Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 019

Tuesday, April 17 2001

• Climbing the Ladder
• Re: Climbing the Ladder
• RE: Kula shopping
• Re: agrippa
• Roedelheim Haggadah
• Who and What is a Rishon
• RE: Kula Shopping
• RE: Kulah shopping
• Chumros on Pesach
• naming conventions
• hallel/tefilin
• RE: hallel/tfillin
• Owning options on chameitz
• sentimental value
• Re: sentimental value
• Re: WPG
• RE: WPG
• RE: Owning options on chameitz
• Re: Climbing the Ladder

What are the parameters of self-improvement? Specifically, and using
R. Pinchas ben Yair's list for example, can one skip steps or do them
simultaneously? Intuitively, I would say that someone who has not yet
perfected zerizus should not be working on perishus. However, it seems
that people do not wait to perfect zehirus before they work on zerizus.
So what are the parameters for going in order and skipping steps?
Should one proceed in twos?

Gil Student

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 12:55:55PM -0400, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
: What are the parameters of self-improvement? Specifically, and using
: R. Pinchas ben Yair's list for example, can one skip steps or do them
: simultaneously? Intuitively, I would say that someone who has not yet
: perfected zerizus should not be working on perishus. However, it seems
: that people do not wait to perfect zehirus before they work on zerizus.

Li nir'eh the question is assertaining the number of dimensions involved.
Is working on perishus working in the same direction as on zerirus,
or are they orthogonal?

The closer the two middos are to eachother, the more they point in the
same direction, the more overlap there is between the two. Therefore,
working on the harder one before working on the easier would be
counterproductive.

However, if the two are barely related, then the only limiting factor
would be the amount of attention one is capable of paying. IOW, knowing
how to pick your battles so that you aren't spread too thin.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
>: It is clearly not the *pshat*, just drash (as is the case for most
>: midrashim)--it does not fit into the context of the psukim.
> 
> Nit: I object to your use of the word "just". Derashah has more bearing
> on halachah than does peshat. Since the case in question impacts how
> one blows the shofar, the fact that it's a derash actually 
> adds weight.

I would agree with you if we were talking about a pasuk in the Torah.  Here
we are talking about Koheles, and it is clear to me that this is asmachta--a
midrash--rather than a true drash (e.g., application of the 13 midos of R.
Yishmael, etc.).  The pasuk itself has nothing to do with tekias shofar and
is not talking about the concept of trying to be yotzai kol hadaiyos.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated Tue, 17 Apr 2001 8:46:06am EDT, Eli Turkel
<Eli.Turkel@kvab.be> writes:
>> The mishna on 41a in sotah discusses the famous case of agrippa and
>> "achinu atah" Rashi states his mother was Jewish. IIRC Agrippas was the
>> son of aristoblus and bernice (herod's niece by his sister) so it can't
>> be him. IIrc agrippa had a son also called agrippa and I assume this is
>> Rashi's reference.

> It is very unclear which Agrippa the mishna is talking about. Most people
> assume it is the first one since he was very pro-Jewish and "achinu atah"
> makes sense. Agrippa II was very pro-Roman and it is unlikely that anyone
> would call him "achinu atah". Most explanations explain his problematic
> heritage as coming from his descendant through Herod's family. As you
> point out Rashi is difficult.

Thanks for the insight. I often wonder how much of Rashi is mesorah and
how much is him using the "facts and circumstances" as reported in the
gemorah to "deduce" his perush (ie how much is sinai and how much is oker
harim) IIRC there is a gemorah in kiddushin which discusses yuchsin in
bavel and discusses geography which indicates in that case Rashi was
deducing since his result doesn't square with the actual geography of
the area in question. What are the "academic" and the "yeshivish" take
on this?

KT
Joel

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>: Maggid   uRchatz (n.a. Rachzah)

> I have a problem with a mnemonic that uses the same word twice. As I
> mentioned on Areivim in our discussion of siddurim, I have a problem when
> saying by heart a tefillah that has a phrase that appears elsewhere --
> my memory sometimes "switches tracks" continuing with the phrase after
> the other occurance. I would think that a repetition of the word "uRchatz"
> would be similarly flawed. Whereas "Rachtzah" or "Rachatz" would not.

Gil's correction stands... i.e. the 2nd washing one is Rachatz not u'Rchatz
again. My Apologies for (mis)quoting from memory.  And FWIW my Roedelheim
DID have Rachtzah as a Nusach Acheir in parantheses...

As far as the vav hachibur goes, Michah answered his own question by noting
the NEED to make a distinction.  So Rachatz twice was not OK, so perhaps one
had to be u'Rchatz.  That begs the question - Why is the first one u'Rchatz
and the 2nd Rachatz?    

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> In Nefesh haRav, RYBS is cited as suggesting that the Me'iri doesn't
> have the din of a rishon WRT defining halachah. That HKBH hid his
> sefarim during most of the development of halachah, and that too is part of
> the halachic process.

Rabbi Dr. E. Kanarfogel said something similar in a private discussion re:
Sifrei Torah...
I asked him.. "what about an archaeological find of an ancient sefer Torah -
how would it impact Halachic status? For example, we are aware that Rashi
had several girsa changes..."

RDEK replied that what makes a "kosher" Torah must endure the "Cur" of the
Halachic process.  IOW, Batei Dinim over time must rule on what is and what
is not kosher. An archaeological find bypasses this process.

Similar, the problem with the Me'iri is imho not so mystical to understand.
The point is he did not have the proper "peer review" of early acharonim
etc.  It bypassed the historical process of  analysis of shakla v'tarya. It
is similarly outside the system. Contrast this to how the Rishonim and early
Acharonim discussed Rashi, Rambam, Tosfos, Rosh, etc.  

Illustration: When the Ba'al Hamaor says we can be meva'eir Chametz on Erev
Pesach after zman issur via eating, he remains a da'as yachid.  That is
because rishonim(?) or at least early acharonim reviewed this opinion and
did not "ratify" it. 

Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil_student@hotmail.com]
> From Messilas Yesharim (ch. 14) by R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, first published 
> in 1740 (TQ):

> The main types of abstinence (perishus) are three...  Abstinence in laws is 
> to always be strict in them.  It is to be cautious even of a minority 
> opinion in a disagreement if this opinion seems [legitimate?], even when the 
> halachah does not follow it - this is on the condition that this stricture 
> does not become a leniency - and to be strict in cases of doubt even when it 
> is [halachically] possible to be lenient....

As I noted earlier, many of Ramchal's views were not mainstream when they
were written and for some generations thereafter.  Also, I would be curious
to see whether this idea of being machmir for minority opinions which we do
not pasken like has a source in the rishonim other than perhaps the Sefer
Chasidim.  As I wrote last year, Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik believes that Sefer
Chasidim was not accepted by the rishonim, who actually viewed the chasidim
with disdain and considered their views to be new and not rooted in prior
sources.

BTW, I don't see people following Ramchal on other aspects of prishus, such
as reducing worldly pleasure.

The proof brought by Ramchal from Chullin 37b is not a proof.  That Gemara
is talking about meat in which a safek was nolad and was brought to a
chacham for psak--even after the psak, some doubt remains (often, the doubt
is in mitziyus).  This is very different from a machlokes haposkim when we
clearly pasken like a certain shittah.  To my recollection, the amoraim and
rishonim weren't machmir for minority views which were nidcheh.  Compare to
the issue of when the existence of a machlokes helps you for purposes of
trying to create one safek of a sfek sfeikah--it's much easier to use a
safek in mitziyus than a minority opinion in machlokes haposkim which has
been muchrah l'halacha.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Someone asked me:
<<What are the ma'arei mikomot for the gemaro's that you brought down?>>

> 1. One of the Amoraim said that he was "chala bar chamra" because his father
> waited [from one day to the next] between meat and milk while he (the 
> son) waited just from meal to meal (exact reference would be appreciated).  
...

Chulin 105a

> 2.  Harbei asu k'kimchis vlo alsa beyadam. Rabbi Yaakov Genack explained the
> gemara to mean that one should imitate kimchis only if one has the right
> kavvanos.  Empty copying of chumros is meaningless.

Yoma 47a 

From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com>
> This minhag (or, in deference to RYGB's query, this hanhaga) was not
> restricted to chassidim; it was apparently the norm in Lita as well.

It may have been widespread, but not necessarily the norm. The story
about Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky not eating gebroks because he didn't want
to embarrass his host by not eating by him, indicates that just saying
"Ich mish nisht" would not have sufficed.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Does anyone know when the "convention" of calling Rabbis by the name
> of their sefer (eg "the bais halevi") began? The reason? Do any other
> cultures have this convention?

Does "kuntrus" count?  How about Tosafos?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> When I was a kid, I can remember everyone keeping their tfillin on Chol
> HaMoed Pesach until before Mussaf, just like on Rosh Chodesh.

        I believe current practice is to take them off before hallel, 
but to leave them on through krias haTorah on the day we read kadesh li.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> The Ezrat Torah Luach brings down that on chol hamoed pesach the chazan
> keeps tfillin on for hallel (if he wears them before :-)) due to tircha
> dtzibura however by sukkot it says he takes them off before hallel.
> Does aanyone know where the sources for these minhagim are and why the
> difference? I guessed ntilat lulav but....

The Mishnah Brurah makes this distinction.  IIRC, the reason (the MB
provides) is not because of chatzitza, but because, since the tzibur is
involved in netilas lulav, there will not be any tircha dtzibura on Succos.

IIRC from the Mateh Efraim, the retzuos on the person's hand is not
considered a chatzitza (at least m'ikar hadin).  As RMF already mentioned,
some have the minhag (also brought in the luach, IIRC) to keep their tefilin
on on the first day of chol hamoed Pesach because of the Torah reading
(although I have never seen an entire shul do so.)

KT
Aryeh

[The following is a summary of a conversation on scjm. The first party,
Abe Kohen, is a former co worker who is Jewishly literate but non-frum.
I chimed in, as did R' Dr Josh Backon. RDJB recommended I forward the
discussion here for reactions. -mi]

Abe Kohen <abekohen@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Micha can probably use binomial pricing to value the second option. Since
: it's excercisable only upon the husband's expiration, it is a European
: option, and Black - Scholes instead of binomial pricing, might be
: applicable. ;-)

MSB:
> <chuckle> (Note to the confused reader: Abe and I used to work
> together. He is referring to equity option pricing models. Which
> reminds me: can one own options or futures on chameitz? Do you have
> to make sure your position is delta-neutral?)

To which Abe replied something that would make no sense if you aren't
in the business. So, I'm interleaving his reply (A:) with the explanation
and reaction I gave on scjm (M>), as well as RDJB's comments (J}).

A: On first inspection:

A: 1. A Jew is forbidden to write an American style commodity settled option,
A: lest it be exercised by the buyer during Pesach.

M> American style options: the right to buy (if it's a call) or sell (if the
M> option is a put) for a given price at any time up to a given date. So,
M> whenever you feel you are sufficiently in the money, you can use this option
M> to buy cheap (or sell at a high price.

M> Commodity settled: one gets or gives the actual stock or commodity in
M> question if the option is excercised.

M> So, being the author of the kind of option Abe describes might become an
M> obligation to buy chameitz on Pesach, or an obligation to own chameitz
M> so that you can sell it to him on Pesach.

M> BTW, there is a real discussion as to whether shareholders in a company
M> own a share in the chameitz owned by that company, therefore making this
M> discussion about stocks as well. Fortunately, I don't know of anyone who
M> prohibits owning stock in a bread factory on Pesach, unless you have a
M> controlling interest.

J} Correct. See Iggrot Moshe OC IV 96.

A: 2. Writing of European style options with expirations after Pesach should be
A: permissible.

M> European options can only be used on the date posted. If the price is
M> right on that date, you can make money. (Unlike American-style options
M> in which the whole range of days is available, and you have to decide
M> when you want to take the money and run.)

M> Therefore there is no way you can actually be stuck with chameitz until
M> that date -- which is after Pesach.

A: 3. Writing of cash settled options should be permissible.

M> Nearly everyone who buys an option does so for the cash. For a call (the
M> right to buy), one uses the option to buy cheap and sell the stock at
M> market price. Or for a put -- to buy at market price and sell for a fortune.

M> So, why not cut out the middle man, deliver the resulting cash to the guy
M> directly rather than sending him stock (or worse, all those porkbellies)
M> and make him go through the work of selling it?

M> That's called "cash settlement".

M> Again, since he never owns the chameitz, just the value of the chameitz,
M> it should be okay.

J} I think Rabbi Michael Broyde has written a paper in this area.

I invite RMB to comment further.

M> What I had quipped about being "delta neutral" is the value of your
M> option is a function of the value of the underlying commodity. (The
M> derivative of that function is called delta.) Therefore, one is gaining
M> benefit from owning something that is related to the value of chameitz
M> on Pesach, even though one doesn't actually own the chameitz.

A: 4. Buying a commodity settled call option should be prohibited.

M> Similarly a put -- since you'll have to buy the chameitz in order to
M> sell it, if the other party ends up excercising. Note Abe said "commodity
M> settled", we're talking about the transfer of actual chameitz.

A: 5. Futures no, forwards yes.

M> A future or a forward is the right to buy or sell at the given price on
M> a given date. Forwards are kind of like combining a European call with a put,
M> cash settlement. They would therefore be okay, as per #3, and possibly #2.

M> Futures are exchange traded forwards, but they have one odd "keneitch"
M> -- you actually realize your profits (or losses) daily, when the market
M> closes. This means that you are technically buying and reselling the
M> chameitz that the future represents each time the market closes on Pesach.
M> So, Abe suggests that aren't okay for Pesach.

A: 6. Repos and reverse-repos are the preferred method.

M> Repo is where the seller agrees to buy it back at a certain time. I
M> disagree with Abe that this is okay.

M> In the contract that one uses to sell the chameitz in your home to a
M> non-Jew, as offered by most LORs, it is understood that one will buy the
M> chameitz back. But one explicitly does NOT ACCEPT A RESPONSIBILITY to
M> do so. Such responsibility would be a modicum of ba'alus (the nearest
M> halachic equivalent to ownership), even though we wouldn't call it
M> ownership in American law (or any other western system, as far as I know).

M> A repo explicitly includes such a responsibility.

M> This difference between ba'alus, which is really about control, and
M> ownership of an object is why I think one could have a discussion about
M> the permissability of delta exposure -- having value because of the
M> value of chameitz without actually owning chameitz.

M> Chameitz is even messier -- both ba'alus and ownership are prohibited.
M> "Lest it be seen and lest it be found."

Okay, so this last point was my own VIDC chiddush, and hasn't yet been
proven to be emes. The whole post is my own opinion anyway. Anyway RDJB
adds weight to the idea:

J} The halachic concept of "achrayut k'baalut" [responsibility is equivalent
J} to ownership] [Pesachim 5b] causes chametz in this category to also be
J} forbidden to possess on Pessach.

M> A reverse-repo is identical, except buying with the understanding that
M> you will sell. Here, I'm stymied how Abe could even propose it's okay.
M> Until you sell it back, you own (in the normal sense of the word) chameitz.
M> Since Abe seems to have thought that ownership is ba'alus, I don't know
M> how he would say it's okay.

M> You share ba'alus of it, because of the promise that it will be returned.
M> But you only share ba'alus, you don't get rid of it altogether. And in
M> either case, it's still your property in the sense I've been calling

Does anyone have a makor to take the "sentimental" value of a damaged or
destroyed item into account when deciding on monetary damages to award a
nizak. For example if a mazik destroyed a piece of jewelry that belonged
to ones great grandmother that had great sentimental value in the family
but little monetary value - would Beis Din be able to take this in
account?

Reuven

Reuven Miller <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> Does anyone have a makor to take the "sentimental" value of a damaged or
> destroyed item into account when deciding on monetary damages to award a
> nizak....

Sounds like a Hezek She-Eino Nikkar, which, as we know Lav Shmei Hezek.

HM

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 03:46:03PM -0400, Feldman, Mark quoted R' M Twersky:
: Regrettably, such distortions plague the flawed analysis of the Rav's
: position on women's tefillah groups. The analysis fails to consider the
: range and variety of halachic categories. When judging the acceptability or
: legitimacy of a particular action, halachah does not speak only in terms of
: mutar (permitted) and asur (forbidden). Many actions are not labelled asur,
: and yet are absolutely halachically wrong and unacceptable....

I think RMT was the one to articulate this observation particularly
because of his Twersky heritage. His statement is one I would expect
from a chassid or ba'al mussar.

The paradox is identical to the one behind the issur of neveilus birshus
hatorah. If it's an issur, than how is it birshus hatorah? Rather, there
is a broader issur that eludes our normal halachic classification system
that says that if the behavior doesn't fit the Torah's morality, it's
wrong even without being able to find a specific issur.

Similarly, RYBS could state that while there is no specific issur outlawing
WPGs, it runs sufficiently counter to hashkafah to fit under one of the
non-specific, non-quantifiable, "I know it when I see it", issurim.

This is not quite Brisk's focus territory, though. Their derech limud
is about making classifications more and more precise. "Kedoshim tihyu",
"vehalachta bidrachav" and similar umbrella and fuzzy chiyuvim don't lend
themselves to Brisker analysis very well.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

[I'm forwarding this part of the discussion about WPG, women's prayer
groups, from Areivim to Avodah. I think the tangent that deals with the
nature of non-specific issurim touches on our thread about kulah shopping,
and the proper use of chumros. Discussions about WPG itself should stay
on Areivim. -mi]

From: Shinnar, Meir [mailto:Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu], to Areivim.
> R M Twersky wrote an article in Tradition  where (IIRC) he
> acknowldeged that RYBS never used the words issur in relationship to WPG,
> but elevated the rav's opposition to the formation of women's prayer group
> to a binding halachic imperative, something that RYBS himself did not do. 

Thanks to Gil Student for the URL of R Twersky's article
[<http://world.std.com/~yi/brookline/written.html#a7>], which I excerpt
below. After reading the article, I find it difficult to accept the
argument that the R Twersky does not reflect RYBS' halachic position.

Excerpt:
<<On other occasions, after the Rav stated his unequivocal opposition to
women's tefillah groups, the questioner persisted. "But, Rebbe, is it asur
(legally forbidden)?" While resolutely opposed to such groups, the Rav was
reluctant, at times refused, to label them as asur. Proponents of these
groups have inferred that the Rav deemed them to be permissible and dismiss
his adamant objections as non-binding, unauthoritative suggestions for
public policy which they "respectfully" decline to follow. This analysis is
flawed, as will be explained. 

Halachah is a complex, precisely nuanced divine system of law with its
unique indigenous conceptual and juridical categories. Only by virtue of
constant, wide-ranging and in-depth study of halachah, both its principles
and minutiae, can one become fully attuned to authentic halachic categories,
thinking and methodology; such detailed macrocosmic study is indispensable
for an accurate understanding of any microcosm within halachah. When
halachic statements or pronouncements are interpreted within a non-halachic
mindset in non-halachic categories, inevitably distortions result. 

Regrettably, such distortions plague the flawed analysis of the Rav's
position on women's tefillah groups. The analysis fails to consider the
range and variety of halachic categories. When judging the acceptability or
legitimacy of a particular action, halachah does not speak only in terms of
mutar (permitted) and asur (forbidden). Many actions are not labelled asur,
and yet are absolutely halachically wrong and unacceptable. The Talmud and
Shulchan Aruch are replete with examples. In the case of one who fails to
honor a legally non-binding oral commitment to give a present or finalize a
transaction, the Talmud does not classify his conduct as asur. Rather, the
Talmud says, "The Sages are not content with him." And yet the Talmud
explicitly states that his behavior, while not classified as asur, is
impermissible.23 Similarly, "Rav would administer lashes to one who
betrothed a woman in the marketplace or withour prior engagement..."24
although this practice is not technically asur. Chazal rejected some forms
of behavior as asur, others as wrong. Conceptual differences not
withstanding, both categories are invioable. In fact, at times, Chazal
censured wrong behavior especially harshly and even imposed severe punitive
measures on people who were guilty of such infractions. 

The Rav consistently advised all who inquired that women's tefillah groups
are, at best, halachically wrong. When such groups are unfaithful to
halachah by promoting misconceptions that the participants are actually
reciting devarim she'b'kedushah or receiving authentic aliyot and the like,
they clearly violate the precept of truth.25 Under such conditions, women's
tefillah groups are indeed asur as well. Even under the best of theoretical
circumstances, i.e. when everyone is informed that the participants are
forfeiting the substantial advantages of public prayer and it is clear that
no attempt is made to confer or simulate true aliyot, the Rav opposed such
groups. Perhaps not technically asur, but unequivocally wrong and
unacceptable. The queries regarding women's tefillah groups and the Rav's
response were halachic. And as such the Rav's negative response was, and is,
binding. >>

Selected footnotes:
<<22. My presentation of my grandfather's position is based upon my first
hand knowledge, corroborated and amplified by the accounts of intimates of
the Rav. His personalized words of encouragement to rabbis who would not
accept his psak were later misconstrued as a softening of his halachic
stance. 

24. Ibid., Kidushin 12b, cf. Rashi ad loc sub de-rav. Although Rav was
clearly concerned with the breach of modesty, in these instances the conduct
which he punished was technically not asur, yet unequivocally halachically
wrong. Neither the Talmud nor Rambam, nor Shulchan Aruch classify this
action, sharply censured and severely punished, as asur. Imagine a twelth or
sixteenth century counterpart of contemporary interlocutors persistently
questioning Rambam or Rabbi Yosef Karo, "But rebbe, is it technically asur
to betroth without prior engagement?" The answer, undoubtedly, would have
been and is "no." Cf ibid. Berachot 13b, 15b, 29a, Kidushin 21b and
Chidushei Ha-Grach ad loc. for other examples of wrong behavior condemned by
Chazal. Many, though not all, instances of rabbinic imprecation responded to
wrong behavior. 
>>


_______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is
protected by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for
the sole use of the intended recipient.  If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying
or retention of this e-mail or the information contained herein is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please
immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail, and
permanently delete this e-mail from your computer system.  Thank you.

This is an email exchange Micha & I had:

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> A: 1. A Jew is forbidden to write an American style commodity settled option,
> A: lest it be exercised by the buyer during Pesach.
...
> M> So, being the author of the kind of option Abe describes might become an
> M> obligation to buy chameitz on Pesach, or an obligation to own chameitz
> M> so that you can sell it to him on Pesach.

[Moshe:] And what would happen if you refused to sell it or buy it?
Presumably a court would assess monetary damages, not require specific
performance (i.e., actually force you to acquire chometz).

Micha:
> It's a breach of contract. Probably also would get the 
> exchange (if exchange
> traded) and the SEC breathing down your neck. Stealing is 
> stealing, even if
> a court forces you to make restitution.
> 
> IOW, non-compliance is assur, but -- as you note -- it would 
> change the
> issur from bal yeira'eh to geneivas akum, dinah dimalchusah 
> and midevar
> sheker tirchak.
  
My reply:
I don't know exactly what the SEC would do.  I do know that an American
court views breach of contract as not stealing; rather, you have harmed the
other party and have to pay damages (which may in fact exceed the cash paid
in a cash-settled contract, if, for example, time is of the essence).  I
also wouldn't say that dinah d'malchusah requires paying -- that would be
tantamount to saying that a court requires specific performance (actually
physically going through with the transaction), which is not the law.  Maybe
there is a midvar sheker tirchak, though presumably you could say that you
were hoping that you would "win" the gamble of the option.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> What are the parameters of self-improvement? Specifically, and using
> R. Pinchas ben Yair's list for example, can one skip steps or do them
> simultaneously? Intuitively, I would say that someone who has not yet
> perfected zerizus should not be working on perishus. However, it seems
> that people do not wait to perfect zehirus before they work on zerizus.
> So what are the parameters for going in order and skipping steps?
> Should one proceed in twos?

See Chapter 3 in Zichron Ya'akov of Rav Yaakov Lifshitz where he describes
the fundamental difference between the chasidim and misnagdim in terms of
these 10 steps. The misnagdic approach is to take a step at a time without
skipping steps. He cites Mesilas Yesharim chapter 4. Apparently the
chassidim didn't agree that the stages were dependent but that one could
start at the upper levels and eventually develop what had been skipped. This
is also related to the gemora (Berachos 28a) when R' Gamliel was replaced
along with requirement that ones inner nature should match his outer nature
in order to admitted to yeshiva. Apparently R' Gamliel was a misnagid and
insisted that if a person was acting like a tzadik he needed to be a tzadik
to be in the yeshiva.

On the other hand the Sefer Chinuch seems to advise that one act the way he
wants to be and the inner nature develops from the behavior. Someone once
noted that R' Gamliel also agreed with the chasidic approach but restricted
his students to the ones whose inner development had caught up to their
exterior behavior.  That is why he said the inside should match the outside.
A true misnagid would say that the outside should match the inside.

Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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         ]