Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 42

Tue, 09 Feb 2010

• 1. Re: Halacha vs. Policy - Poll re: Who To Marry (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: Halacha vs. Policy - Poll re: Who To Marry (Samuel Svarc)
• 3. Re: Chazal's Ruach HaKodesh (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 4. Re: Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: Halacha vs. Policy - Poll re: Who To Marry (Isaac Balbin)
• 6. Re: Habituation (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Habituation (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. (no subject) (j...@when.com)
• 9. Re: Davening Outside (was davening in public) (T6...@aol.com)
• 10. Re: Davening Outside (was davening in public) (Zev Sero)
• 11. Mar'is Ayin and Personal Standards (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. The Relationship Between the Written and the Oral Torah (Yitzchok Levine)
• 13. Re: Kol Isha - HETER (Michael Makovi)
• 14. Re: Halacha vs. Policy - Poll re: Who To Marry (Michael Makovi)

In the famous question to Rav Moshe from a guy who wanted to know if he
should take off his kippa when going to a movie theater, the person asking
knew that he was doing something wrong by going. And Rav Moshe answered him
in that vein.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>

> T6...@aol.com:
> > I do not believe this can possibly be a halachic teshuvah -- IOW it
> > MUST be meta-halachic -- because no true halachic shailah can ever be
> > couched in these terms: "Rabbi, I have absolutely made up my mind to
> > sin and I want you to tell me which sin to commit, sin A or sin B." No
> > halachic teshuvah could ever be rendered to any such phoney shailah.
> > No posek could ever pasken that a Jew should commit a sin. (He could
> > give advice, but not a psak.)
>
> As framed above this is a good point
>

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Michael Makovi <mikewindd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A person has the
>> choice of marrying a Jewish woman who doesn't observe the laws of family
>> purity or a non-Jewish woman. Which is preferable? A student who has not
>> properly served an apprenticeship with an experienced posek will say
>> that it is obvious that the person should chose to marry the non-Jewish
>> woman.
>>
>> Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetsky, quoted by R' Daniel Eidensohn
>
> I've seen this before, and I've never understood where Rabbi Kaminetsky
> gets his prima facie from. I haven't served as an apprentice to a poseq,
> but nevertheless, it was still my gut reaction that marrying the Jewish
> woman who violates niddah is preferable to marrying the non-Jew. This is
> obvious, and you don't need to serve under a poseq to know it. I don't see
> why serving under a poseq would make this any more or less obvious. Why on
> earth would someone think that it is better to marry the non-Jew??!! Just
> read all the Tanakhic narratives and midrashim about marrying gentiles,
> versus the narratives and midrashim about niddah, and see which one says
> worse things. I believe Ezra compares intermarriage to worshiping other
> gods, but I don't recall seeing anything like this about niddah. Rabbi
> Kaminetsky's opinion, that the unexperienced unlearned will say that it
> is better to marry a non-Jew, is simply false in my experience.

I'm reminded here of Aristotle's assertion that one who guesses
correctly is no better then someone who doesn't. It is only when one
can know why something is that you have attained something. RYK
didn't even address himself to people who "guess" correctly as that
was outside his conception of the possible. He was addressing the
beginning student's errors.

> I just asked a random non-gadol friend of mine to answer this question,
> and he answered (without missing a beat) that to him it was obvious,
> a no-brainer, that one marries the Jewish woman who violates niddah,
> and not the gentile.

Ditto.

> So I'm not sure why Rabbi Kaminetsky thinks it is obvious that the
> non-scholar will answer that a non-Jew is preferable. It appears to me
> that no, the non-scholar will answer that the Jewish woman who violates
> niddah is preferable.
>
> So I'm confused. Why does Rabbi Kaminetsky believe (wrongly, IMHO)
> that the non-scholar will answer that a non-Jew is preferable?

RYK did not refer to a non-scholar but rather an inexperienced one
that hasn't received training.

> If Rabbi Kaminetsky is basing himself on which has the more severe
> punishment, then this is obviously a false analysis, and it take no
> talmid hakham to realize it. By that logic, it is preferable for me
> to kill someone by grama (which is patur from all earthly punishment),
> instead of stealing a penny (which is punished by my having to pay two
> pennies). But what kind of idiot would say that it is preferable to
> murder rather than steal one cent, simply because the punishment for
> the theft is more severe? Since when we do pasqen by punishment!!!

You are contradicting an explicit Rambam in PA 2:1.

> It
> says right in Pirqei Avot that we serve G-d not because of reward and
> punishment!!

This is referring to our motivation and itself needs a more
sophisticated understanding. There are plenty of Chazals in Pirkei
Avos that seem to contradict, such as "Calculate the cost of a mitzvah
against its reward and the reward of a sin against its cost", etc.

> Anyone who answers based on the more severe punishment, is
> simply an imbecile who knows nothing about Torah.

I'm glad you consider someone who made a logical mistake as an
"imbecile". I'm sure you'll understand why I don't agree with you.

> So maybe an imbecile
> will answer that it is preferable to marry a non-Jew rather than a Jew
> who violates niddah, but the frum Jew of average intelligence (but still
> NOT a talmid hakham) will answer differently than the imbecile.

As above, an inexperienced student basing himself on the Rambam can
make such a mistake. This is worthy of correcting. A simple guesser??
Who really cares how he guessed? Not RYK.

> [EMail #2. -micha]
>
> One little aside: the fact that according to Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetsky's
> litmus test, I've (almost?) a poseq, is good evidence for why I distrust
> authority so much, and for why I'm so ready to disagree with those far
> greater than me. Rabbi Kaminetsky offers a litmus test to distinguish
> between those who have apprenticed under a poseq, and those who haven't,
> and according to his test, I have in fact so apprenticed!! It is only due
> to my own knowledge of myself that I know I'm nowhere near the stature
> of a poseq, but if I were to rely on Rabbi Kaminetsky's test, I'd have
> to say I am in fact a poseq. Anyone who's standards are so low as his,
> I don't want to be a part of his group. If Rabbi Kaminetsky's litmus
> test for poseqim is indicative of his own personal stature as a poseq,
> then I don't want him as my poseq. He says I'm of the stature of a poseq,
> but I disagree and I say I'm not of that stature.
>
> That is why I'm so ready to disagree with those greater than me.

So, just to check if I'm understanding you, based on your mistaken
comprehension of those greater then you, you then choose to disagree
with them whenever you feel like it?

Try this on for size. Next time you have difficulty understanding
something, follow the Ramban, R' Chaim Volohizner, etc., and *ask* for
help in understanding. It is logical that such an explanation exists,
unless what you truly believe is that you are in fact greater then
them. As R' Micha wrote to you, "That's a great question, not a great
answer." [parahrased from memory]

KT,
MSS

p. 257:  List of 33 revelations of Eliyahu to Chazal.
p. 258: List of 6 revelations of the Malach HaMaves and his subjugation 
by Chazal.
p. 259: List of 41 miracles wrought by Chazal.
p. 261: List of 5 incidents of Techiyas HaMeisim by Chazal.
p. 261: List of 26 incidents in which Chazal invoked the Middas HaDin 
against someone.
p. 262: List of 8 incidents in which Chazal's merit protected their 
surroundings.
p. 263: List of 10 incidents that manifest Chazal's Middas HaEmes and 
bravery in taking a stand for it.
p. 263: List of 31 incidents of Chazal's detestation of money and 
caution of theft, including some examples of extraordinary charity and 
their denigration of the love of money.
p. 266: List of 3 incidents of Chazal's distancing themselves from 
temptation.
p. 266: List of 14 indicators of Chazal's yiras shomayim.
p. 267: List of 7 indicators of Chazal's mesirus nefesh for mitzvos.

There are many, many more such lists in the book!

Micha Berger wrote:

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 07:29:08AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
: In R' Moshe Yechiel Tzuriel's Otzaros HaMussar vol. 1, in the Sha'ar 
: HaBitachon, there is an amazing and comprehensive compendium on this topic.

How many people have access to OhM vol 1? Couldn't you include a couple
of highlights?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Micha Berger wrote:
> Unless the Ramban differs between a mar'eh and nevu'ah in general.
>   
According to the Ramban angels are capable of donning what appear to be 
physical bodies.

David Riceman

> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:56:53 +0200
> From: Michael Makovi <mikewindd...@gmail.com>
> 
> I've seen this before, and I've never understood where Rabbi Kaminetsky
> gets his prima facie from.

Indeed, and this is why you have a problem with it. Consider the talmid
whose apprenticeship with a Posek serves not only to refine his halachic
nouse, but to expose him to the world of experience and life.
You have life and experience by virtue of the fact that you have not spent
your days in a cloistered environment surrounded only by limudei kodesh. I
don't say that disparagingly. This may well not be the case for the
brilliant avreich who is ready to serve his apprenticeship. In certain
groups it's in fact the rule rather than the exception.


> I haven't served as an apprentice to a poseq,
> but nevertheless, it was still my gut reaction that marrying the Jewish
> woman who violates niddah is preferable to marrying the non-Jew. This is
> obvious, and you don't need to serve under a poseq to know it.

As above, if your life and attachment to Torah has only seen the empirical
boundaries of Sachar V'Onesh and Issur V'Hetter in determining right and
wrong, limited to black letters on white pages, then yes.

> I don't see
> why serving under a poseq would make this any more or less obvious.

Oh yes it would. Serving under a posek would expose the avreich to real
people and real people's problems. Do not for one minute underestimate the
incredible enormity of that experience for many who undertake shimush.

[As an aside, it is said that someone who became exposed to R' Aharon
Soloveitchik and the topics brought to him made the [what's obvious to you
and me] statement that "R' Aharon is also a psychologist giving eytzes".
They won't learn that in the Shach and Taz]
 

> Why on
> earth would someone think that it is better to marry the non-Jew??!! Just
> read all the Tanakhic narratives and midrashim about marrying gentiles,
> versus the narratives and midrashim about niddah, and see which one says
> worse things.

Narratives and Midrashim (let alone Zohar and Kabala) which don't determine
law in shulchan aruch are just that in the eyes of the black and white
avreich serving an apprenticeship. 

> I believe Ezra compares intermarriage to worshiping other
> gods, but I don't recall seeing anything like this about niddah. Rabbi
> Kaminetsky's opinion, that the unexperienced unlearned will say that it
> is better to marry a non-Jew, is simply false in my experience.

Yes, and that is precisely the point. In YOUR experience. V'dal.

I'll leave it at that, but note that perhaps youthful exuberance also
filled you with a little to much leeway in the manner in which you wrote
about a revered figure. I too don't subscribe to unthinking consideration
of halachic imperatives and the "obvious", but I know enough to confidently
state that R' Kaminetsky lived in this world and was an Ish [HaChesed and
Ish] HaEmes. 

He was not the naive thinker you may have portrayed in your response.

Samuel Svarc wrote:

> What is there to justify? Did R' Acha make a brocha while in front of
> an ervah or some such? No. So what 'issur' is left to discuss? The
> discussion is if that contact will lead to 'hirur' and thereby be
> 'assur'. Chazal seemed to have trusted R' Acha that there was no
> 'hirur'. I personally wouldn't trust anyone alive today if he made
> such a statement or I would at least check to see if he was a eunuch.

There are quite a few men who are alive today, anatomically complete,
and not especially tzadikim, but who could do as R Acha did without
hirhur avera.  (They might not be able to do the same with the chosson.)

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

I wrote:

> I think it is still fair to say that these examples all prove
> that the acts of touching, seeing, or listening to ervah are
> not *inherently* assur. They are assur only when they bring
> one to hirhur or hanaah. The only difference between my first
> guess and these responses, is in the mitigating circumstances
> which hold the hirhur/hanaah down to the zero level.

R' Samuel Svarc responded:

> Incorrect. 'Oseh makom' is assur to look at, if ones very
> looking is distracted then we have 'heterim'.

How is that different than what I said? We agree that in some cases it is assur, and in other cases it is mutar.

RSS continued:

> You're conflating a stock issur of seeing 'ervah' which is
> not dependent on 'hanaah' and is only mitigated when the
> seeing itself is distracted, with an issur that is dependent
> on 'hirur -hanaah', namely, touching.

Are you suggesting that touching is *less* problematic than looking? I have
always presumed touching to be equally forbidden, or even more forbidden.
(I have no sources for this, only that this is area where halacha is full
of "fences", and it seems to me a logical progression: Just as kissing
leads to relations, and touching leads to kissing, so too looking leads to
touching. In contrast, to forbid touching because it might lead to looking
sounds absurd.)

Further: What do you mean when you say that:
(A) the issur is *not* dependent on hanaah, and
(B) the issur *is* mitigated if the person looking is distracted.
What do you mean by that? Isn't the whole point of distraction that it
insures the level of hanaah to be minimal or zero? Don't these two concepts
work together?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=0uKlIG0oCvo7VBW3j-Z-LQAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=

 Are kohanim lemeita entitled to kavod from ashkenazim? 


 There is a Teshuvah of the RIVASH (94) that says that Kohanim today are
 only Safek Kohanim (same reason why kohanim cannot demand payment for
 pidyon haben). Based on this Psak the Maharshdam (EH 235) allowed a Kohen
 to marry a Shevuyah because it is only an Isur mid'Rabanan, or because it
 is a Sfek Sfeika (Safek whether he is a Kohen, and if he is a Kohen, Safek
 whether the woman is forbidden to marry a Kohen).

As far as ashkenazim are concerned, tosfot and the rema say that (unlike
marrying a gerusha) giving a kohen a kavod is only a derabanan- so safek
derobanan lekula. If there is a safek regarding who is the greater talmud
chacham, there is a safek-safek- and sfake-sfaka deoreita lekula- certainly
for a derobanan.

So even if you hold by R moshe feinstein's chazaka (which many don't), it
is still not at all pashut whether lemeita, ashkenazic kohanim are entitled
to kavod. 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100209/75acc0f8/attachment-0001.htm>

 


> I know we don't pasken from Chumash but at least a supporting  pasuk 
> would be "Vayeitzei Yitzchak lasuach basadeh."  [--TK]

Tosfos already dealt with that, by saying that even though it  was
*called* "sodeh" it wasn't really an open field but Har Hamoriah,  which
was an enclosed space.

-- 
Zev  Sero                      

 
 
 
>>>>>
How "enclosed" was it, if Rivka could see Yitzchak from a distance?
 
 

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

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100209/8d14700b/attachment-0001.htm>

T6...@aol.com wrote:

>>> I know we don't pasken from Chumash but at least a supporting pasuk
>>> would be "Vayeitzei Yitzchak lasuach basadeh." [--TK]
 
>> Tosfos already dealt with that, by saying that even though it was
>> *called* "sodeh" it wasn't really an open field but Har Hamoriah, which
>> was an enclosed space.

> How "enclosed" was it, if Rivka could see Yitzchak from a distance?

Perhaps they saw him on his way there.   All I know is what the Tosfos
says. 


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

The owner of the restaurant at which I work puts large outgoing orders
in used boxes. Most of those boxes come from the liquor store nearby.

However, the owner will not permit us to use boxes from unkosher
products or even kosher dairy products. [This is a kosher fleishig
Chinese Restaurant] It seems he has a very strong sense of mar'is ayin
and is afraid that boxes from unkosher products or from dairy products
will hurt his restaurant's kashrus reputation.


Are his mar'is ayin standards over the top? Is there any halachic reason
for him to think that way?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

It seems to me that one of the most important 
things to understand is the relationship between 
the Written Torah (Torah Shebiksav) and Oral 
Torah (Torah Shebaal Peh). Rabbi Samson Raphael 
Hirsch writes the following in his commentary on 
the second posuk in this week's Parsha, Mishpatim.  YL

2 If you purchase a Hebrew servant, he shall 
serve for six years; but in the seventh he shall go out free, without paying.

2 Ki sikna eved Ivri. To the unprejudiced mind, nothing could demonstrate
the authenticity of the Oral Law as cogently as the first two subsections
? verses 2?6 and 7?11 ? with which ?Mosaic law? begins.
This is to be the civil and criminal code of a nation; it is to set forth
the principles and ordinances of justice and humanity that are to regulate
human relationships within the framework of the state. As to be
expected, the first section of the code deals with personal rights. But
with what does this section begin? With laws applicable if a man sells
another man, and if a man sells his own daughter as a slave!!!
This beginning would be unthinkable, inconceivable, were the Written
Law actually the ?book of law? of the Jewish people, the sole primary
source of ?Jewish law.? What a mass of laws and legal principles must
have already been stated and established, considered and clarified, before
the Torah could even turn to treat these cases, which surely are only
exceptional cases! And yet it is precisely with these verses, which limit
the most sacred of human rights and negate the right to personal freedom,
that the Law begins!

However, the primary source of Jewish law is not the written word,
the ?Book,? but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the ?Book?
serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise. The
Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already been
transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them
for forty years, before Moshe ? just before his death ? turned over
to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the exceptional
cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the
principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly.

On the whole, the ?Book? records not principles of law, k'lalim , but
individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an instructive
manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were
entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The language
of this ?Book? was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an unusual
term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an extra
or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal concepts.

This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was
meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a
means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they
had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid
for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so that
the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text before
them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they received
by word of mouth.

The relationship between Torah Shebiksav and Torah Shebaal Peh is like that
between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the lecture
itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their brief
notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that a
word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the underscoring
of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas,
observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did not
attend the instructor?s lecture, these notes are not of much use. If they
try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of necessity
make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the
students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding stars
for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear completely
meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt
to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to reconstruct )
for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems unclear
as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading nowhere.

God?s Law, the Torah, wants to instill in us the principles of justice
and humanity, on the basis of which it commands us to respect human
rights. It starts off with the criminal , specifically one who takes the
property of his fellow man, a crime that in all other states is punished
by severe corporal punishment and imprisonment.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100208/e6f1036a/attachment.htm>

> But you missed my focus on KEDEI leihanos. I'm not defining hana'ah, I'm
> pointing out the word before it.
>
> R' Micha Berger

No, I saw it, and I agreed with you. Even the attempt to find hirhur /
hana'ah is prohibited, whether or not the hirhur / hana'ah is
successfully found.

But I know that I myself don't seek hirhur / hana'ah when I listen to
kol isha. I myself will listen listen to men and women singers in
succession, but f I'm seeking hirhur / hana'ah, then why I am
listening to men too?

I've also found that I can switch off my sexuality when I want to. It
takes a bit of concentration, and so I have to know the sexuality is
coming. I cannot switch it off as I'm walking down the street, because
a woman might pop out at any moment. But if I know the sexuality is
coming, then I am quite able to turn off my sexual impulse. I assume
other men are capable
of the same. If you just affect a certain mental mood, and slump your
posture and put on a smirk too if need be, then I've found that many
otherwise sexual things simply cease to have any appeal. If you laugh
as well, then almost nothing is sexual anymore. Mind over matter.

I assume others are capable of this no less than I am, and so why
shouldn't they be permitted to listen to kol isha, as long as they
have no intent to derive hirhur / hana'ah?

> Where's the qol ishah in your example [of Egypt and Umm Kalthoum]?
> Because they knew where the songs
> were from when they heard a male chazan sing them?
>
> R' Micha Berger

No. What I meant was, the rabbi knew EXACTLY where these tunes came
from, and far from criticizing listening to Umm Kalthoum, he instead
allowed her tunes into the synagogue!! What this means is, the rabbi
implicitly granted his heter to listen to her. If the rabbi thought it
was prohibited to listen to her, then he wouldn't let her tunes be
used in the shul. He might or might not take an outspoken stance,
depending on whether he thought the congregation would heed him, but
he certainly, in any case, wouldn't sanction the adoption of her tunes
by the hazan.

And my conclusion doesn't rest entirely on Rabbi Weinberg, nor does it
rest entirely on the practice of the Egyptians. I felt that the
confluence of so many heterim from so many directions, all together
permitted a heter. Besides, I was relying on the logic and direction
of what they said, not their substance. If the Ra'avya can permit what
was societally-normal in his time, then we can do the same in ours.
Even if the Ra'avya's heter was only to speak to women, nevertheless,
the basic logic and direction of his heter is useful for us today.
That's why I wasn't concerned that Rabbi Weinberg merely permits
zemirot; the direction of his ruling can permit far more than only
zemirot.

As for Rabbi Weinberg: for him, the eit la'asot lashem was a cherry on
top. For him, the primary factor was that hergel mitigates the issur.
Rabbi Micha Berger correctly points out that Rabbi Weinberg was being
lenient out of hefsed merubah, as it were, and that if the hefsed is
not present, then we cannot be matir. I'd argue, however, that
nowadays, when hergel is even greater than it was in Rabbi Weinberg's
time, that today, we need less hefsed to justify the reliance on
hergel. If hergel + hefsed = heter, then our greater quantity of
hergel allows for lesser amount of hefsed, with the same resulting
amount of heter.

To make an extreme example, I'd say that a eunuch would need almost no
hefsed at all. The fact that he has 100% hergel, and no hirhur at all,
means that he has a 100% heter, even with no hefsed.

> In general, I find your reliance on prefiltered sources, reading the
> promary sources via secondary ones and never revisiting them to form your
> own opinion bothersome. Particularly since you keep an unbalanced set
> of secondary sources. People can extrapolate, and then you extrapolate
> for them, leaving you cantilevered over the abyss.
>
> R' Micha Berger

I DID learn the primary sources, i.e. the rishonim. My article relies
on secondary sources, however, because I wanted to make it easier for
my readers to read further. If all I did was quote Rambam and Rashba,
I doubt any of my readers would go and do the same. But if I instead
quote Rabbi Bigman quoting the Rambam and Rashba, I hoped the readers
might at least read Rabbi Bigman's article after reading mine.

Besides, my conclusions are basically only a restatement of Rabbis
Bigman and Shammahs'. I wanted to frame my article around theirs,
because I feel like my article does nothing more than restate what
they stated. By focusing on secondary sources, my article made it
clear that I have no original conclusions of my own, that I am only
following others who came before me.

Michael Makovi

On my blog (http://michaelma
kovi.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-to-marry-gentile-or-niddah.html?showComment=1
265703245349#c7779517465018195534),
the following excellent response to me was given. I completely agree
with what this commenter said:

Shlomo said...
Michael, [what] you are assuming are [sic: is] that people [base]
their conclusions on a sense of natural morality as well as the
technical parameters of the halacha. While I agree with such an
approach, the philosophical basis for it is not so simple, and it's no
surprise that many Jews, in the haredi world and to a lesser extent in
the Jewish past, would think otherwise. That you and your modern
orthodox friends see R' Kaminetsky's conclusion as obvious just goes
to show that you were educated to have a different set of basic
assumptions from what is expected in his society. It does not make you
a gadol, even if in haredi society only gedolim could answer this
question correctly. And while your type of education has the advantage
of allowing you to answer this question with great ease, it is likely
that it also has certain disadvantages, as shown by certain flaws
which manifest themselves to a greater extent in the modern orthodox
community.

Michael Makovi



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 42
**************************************

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..."