver???
?
2. if someone invites a fellow jew to a meal on shabbas or yom tov
to?his/her house/shul/bar mitzavah, etc,?knowing full-well 100 % they will
drive either to the meal or from the meal, are they being lifnei iver???
and if not (what i have usually heard) then why not???hb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090715/6228b0c4/attachment-0001.htm>

HB:
> 2. if someone invites a fellow jew to a meal on shabbas or yom tov
> to his/her house/shul/bar mitzavah, etc, knowing full-well 100% they
> will drive either to the meal or from the meal, are they being lifnei
> iver??? and if not (what i have usually heard) then why not???

This is an easy "slamdunk"

Before inviting - simply ask a Rav! Only a Poseiq can weigh all the
halachic pros and cons in each given situation

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Dr. Shinar:  
> ...Today, the lack of participation in the tefilla is viewed as a  
> statement that they are not part of the tefilla community.  That is  
> problematic.  This isnt an issue of showing off - but of participation.

I kind of feel deprived that I may not duchen! I can follow the tune
better than 90% of the kohanim who DO duchen and splitting my fingers
[unlike typing] :-) has never posed a challenge to me!

I have even learned some basic kavvanos of birkas kohanim.  
So I aske
"Why may I not duchen?"

[PS - I have 250 colleagues eager to know! :-)]

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
>>Sorry to barge  in, but IIRC, there is a chazal that considers it
immodest for a woman to  stand in front of a court. Cited even by Rashi
Devarim 22:16 (melamed she-ein  la-isha reshit ledabber bifnei ha-ish,
which is why she is represented by her  parents).<<

-- 
Arie Folger

 
>>>>
She is represented by her parents?  *Both* parents?
 




--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________

**************Performance you need and the value you want! Check out great 
laptop deals from Dell! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223081934x1201714279/aol?
redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D819
39%2D1629%2D4)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090715/510cdfa4/attachment-0001.htm>

> From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
>>>Sorry to barge in, but IIRC, there is a chazal that considers it
> immodest for a woman to stand in front of a court. Cited even by Rashi
> Devarim 22:16 (melamed she-ein la-isha reshit ledabber bifnei ha-ish,
> which is why she is represented by her parents).<<

RT6...@aol.com replied:
> She is represented by her parents?? *Both* parents?

Both parents come to the court and are "motzi et betulei bitam el
hazqenim hasha'ara" (22:15), but only the father speaks (22:16).
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Barukh She-Amar Elucidated
* The Anatomy of a Beracha
* Basic Building Blocks of Jewish Prayer

> RMShinnar wrote:
> (By your criteria, how tzanua is it to get up in  front of a class?
> > In front of a court?

RAF:
 
> Sorry to barge in, but IIRC, there is a chazal that considers it
> immodest for a woman to stand in front of a court. Cited even by Rashi
> Devarim 22:16 (melamed she-ein la-isha reshit ledabber bifnei ha-ish,
> which is why she is represented by her parents).

And then RRW writes:

> FWIW When I attended Ner Israel - The principle of tz'nius for a woman
> in the public arena was capsulized by the passuk:
> "Kol k'vudah bas melech p'nimah"

I wondered when we were going to get onto this - and in fact I nearly added
something on it at the end of one of my previous posts, but this would have
made that post even longer than it already was.

One of the reasons that RHS's thesis has a certain ring of truth about it,
even though when you think it through, it actually ends up denegrating
things that are fundamental to our value system, is because, it seems to me,
it is accurate in terms of the halachic responses to the court system -
although the term used in the primary gemora that discusses it (Shevuos 30a)
is not *tznius* but, as RRW has identified, kol k'vuda.

But, and I think this is where RAF above is misunderstanding RMS, RMS above
is talking about being an advocate (lawyer) in the court system (and the
secular court system at that).  Being a lawyer is a very very different kind
of situation to being either a litigant or a witness.

Let us just think for a moment about what it means to be either a litigant
or a witness in any court system.  Basically, the aim of the other side is
to demonstrate that any opponent is, in the case of a monetary case, a liar
and probably a thief, and if we are talking about more serious cases - rape
and the like, that those disputing are liars and, in the case of victims,
possibly sexually immoral as well.

The whole exercise is, has to be, one of public humilation.  Whether that
humilation is attempted primarily by the lawyer for the other side (as in
common law jurisdictions) or by the judge, as in more inquistorial systems,
because there has to be an attempt to get at the truth, probing and
humiliating questions need to be asked.  The modern western system tries to
alleviate this somewhat by allowing for closed circuit television evidence
and behind the screen evidence etc etc - but it cannot get away from it
entirely.

Thus RMB/RHS's thesis does work vis a vis the particular public role that
comes with being a witness.  Nobody in their right mind ought to jump at the
opportunity to be a witness.  It is no accident that a litigant can force a
possible witness to come to beis din and swear an oath that they do not know
any testimony, because it is highly likely that a person, even if they do
know some evidence, would prefer not to put themselves through the necessary
cross examination that a court case entails. 

And take what perhaps seems like a more innocuous form of witnessing - eg
being the eidim at a wedding.  Well that is all fine and good if everything
goes well.  But if there is a serious problem with the marriage, then there
could well be, many years down the track, a serious push to pasul you the
eid.  Because if you are pasul then the marriage is pasul and gitten need
not be obtained, putative mamzerim are not mamzerim, etc etc.  There is
therefore the remote but real possibility that your entire life will be
crawled over and dragged into the public realm in order to attempt to
demonstrate that you are not, really, shomer shabbas or the like.  Whether
you really did or did not dance with your wife at a wedding (and whether it
matters) may become grist for the public mill.

So on this one I think RMB's/RHS's thesis is right - any sensible man would
logically avoid having to be a witness or a litigant, and the only reason to
do so is as a public service, because it is necessary and somebody has to do
it (or because people do not think through the consequences).  And that is
why we have halachos that compel witnesses to come to court.

It is in this framework that the gemora on Shavous 30a discusses the fact
that women do not generally come to court, even as litigants - preferring to
send others to represent them (which it would seem halachically they are
permitted to do) on the basis of of the principle kol kavuda bas melech
penima.  And it also implies that this is the basis for the exclusion of
women as witnesses - see eg Tosphos there (although of course this is from a
pasuk, so no reason need really be given, so even that one cannot say for
definite).  What this seems to allow is for women, for the most part, to
avoid cross examination and public humilation in a court setting.

Now let us turn to the case that RAF is discussing.  The husband has
maliciously stated, because he hated the wife, that she was not a virgin
when he married her - and embarressing physical evidence has then had to be
produced in front of the whole court that this is not true. Can you think it
would be a nice thing to expect her to then get up in court and run the case
herself?  Can you think of a more humiliating and revolting scenario to
expect a person (and lets face it, we are generally talking about a 12 year
old girl here) to participate in?

So the truth is, witnessing and court cases are, by definition, a necessary
evil.  If everybody always spoke the truth and acted properly, they would be
virtually unnecessary.  The court case discussed above could never happen if
a) husbands never brought malicious charges and b) all wives were celibate
before marriage and faithful after it.  Throw in the abolition of unpleasant
circumstances, and they would be rendered completely unnecessary.

But that is not the Jewish view on public roles generally. We do not
generally believe that the beis hamikdash was a necessary evil (even the
Rambam's view on korbanos limits this to korbanos, not to the entire public
nature of the worship in the beis hamikdash) or that the public nature of
shuls is problematic, or that our heros are less than heros because they
occupied public positions.  Nor, moving from the general to the specific,
does the gemora bring kol kvuda on not giving women aliyos - even though, as
you can see, it was a known principle.  It brings kavod hatzibbur (see
Megilla 23a) - very very different focus, and in fact one that stresses the
importance of the public role in front of the tzibbur, rather than any
protection of the individual.

Regards

Chana

 
RMB writes:

> But the person pushing for a place at the bimah, amud or the rabbi's
> shtender isn't seeing synagogue as quiet worship.

But synagogue is not supposed to be quiet worship, and quiet worship is only
one of a number of idealised forms of worship.  We are mourning at the
moment the destruction of the beis hamikdash.  If quiet worship and an
elimination of public roles were the goal, we should be celebrating, because
that is what was achieved.  There is a *lot* more quiet worship and a *lot*
less rite than when the beis hamikdash was standing.

The problem with the person pushing for a place at the bimah or the rabbi's
shtender is not because these do not involve quiet worship.  The problem
with the person pushing is because *pushing* is generally all about *I*, not
about HaShem - and, worship, is supposed to be, to state the obvious, all
about Hashem.

 They're defining an
> important place in yahadus by it being a prominant place in rite. The
> concept of religion=rite feeding into a confusion of important vs
> attention-grabbing.
> 
> As I said, I'm trying to describe an attitude, not a line of 
> reasoning. The drive for women to play a greater part in shul (or my 
> love of being Chazan, back when it didn't hurt my throat, or my love of 
> having a turn giving the derashah over qiddush) is in contrast to davening

> at home or behind the mechitzah for a reason.

The attitude is a problem.  But you are then going on to confuse the
attitude with the object. It is the classic alcoholics  attitude.  Not I
cannot handle alcohol the way it should be handled, and that is my problem,
but alcohol is bad - alcohol should be banned.  But just as yiddishkeit does
not say alcohol is bad and should be banned because there are indeed some
people who cannot handle alcohol properly (ever) and some who mishandle it
on occasion.  It says ain simcha ele .. Yayin, and it mandates it as part of
kiddush and kiddushin, etc etc.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

any good online resources for perushim on kinos?
(preferably text based, as opposed to mp3s)

thanks,
Mordechai Cohen

Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> The idea that the purpose of a commandment is "to let the Jews know he
> is our God" is not at all the same thing as the notion that God's
> commandments have value merely insofar as they *are* His commandments.
>   
You've missed the "ela" in "einan ela gzeirot".  The plain sense of 
Rashi is that the commandments have no functional purpose; their only 
function is that we have commandments to obey.  What does that do? It 
demonstrates that we obey God.

How does that differ from "God's commandments have value merely insofar 
as they *are* His commandments"? All it does is add an intermediate step 
in the chain of logic.
> I want to clarify (in case anyone else is, like me, confused or mislead
> by the phrasing) that the phrase "ein ta'am l'mitzvot ela heifetz
> haborei" is the view that Rambam is *rejecting*, not accepting,
> although he does attribute it to the Mishnah.
 He attributes it to an amoraic interpreter of the Mishna (as I thought 
I'd said).  Is this not another example of "Rishonim expound[ing] Divine 
command theory"?

David Riceman

imo...
1. the Worst that can happen if someone drives on shabbas is .......being mechalel shabbas!! (mi'doiraisa).
2.
The Best that can happen if someone attends a shabbas meal (in the
short-term) is 1. making kiddush (mi'dirabannan), 2. a woman/women
lighting shabbas candles (if they get there early enuf (also
mi'dirabbonan); 3. breaking bread with family/friends and making a
bracha on the bread (midirobonnon) and; 4. benching (mi'dirabbon as to
the exact loshon...)

Imo, if we examine the best case v. the worst case of having invites
over......the conclusion should be clear that it is best to avoid having
another jew make an aveira (midoraisa) versus possible benefits of
midorobbana mitzvas at best....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090716/f639e1a1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM, <harveyben...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> imo...
> 1. the Worst that can happen if someone drives on shabbas is .......being
> mechalel shabbas!! (mi'doiraisa).
> 2. The Best that can happen if someone attends a shabbas meal (in the
> short-term) is 1. making kiddush (mi'dirabannan), 2. a woman/women lighting
> shabbas candles (if they get there early enuf (also mi'dirabbonan); 3.
> breaking bread with family/friends and making a bracha on the bread
> (midirobonnon) and; 4. benching (mi'dirabbon as to the exact loshon...)
>
> Imo, if we examine the best case v. the worst case of having invites
> over......the conclusion should be clear that it is best to avoid having
> another jew make an aveira (midoraisa) versus possible benefits of
> midorobbana mitzvas at best....
>

As you say -- this in the short term. In the long term, the best that can
happen is that they could be influenced to become shomrei shabbat
themselves. I hesitate to draw a direct parallel to the principle behind
pikuah-nefesh "Mehhalelin `alav shabbat ahhat kedei sheyishmor shabbatot
harbe", but it's a point to consider.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090716/1e5116e5/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 17:01, <harveyben...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> imo...
> 1. the Worst that can happen if someone drives on shabbas is .......being
> mechalel shabbas!! (mi'doiraisa).
> 2. The Best that can happen if someone attends a shabbas meal (in the
> short-term) is 1. making kiddush (mi'dirabannan), 2. a woman/women lighting
> shabbas candles (if they get there early enuf (also mi'dirabbonan); 3.
> breaking bread with family/friends and making a bracha on the bread
> (midirobonnon) and; 4. benching (mi'dirabbon as to the exact loshon...)
>
> Imo, if we examine the best case v. the worst case of having invites
> over......the conclusion should be clear that it is best to avoid having
> another jew make an aveira (midoraisa) versus possible benefits of
> midorobbana mitzvas at best....
>
>
This is not best vs. worst.  You have just enumerated what mitzot & avreirot
you see happening on that Friday night.  This issue is very rarely seen as a
one Shabbat issue.  It usually involves many competing issues at the same
time; Shalom Bayit, kashrut, other mechalel shabbat behaviour, long term
spiritual existance, etc.   BTW, I was under the impression that Kiddush,
Motzie & Benching were D'Oritah.

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090716/8855f964/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 137
***************************************

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..."