Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 429

Sunday, March 12 2000

• Yisachar-Zevulin
• name calling
• size of measurements
• Re: Avodah V4 #427
• Re: name calling
• Re: Wife-Beating
• Re: Livin' in the USA
• Re: medinah and halachah
• Re: USA and FRG (was "Re: Avodah V4 #409")
• Re: Livin' in the USA
• Re: Wife-Beating
• birchat hagomel
• Living in the USA
• wife beating
• Re: science and halacha
• [none]
• Clinton's eulogy for YR

Some one off-line asked me to write regarding this issue. While I
unfortunately do not have the time for a full exposition, I recommend the
following mekoros:
Sotah 21a and Rashi Ibid.
Vayikra Rabba 25:1 and Eitz Yosef Ibid.
Bereishis Rabba 72:5
Bamidbar Rabba 13:17
Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 246:1
Shut. Tuv Ta'am Vada'as 217
Shut. Divrei Malkiel 4:81
Shut. Minchas Yitzchak 6:100; 7:87
Shut. Yabia Omer 7:17

Although the impression that one might get is that the Talmid Chacham
reeceives only half of his reward in Olam Haba, this is not so. See  for
example Ohr HaChaim Shemos 30:13

See also Hafla'ah (Pischa Z'eira) 43
Chida in Midbar Kedamos Ma'areches mem 36
Shut. Meshiv Davar 3:14

> 
> But if Clinton is your idea of anti-Israeli, then nothing is going 
> to make you happy, not even the Moshiach himself.
> 
> Nah, Clinton isn't anti-Israel. He just thinks we're a puppet state. 
> That's why he installed a marionette as Prime Minister.
> 
I don't see any purpose in the discussions of Israeli politics.
Calling Clinton, Barak or anyone else accomplishes nothing even if
no prohibitions are involved.

Eli Turkel

There is a nice article on showing the size of the amah is that of Rav
Chaim Naeh based on historical/scientific arguments.
See
http://www.jct.ac.il/judaica/dvarTorah/dt25.html

I also know of several other such arguments besides those presented there.
On a personal level I am convinced that the Amah in the days of Chazal
was approximately that of Rav Chaim Naeh.

Eli Turkel

--- UncBarryum@aol.com wrote:
> 
> ...and you missed my point R. Harry. Democracy and
> freedom are a vehicle 
> which should be used only to fulfill our mission as
> Jews, not an end. Freedom 
> is a right and privilege to cherish, but, not to
> worship. Your vernacular and 
> vitriol...

What Vitriol? 

I would never argue that Torah Judaism isn't the Ikkar
Ch'V..  Nor would I argue you point about the moral
decadence present in this country. Although I would
argue with you the infference that this country is
completely immoral. I believe there is an enormous
percentage of the population that is very moral,
especially most Christian Fundementalists and any of
society's devout, whether Christian, Muslim, or even
Jewish.  I know many Reform and Conservative Jews who
are very moral.  Are you surprised by that? 

And I agree, as I've already stated many times,
(including the most recent post), that Hollywood,
including it's Jews, is responsible for a large part
of that immorality. You seem to think I am arguing
with you on that point. I'm not.  I was reffering
specificly to the fact that anti-semitism is fought
off by Hollywood. Their influence isn't only in the
area of Ervah.  Hollywood shapes public opinion on ALL
issue which it tackles. As I said. the best way to get
black-balled in Hollywood is to say something even
slightly anti-Semetic.  Ask Ned Beatty.

I do not worship America.  But I do love her. And this
most certainly does not contradict my Ahavas HaShem. 
But it does enable me to express it more freely then
at any time in history.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

In a message dated 3/12/00 5:49:12 AM US Central Standard Time, 
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

<< I don't see any purpose in the discussions of Israeli politics.
 Calling Clinton, Barak or anyone else accomplishes nothing even if
 no prohibitions are involved.
  >>

I agree, and I'm going to stop it. I'm not very eager to get into American 
politics, either, except perhaps to the extent they have an impact on 
observant Judaism.

David Finch

Eli Turkel comments as follows about wife-beating:

> 1. Rambam (Ishut 21:10) says that if a wife does not do  her work it
> is permissible to hit her (shot). The Raavad on the spot says he 
> never heard of such a thing. Maggid Mishneh brings Rashba and Ramban 
> that agree with Rambam (aside it gives the impression of an
> Ashkenazi-Sefard split but I haven't analyzed that further).

     First of all, shot means a whip. It is something that a Melamed
is permitted to use with his Talmidim if they are unruly, though only
a small whip is allowed that does not inflict real injury.

     However, this ruling of the Rambam is itself subject to several
interpretations. At first glance it might appear that "it is
permissible to hit her" means that the husband may hit her. This is
implausible since the Rambam uses the plural - kofin - and at the end
of the halakha refers explicitly to the Beit Din. It is quite clear
that the subject of "kofin" is also the Beit Din, not the husband. 
Rabbi Yosef Qafih, in his commentary on this halakha, is emphatic 
about this and adds that one who beats his wife is, according to the 
Rambam, like the wild Goyim. I remember seeing a responsum of the 
Rambam published from a Geniza fragment in his own hand, chastising a 
husband for beating his wife and telling him to divorce her if he was 
unwilling to make amends.

     As far as a possible "split" is concerned, this likewise appears
unlikely from examining the commentaries of the Sefardi R. Yosef Qaro
(Beit Yosef) and the Ashkenazi R. Moshe Isserles (Darkhei Moshe) on
the Tur Even Ha-`Ezer 74 and 154. Both cite opinions of Rishonim that
it is forbidden, even amounting to transgression of two Lawin of the
Torah. However, both likewise cite opinions that if the wife is
insulting her parents and he has rebuked her several times to no
avail, it is permitted.

     Just what course of action should be taken when the wife is not 
fulfulling her household obligations was discussed in this context
several years ago elsewhere. Even the Rambam does not say the Beit
Din must use a whip; he only says they may use one at their own
discretion. In the single case I found in the Pisqei Din Rabbaniyyim
on this issue, the Beit Din followed the ruling of the Rashb"a cited
above (see also Beit Yosef, Even Ha-`Ezer 77; Shulhan `Arukh, ibid. 
70:12 and 80:15 and Ram"a thereon).

> I have trouble understanding the Rambam (Rashba & Ramban).
> On what grounds can anyone hit someone else because they are not 
> fulfilling their obligations. Can a lender hit a borrower who has
> not paid back his money?
> It would seem to me that if the husband has complaints he goes to a 
> bet din and not takes the law into his own hands.

     According to Rabbi Qafih's commentary cited above, this is
exactly what the husband is to do - only the Beit Din can use force.

> Of course here it is worse because if the woman has just cause he
> can beat her for a while until she manages to get to a bet din.

     I don't quite follow this. If he really injures her she can call
the police first; otherwise she can go to the Beit Din. In Israel the
Beit Din Rabbani can even order the husband out of the house if he is
considered a real threat to her physical welfare.

> 2. Chatam Sofer (sorry - don't have the exact reference) states that
> a husband beating a wife is not grounds for divorce because it is 
> better for two to live together rather than alone.
> 
> Again, without seeing this inside, if a woman requests a get how
> does the bet din decide against her express desire that living 
> together is better?

     I don't have this either. However, in the previous discussion I
found a number of cases in the Pisqei Din Rabbaniyyim where domestic
violence (mostly on the part of the husband, but sometimes that of the
wife) was involved. In most of them the Beit Din was cautious against
forcing a divorce on either party. The Beit Din usually based its 
query on the Beit Yosef, ibid. 154 and the Shulhan `Arukh, ibid.,
154:3 and Ram"a thereon (who requires the husband to be forewarned
before a divorce is granted); see also Pithei Teshuva, ibid. note 8. 
In no case were the opinions cited above permitting the husband to
beat his wife cited. The violence was always considered in the broader 
light of the underlying marital discord, and only in extreme cases was 
it the deciding factor for the decision granting the divorce.

Shaul Wallach

In message , Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
>IY"H I will learn Hilchos Shabbos well enough by then that I will be 
>zocheh not to need a Korban Chatas (or more than one a day 
>according to the shita that you should bring one every day just in 
>case).

???  You have just confused me.  I thought that you could only bring a
korban chatas for a vadai chet - otherwise you would be over the issur
of chullin b'azorah if in fact it was not necessary?  (An asham talui,
maybe I could understand).  Whose shita is this and how does he deal
with the chullin b'azarah problem?



>
>- -- Carl

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In message , Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes
>One topic that has always bothered is the possibility of governing a modern 
>state according to halachah. In my humble opinion this would be extremely
>difficult (without the introduction a Sanhedrin).
>
>Several problems:

I have cut the full list to avoid wasting bandwidth - although maybe
they might be instructive.

What is striking about the list is that they are are all pure gemorra
examples (except. perhaps kum li) with limitedinput from the Rishonim
and Achronim.  Certainly if you were learning hilchos shabbas, you would
not just quote a few gemorras, without looking at the machlokosim of the
rishonim and achronim and the other related issues discussed - otherwise
you would get a very distorted picture of what it is that we do.

The same is true of choshen mishpat.  While traditional Zionist thinking
held that nothing happened between the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash
and the founding of the State of Israel, those of us more rooted in our
tradition know that not to be true.  While with regard to certain
matters, new issues have to be grappled with in conjunction with the
State of Israel, the concept of how to "govern" is not actually one of
them.  Throughout the generations, in different places around the world,
we have had kehillas that have been more or less autonomous and self
governing (some more, some less, in some cases and times the goyishe
authorities held tighter control, but in others it was looser, to the
extent that, so long as a certain amount of money was delivered to the
king in tax, everything else was governed by the Jewish authorities
themselves - criminal, civil etc).

Because of this, there is an extensive literature on all of these
questions - and even that only gives a flavour of what was going on (ie
from the shialas that were asked, you can learn quite a lot about the
political structures in place that give rise to such shialas, and from
the teshuvas you can understand the halachic political theory which
underpins those structures). Reading siman 1 and 2 of Choshen Mishpat in
the Tur gives a bit of a flavour of it, although the majority of the
sources are elsewhere - much of it in teshuvas.

In such kehillos, cherem was by no means the only punishment used or
sanctioned (it was, of course, if the goyishe authorities reserved all
criminal sanctions for themselves, but otherwise there were a vast range
of sanctions which the kehilla could and did employ).

Similarly, many kehillos evolved (and were encouraged to implement by
the Rabbinic authorities) a democratic structure.  The usual questions
(if you are familiar with the history of democracy) come up - such as
the ethics of coercing those who are not present or vote against, and
whether property owners should have a greater say, or whether it should
be one man one vote).  Similarly the question of whether one can include
the non religious in such votes was raised.

Admittedly, the question of women voting is something that was new and
part of the issues faced on setting up the State.  But that had more to
do with the development of democracy in the outside world (virtually
nobody had women voting before the start of the twentieth century, hence
it was hardly likely to be raised within the kehilla structure).

Similarly there is a fair amount of halachic/political theorising
underpinning these structures.  At one point I started attempting to
sketch out a piece, more for my own statisfaction than anything, (for
which I used, as a working title, "the halachic legitimacy of the State
of Israel" ) in which I attempted to look at the differing halachic
political theory (if that is quite the right term, is that TuM or TIDE?)
which legitimises the operations of the state.  I basically start with
three concepts "Din Melech" (a la Rav Kook), Dina D'malchusa Dina (a la
most of the charedi world) and Takanot HaKahal (a la Rav Hertzog) - and
then worked at breaking these down further (the sort of think I mean can
be seen in the famous article by Rav Shachter in Tradition on Dina
D'malchusa Dina, although, because I was looking at it from a different
angle, I preferred to work up from the basic sources myself, and so
ended up with a somewhat different classification from his).  Of course
these interlink, because some people source Dina D'Malchusa Dina in Din
Melech etc etc but you also get divergence (for example, the idea that
the Secular courts fit within the category of archos only really works
with the Dina D'Malchusa Dina perspective).  Unfortunately, although I
did get a fair way with it, it is very much unfinished  (and to do it
properly I would probably need to do a thorough academic type job on it)
- and given how busy I am at the moment, I am unlikely to finish it any
time soon. 

The point being though that there is extensive political activity,
including judicial activity, that has been allowed for and been built
into a halachic framework down the centuries.  Citing Shimon ben Shetach
and the limitations of pure Din Torah takes no account of these other
frameworks.

>kol tuv,
>Eli Turkel
>

Kind Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

>In Avodah 4#414, DFinch responded:
>> Again, again: America is not Weimar Germany.
>Americans (that's all of us over here, folks,
>automatically, as soon as we get off the boat
>or sneak over the Rio Grande) aren't Germans. 

One of the passages that always sticks in my head is from one of the
Marcus Leimann (is that the correct name, it has been a while) books I
read as a kid - it may have been the one on R' Yoselman of Rosheim, but
then again, it may have been one of the others.

In any event, it was a book, published originally just after the turn of
the century in German, and aimed at the frum kid market, to tell them
about gadolim etc (a forerunner of artscroll, I guess).  And he starts
at least one of his books by saying something to the effect that today,
in Germany, it may be hard to believe, but it was not that long ago that
there was anti-semitism and people were hated for being Jewish.

What is so striking about this passage is that here we are dealing with
a book for older kids (it is not a picture book, but a history book, so
the target audience must have been around 10-16, I would guess) and he
felt it necessary to explain about the existence of anti-semitism,
because it was something he expected the kids he was addressing not to
have any personal awareness of (my grandfather, in contrast, growing up
in Lithuania, knew all about anti-semitism before he was six years old,
and would not have needed any such introduction).

Kind Regards

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On 12 Mar 00, at 11:54, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> In message , Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
> >IY"H I will learn Hilchos Shabbos well enough by then that I will be 
> >zocheh not to need a Korban Chatas (or more than one a day 
> >according to the shita that you should bring one every day just in 
> >case).
> 
> ???  You have just confused me.  I thought that you could only bring a
> korban chatas for a vadai chet - otherwise you would be over the issur
> of chullin b'azorah if in fact it was not necessary?  (An asham talui,
> maybe I could understand).  Whose shita is this and how does he deal
> with the chullin b'azarah problem?

You're right - someone else already corrected me offline on this 
one. The shita in the Gemara is in fact that one may/should bring 
an asham taluy every day, not a chatas.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

In a message dated 3/12/00 10:34:10 AM US Central Standard Time, 
wallach@mail.biu.ac.il writes:

<< In no case were the opinions cited above permitting the husband to
 beat his wife cited. The violence was always considered in the broader 
 light of the underlying marital discord, and only in extreme cases was 
 it the deciding factor for the decision granting the divorce.
  >>

R'Shaul Wallach's analysis is extremely interesting. It also reminds me of 
the rules in Makkos regarding capital and severe corporal punishment. The 
Mishnah sounds harsh, at times almost barbaric -- *until* one reads the 
Gemorrah and the fine print in Rashi, Tosafots, etc. Then one learns that the 
Mishnah has been interpreted so that the circumstances in which Jews sitting 
legally as a court could mete out serious physical punishment to other Jews 
are so limited as to be virtually non-existent. The analysis was not, 
strictly speaking, entirely logical. There was a largely unstated moral 
imperative at work. 

Frankly, I don't think there's a real debate here. Does anyone know of a 
contemporary Beis Din or individual rabbi of repute who has ever condoned 
wife-beating for any reason, including any dereliction of marital duty? 

David Finch

> > One who travels in an airplane from city to city, and the duration of
> > the flight is 72 minutes or longer, says theberachah, even if the
> > ground is below him. A flight less than 72 minutes, do not say it.And
> > this also applies to one who travels in a speeding car, that the trip is
> > less than 72 minutes, even if it would take that long in a bus. A round
> > trip flight, where the total flying time is 72 min or more, say the
> > berachah.

> Does that mean that birkhat hagomel depends on traffic conditions either
> on the ground or in the air.
> It would seem strange to me that the identical flight would sometimes
> require a beracha depending on whether the pilot had to circle or not.

Are we talking about Bircat Hagomel or Tfilat HaDerech? Whilst I'm not
aware of ROY's psak on Bircat HaGomel, it would appear that the kavannah
of Rav Ovadiah on tefillat HaDerech is based on the velocity, ie the
NORMAL distance covered in 72 minutes when travelling from A to B in a
normal way, whilst most other Gedolim hold by physical distance of one mil
which is suppopsed to take 72 minutes by walking. I would presume thus
that both opinions would rule out pilots circling an airfield.

The thread on living in Israel vs the US seems to have degenerated into
a chat-room type political discussion on the part of some participants.
What purpose is served and what authorization exists for the wholesale
characterization of political leaders of both countries as
"marionettes", "willing to sacrafice anyone and anything for his place
in history", "peanut farmer", "slick Willy", and generally
characterizing American presidents as antisemites?  For people who were
born and raised in the US, with all the advantages thereof,  it bespeaks
a lack of gratitude to so cavalierly impugn its leaders.  Nor is it
proper for someone living in Israel to impugn leaders who contributed in
important ways to its preservation.  Ehud Barak, the most decorated
soldier in Israel, does not deserve to be called a marionette, nor is
the place in history of Shimon Peres in jeopardy if for no other reason
than his important efforts in arming the new Jewish state. Nor is it
proper for someone demean the current holder of the most powerful office
in the world, by referring to him as if "slick Willy" was his nickname.
It is particularly galling when the technique of character assassination
is used in some posts, and lectures on the parameters of loshon ha'ra
are detailed in other posts.  Who is going to be impressed by such
tactics and motivated into making aliya?

Yitzchok Zlochower

> There was an article in the Jerusalem Post by Naomi Regan about
> wife-beating. Ignoring her diatribe it brings some interesting
> strictly halakhic issues.

I'm not so sure its 'mutter' to read her diatribe, never mind ignoring it!

> 1. Rambam (Ishut 21:10) says that if a wife does not do her work it is
> permissible to hit her (shot). The Raavad on the spot says he never
> heard of such a thing. Maggid Mishneh brings Rashba and Ramban that
> agree with Rambam (aside it gives the impression of an
> Ashkenazi-Sefard split but I haven't analyzed that further).

This whole issue has been discussed in length before, and its quite clear
that the Rambam only allows beating of person (male or female) by a valid
Beit Din when that person refuse to comply with the law or decisions
decided upon by that Beit Din. A woman has certain torah duties vis a vis
her husband (as does a husband his wife) and non compliance is grounds for
beis din intervention.

> On what grounds can anyone hit someone else because they are not fulfilling their
> obligations.

The Torah mandates a Beit Din with the ability to carry out both capital
and corporal punishment in order to uphold the integrity of the law.
Anyone else (except for the likes of Pinchas who killed out of zealousness
and not personal animosity) causing injury or death is 100% ossur.
Obviously the Torah does permit striking a child if thats the only way a
child understands correct behavior.

> Can a lender hit a borrower who has not paid back his money?

No No No. And if you know the borrower has no ability to pay back, its
even forbidden to make his life a misery and to find ways to extract it
from him, unless the previous agreement specifically allows it.

> Again, without seeing this inside, if a woman requests a get how does
> the bet din decide against her express desire that living together is
> better?

Where did you hear such a psak?

Daniel

This is an old post (I am catching up a bit):

In message , remt@juno.com writes
>This topic was addressed by RYBS in an address to the RCA convention, in
>a response  to Rabbi Rackman's approach of bitul kiddushin (in an earlier
>gilgul, in 1975. Indeed, ain chadash tachas hashemesh).  A transcript of
>the address appeared in a publication called "The Light," in its issue of
>17 Kislev 5736.  He writes, "Not only the halochos, but also the chazokos
>Chazal introduced are indestructible. You must not tamper, not only with
>the halochos, but even with the chazokos. For the chazokos Chazal spoke
>of rest, not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but on
>permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depths of the
>metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens
>above.
>
>"Let us take for instance the chazoka -- that's what I was told about --
>of 'tav l'maisav tan du mil'maisav arm'lu.' This has absolutely nothing
>to do with the social and political status of the woman in antiquity. 
>The chazoka is not based upon sociological factors. It is a posuk in
>Braishiss, 'v'el ishaich t'shukasech'. It is a metaphysical curse rooted
>in the feminine personality. She suffers incomparably more than the male
>while in solitude. Solitude to a male is not as horrifying an experience
>as solitude to a woman. And this will never change kiymei hashamayim al
>haaretz. It is not a psychological fact; it is an existential fact. It is
>not due to the inferior status of the woman, but is due to the basic
>distinction between the female personality and the male personality.

Question: Does RYBS mean by this - that this is true in the case of
every individual (and between every man and every woman), or that is is
a rebutable presumption -or the situation of the rov?

I suppose the problem I am having with it is individual.  If you look at
the individual case of myself and my husband - there is no question, I
would say, that solitude is more horrifying for him than it is for me. 

Now we are somewhat extremes in this matter - he finds it completely
extraordinary that I could happily (and I did this quite frequently
before we were married) spend an entire shabbas, from the time I got
home on Friday until motzei shabbas or even Sunday, completely and
entirely alone (not even going out of my flat).  He, on the other hand,
is inately gregarious, and finds working alone in the house unpleasant
(he likes to know that I am pottering around somewhere, even if in a
different room). (On the other hand, my parents are the reverse, with my
mother being the gregarious one, and my father being the one who is more
comfortable with solitude).

On the other hand, because of my mother's wider support network (my
father has limited "other friends" while my mother has always had a
whole additional network of friends), my father depends more on my
mother for the support he does need, so I, suspect, he would cope less
well where she no longer there (but, because we mirror this,  then the
reverse might well be true for Robert and myself).

So, whichever way you understand this (whether it be general solitude,
or specific support), I have a lot of difficulty in understanding it as
gendered.

If, on the other hand, we are talking about a rov, I am more comfortable
(well, I am fairly comfortable to say, OK so maybe i (or my father) is
not typical, what's new). But metaphysical curse does not sound like rov
- it sounds like something that must be found in every case (and neither
was that my understanding of chazaka - the whole point was that there
are no treifas that live for longer than 12 months).  But the
implication that I am some sort of surviving treifa is kind of difficult
to swallow.

on the other hand, a structural explanation is much easier for me to
maintain.  I compare the situation of Robert with that of my mother.  My
mother had to work very hard to set up and maintain her social networks,
because they were never just there (although she took anything on offer,
such as the mother's club and ran with it) but otherwise it meant going
out of her way to join this and run that and do the other.  Robert just
has to front up to shul, and there is a network already made for him
(his network is much wider than this, but shul forms a reliable core of
people with whom to interact, even if other friends move away or drop
away). So if you are the type for whom solitude is pretty difficult,
there are structural solutions for men that are not available to the
equivalent women (or perhaps, in any case, the communal solutions act to
dampen the pain). But such an explanation is pretty far from RYBS's
metaphysical curse.

>
>"An old spinster's life is much more tragic than the life of an old
>bachelor. This was true in antiquity; it is still true; it will be true a
>thousand years from now. . . . If you should start modifying and
>reassessing the chazokos upon which a multitude of halochos rest, you
>will destroy yahadus! Instead of philosophizing, let us take a match and
>set fire to the Bais Yisroel!"

Im sorry, I guess I don't feel like a match.

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

<<There was an article in the Jerusalem Post by Naomi Regan about 
wife-beating. Ignoring her diatribe it brings some interetsing strictly 
halakhic issues.

1. Rambam (Ishut 21:10) says that if a wife does not do  her work it is 
permissible to hit her (shot). The Raavad on the spot says he never heard of 
such a thing.>>>


If you are going to quote the Ra'avad whatever your point in quoting him is, 
you should give the whole quote. After saying that he never heard of such a 
thing he says that the proper method to deal wuth such a woman is "MiMaet 
Lah TZrachehu UMizonoteha Ad SHeTichna/decrease her "tzrachim" and food 
until she submits".

I'm not commenting on the Ra'avad, just quoting him.

Moshe

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Harry Maryles wrote:

>......How many Presidents have given a eulogy to an Israeli Prime-Minister that
>compared with the one Clinton gave for Yitzchak Rabin....

If I recall correctly, of all the Maspidim,
Clinton was the only one to say a Dvar Torah on that occasion...

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]