Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 019

Tuesday, April 23 2002

• Re:
• Re: ma'ariv before tzeis hakochavim
• oats
• kedoshim
• Re: kedoshim
• R' Prof Yehudah Felicks
• Yehuda Feliks
• Rav Kook and zealotry
• oxen, jeeps, and rabbinic taciturnity
• segulot
• Re: Zohar Chadash
• RE: oxen, jeeps, and rabbinic taciturnity
• Re: "al tischaber leRosho" and Tinok Shenishba
• Re: "al tischaber leRosho" and Tinok Shenishba
• Natural Law and Halachah
• Re: Natural Law and Halachah
• Re: segulot
• shatz

In a message dated 4/18/02 10:13:48pm EDT, avrahamyaakov@hotmail.com writes:
> that the
> AZ by the name Gad is mentioned in a Possuk (Yeshaya 65:11, Ho-Orchim
> Legad Shulchan), 

See also Y"D Ramoh end of 178.

In a message dated 4/14/02 6:20:35pm EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> But I sense an inconsistency: If Alenu is based on standard practice,
> then there ought to be an Alenu after every Shacharis, even when followed
> by Musaf. But if it is based on the current situation (as on Yom Kippur)
> then everyone (not just the Yekkes) should skip it when Kabalas Shabbos
> (and a weekday Maariv even more so) comes right after Mincha.

Aleinu ENDS davening for Sphardim  because they precede with a mizmor and 
Kaddish

The problem is:
How to get in a kaddish at mincha for Ashkenazim?!  Since there is no mizmor 
going right ot ma'ariv omits a kaddish Yassom.  This can be a problem. Yekkes 
are not chosheish in gneeral


My Yekkisher shul does as follows:
we go straight to ma'ariv on Friday night
UNLESS
we have a yahrzeit and THEN we add Aleinu to accomodate that Kaddish.  {AFAIK 
Breuer does NOT make this exception}

Now if a hiyyuv is already davening for the Amud that extra kaddish might not 
be needed

But then again Breuer's does not allow aveilim at Friday Mincha... 

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Avraham Cohen wrote:
>> Was this a professor Felicks? (spelling?) I remember hearing that
>> name associated with the oats issue back when I was in yeshiva. Have
>> any other poskim written about this?

> That's it. R' HS seems to think that this is something to take
> seriously. I will try to see who else says so.

R. Eliyashiv had a teshuva a while ago coming out strongly against using
any scientific evidence to decide these issues. He allows the use of
oats based on Mesorah any strongly objects to any other approach.

RHS in Mipenei haRav does not discuss this issue specifically but seems
to indicate that on can use science to determine a least some issues

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 04/21/2002

Question:

I noticed that in Acharei Mos and in Kedoshim, there were a number of
psukim that started with "ish ish".  Can anyone explain/eleborate/etc.?

Another question:

The third/last aliyah in the reading for Emor that was at Mincha today:
anyone know if that might be the shortest aliyah?  (3 psukim, only 26 words).

-- Sholom

R' Sholom Simon asked "Another question:"
: The third/last aliyah in the reading for Emor that was at Mincha today:
: anyone know if that might be the shortest aliyah? (3 psukim, only
: 26 words).

Same size as the first Aliya in Haazinu :-)

- Danny

> FWIW (and not that it invalidates his research on the flora and fauna of
> E.Y.) Yehuda Feliks is not a rav and not (as far as I know) a shomer Torah
> and mitzvot.

It is not worth much, and your information is incorrect. He is Shomer
Mitzvot. BTW, it appears that R' Unterman was also unsure about the Oats
question, but further research is being done to see if we can nail down his
opinion. 

JH   

[R"D Josh Backon also posted in RYF's defense.

[R' Steven Brizel added:
> IIRC, RHS referred to him as a musmach of RIETS who had specialized in
> this issue.

[And R' Joseph Mosseri wrote:
> Yes,
> Yehuda Feliks is not a Rabbi.
> But and here's the big part............
> I know him and he is Shomer Torah and Missvot. He lives in Jerusalem and is
> always glad to speak to anyone about any Torah subject. He is very
> knowledgeable and open minded. He has concurred with many rabbanim on most
> of his writings and he clearly states in his books that what he writes is
> not meant for anyone to be poseq halakhah for themselves without consulting
> their Rabbi!!

[So, while RYF is certainly shomer Torah umitzvos, we seem to have
conflicting reports about his semichah. In any case, he expressedly
tells you that the matter should be dealt with by a poseq. -mi]

I stand (happily) corrected. The person who first introduced me to his
books misinformed me, unwittingly, I assume.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

I was recently researching the issue of aveilus for a non religious Jew
who was killed by a non Jew. The Tzits Eliezar has a tshuva (vol 10 #41.5)
on the matter which he introduces with a quote from Rav Kook which seems
totally out of character - strongly lauding zealotry.

Does anyone know the context of the quote and why it was included in this
tshuva?

        Daniel Eidensohn

The gemara says that chazal wanted to ban beheimot gasot from Eretz
Yisrael, but they were unable to do so.  The comment is hardly unusual -
there are several remafks in chazal about gezeirot that chazal wanted to
implement but couldn't.

Why is it useful for us to know the details of these gezeirot?

David Riceman

<I think I need to clarify something I wrote yesterday. Many postings ago,
when I classified some segulot as folk-beliefs, RMB suggested a chiluk
between folk segulos and glatt segulos (my terminology). For example,
RMB argued that belief in sheidim was a glatt segulah since it is rampant
in the gemara.>

In Mepeninei haRav RHS brings down that RYBS objected to a chatan undoing
his shoe laces and considered it kishuf. When someone asked that the
other side was very insistent that he do it he answered that it was not
worth a machloket.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 04/22/2002

RGS wrote [to Areivim -mi]:
> What exactly is the Zohar Chadash?

The Zohar as we call t is actually a collection of works, not all of which 
were written by the same author. The parts which were authored either by 
rabbi Shim'on ben Yo'hai or by rabbi Moshe ibn Shemtov de Leon (see below) 
are: Midrash haNe'elam, Zohar itself, Ra'aya Mehemna, Safra deTzniuta and 
probably a few more.

Zohar 'Hadash, as its name implies, is probably of later import, and indeed 
deals with different themes than gufei Zohar, and mentions the 'havraye (RSBY 
and his minyan) very little if at all, even as they play a major role in some 
of the other sections. The Z'H was probably written early in the 14th 
century.

The question of authorship is a serious one; it stems mainly from the fact 
that the Zohar was unknown until its publication, in segments, by the 
Castillian mekubal rav Mosheh ibn Shemtov de Leon (a little younger than 
Ramban). RMiShdL did not state that RSBY authored the Zohar, nor did he say 
that the book was called the Zohar, nor did he publish it at once. He only 
said that it was ancient. Rav Yitz'hak demin Ako writes about the claim that 
RMIShDL publiushed the Zohar because he needed money, and that he may have 
made it up. RYdmA went to meet RMIShDL in person, and the latter invited him 
to meet at his home (they met in a different town) Upon arival of RYdmA 
RMIShDL had died.

The identification of the Zohar with RSBY comes mainly because the Zohar 
quotes him throughout.

FYI, the Kamarne rebbe writes that the Zohar was written by "Gaon e'had" and 
Ramo expresses his doubt WRT the identification of RSBY as the author of the 
Zohar by merely conceding "Sham'ati shehaZohar, RSBY kotvo" in a context 
where he refutes the Zohar's applicability WRT some issue in YD. The Ramo's 
use of sham'ati is to be understood as "even if that view is correct, it 
doesn't matter". Rav Ya'akov Emdin is most extreme in being entirely 
confident that the Zohar was written by RMIShTdL. To be fair, RYE also writes 
that Rambam wasn't the author of the Moreh, so investigate the argument as 
opposed to buying it at face value.


Arie Folger

From: David Riceman [mailto:dr@insight.att.com]
> The gemara says that chazal wanted to ban beheimot gasot from Eretz
> Yisrael, but they were unable to do so.  The comment is 
> hardly unusual -
> there are several remafks in chazal about gezeirot that 
> chazal wanted to
> implement but couldn't.
> 
> Why is it useful for us to know the details of these gezeirot?

1.  There may be a musar haskeil from learning about what chazal would have
been gozer had they been able to.

2.  One can learn something about making gzeiros--when it's not worth making
them even though there is a good rationale to do so.

Kol tuv,
Moshe



_______________________________________________________________________
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.

[From an Areivim discussion about joining in rallies with Jewish
organizations that reject halachah. -mi]

Everything has its Halachic parameters, and generalization is risky in
Halacha (as elsewhere).

"Tinok She-nisbah" and "Rasha" are technical terms that are defined
in Halachic sources and reference may be made to them to find such
definitions.

A fuller discussion of this topic would benefit from a primary sources
that I do not have available at this time; but I wish to provide a more
immediate response.

HaRav Gedaliah Felder, Z"L of Toronto in his SHU"T, Yesodei Yeshurin,
when dealing with whether a person who regularly made kiddush but
transgressed various melachot should be considered in the category of
someone whose wine was forebidden as if it was Stam Yeinam, ruled that
such a person, by making kiddush acknowleged that HKBH was the Borei.
His transgressions were thus not le-hachis but rather a function of his
lack of knowledge or familiarity with normative Yiddishkeit.

Also, IIRC, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks discusses the concept of Tinok
She-nishbah, in his book One people? : tradition, modernity, and Jewish
unity, as does a book in the Orthodox Forum series, Jewish tradition
and the nontraditional Jew, edited by Jacob J. Schacter.

Furthermore, to deal with the ad extremis argument of SBA, I think that
there is a type of Jewish "Natural Law" that defines a fundamental
INHERENT knowledge of right and wrong for a Jew. As to a non-Jew, I
believe that there is similarly an inherent moral knowledge possessed
by a normal decent person.

So as far as Conservative and Reform clergy, as I proposed in my previous
posting, I think that there are two distinct issues:

(1) Whether someone agrees with the public policy considerations
of Hirschian separatism - Remember that in the time of Rav Hirsch,
the Wurzberger Rav, Rav Bamberger disagreed with his position as to
separatism and also that there were at such time orthodox Rabbis, who
participated in community institutions- and "Gemeinde Orthodox" -persons
who were members of a united community in which certain functions such as
Kashrut and Mikveh were overseen by orthodox Rabbis). (RYBS's position
of no participation on an organizational level appears to me to be not
exactly the same as the Hirschian model but a variation of it.)

(2) The issue of personal relationships with Conservative or Reform
officials (i.e. whether someone is a "Rasha")- The latter issue,
I still believe is an issue to be determined by the concept of Tinok
She-nisbah. (As an aside, IIRC, I recall seeing a book by Jacob Neusner
where he mentioned that his graduating class (early 60's?) at JTS was
the first in which a majority of students came from non-Orthodox homes
and had thus acquired most of their knowledge of Judaism from their
seminary courses.) However, someone who is beyond the boundaries of
such inherently-known basic Yiddishkeit, or moreso beyond the pale
of normative human decency, by my definition at least, could never be
considered a Tinok She-nishba.

KT
Eliyahu

Eliyahu Gerstl wrote:
>"Tinok She-nisbah" and "Rasha" are technical terms that are defined in 
>Halachic sources and reference may be made to them to find such 
>definitions. A fuller discussion of this topic would benefit from a primary 
>sources that I do not have available at this time; but I wish to provide a 
>more immediate response.

In the halachic literature the subject is not at all as clear cut as people 
tend to say it is.  See my post at 
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n117.shtml#06> and add to it the 
Chiddushei HaRaman to Bava Metzia 74 (I think that is the source).  The 
Rashbash also has a teshuvah in agreement.

>Furthermore, to deal with the ad extremis argument of SBA, I think that 
>there is a type of Jewish "Natural Law" that defines a fundamental INHERENT 
>knowledge of right and wrong for a Jew.

Invoking "Natural Law" is stepping into a minefield.  I believe that in the 
most recent Tradition R. David Shatz discusses Marvin Foxes opposition to a 
Natural Law in Judaism.  It is certainly a controversial topic.

Gil Student

On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 05:09:10PM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: Invoking "Natural Law" is stepping into a minefield.  I believe that in the 
: most recent Tradition R. David Shatz discusses Marvin Foxes opposition to a 
: Natural Law in Judaism.  It is certainly a controversial topic.

Curious to hear a summary, or to get the article (if RSCarmy permits).

In the meantime, R' Binyamin Hecht sent around the following in Nishma's
recent mailing.

-mi

From: NISHMA <nishma@interlog.com>
Subject: Insight 5762-28

HALACHIC PURPOSE
Rabbi Benjamin Hecht

I am told that there was a Chassidic Rebbe who questioned the purpose of
the command of mesame'ach chattan v'kallah,[1] bringing joy to a groom
and bride. Why is this necessary? Are the chattan v'kallah not already
happy? The Chassidic Rebbe responded that indeed while there is much joy,
there is also trepidation. The new couple are inherently nervous about
their new lives together. The command of mesame'ach chattan v'kallah calls
upon us to attempt to alleviate or minimize these feelings of stress.

A mitzvah does not exist in a vacuum. A mitzvah is superimposed upon an
existent reality and is expected to affect this reality. Recognizing
this important idea is not just a theoretical concept for the world
of thought. It has practical, halachic application. In questioning the
purpose of the command of mesame'ach chattan v'kallah, this Chassidic
Rebbe was articulating this point. A mitzvah with no purpose is
superfluous. There is no reason for God to command that which will be
done anyway.[2] The Chassidic Rebbe thus was impelled to understand what
purpose was served through the mitzvah of mesame'ach chattan v'kallah. He,
therefore, investigated the reality of the situation and uncovered a focus
of the mitzvah that might otherwise have been overlooked. Essentially,
his desire to understand purpose had halachic effect. In perceiving
the mitzvah within its reality, he gave new insight into the halachic
implications of the mitzvah.[3] His search affected the practical
application of this mitzvah.

Rashi, Vayikra 19:3 would seem to be demonstrating a similar principle. In
clarifying why av, father, is mentioned first in the command to honour
parents while eim, mother, is mentioned first in the command to respect
parents,[4] Rashi explains that the parent-child relationship affected
most by the command is the one mentioned first. As most children feel
greater honour for the mother, it is the father who is mentioned first in
the command to honour parents. As most children feel greater reverence
for the father, it is the mother who is mentioned first in the command
to respect parents. Understanding the mitzvah in the context of its
reality teaches us the further halachic demand to go beyond the normal
feelings within the parent-child relationship. The halachic demand is
for the equal treatment of both parents in this relationship.[5]

This approach to mitzvot raises a most interesting insight into the
relationship between Torah and natural morality. To many individuals,
the Torah's ethical directives are deemed to be the Jewish expressions of
natural morality. For example, the Torah commands to honour and respect
one's parents are seen as the Jewish expression of the universal value
of devotion and deference of parents. Maintaining that a mitzvah must
affect an existent reality, however, results in a necessary divergence
between Torah and natural morality. If a mitzvah must affect the existent
reality and natural morality is the existent reality, the mitzvah must be
deemed to be affecting natural morality. The Torah ethic is not simply the
Jewish statement of universal values. By definition, the statement must
be different. The Torah directive must, in some way, reflect a statement
of value that is different than what would be expected universally.

This is not to say that the Torah directive may not include aspects
-- many aspects -- of natural morality. It also may not result in the
Torah directive necessarily being in conflict with natural morality. The
Torah directive may simply be setting a higher standard.[6] Yet, it must
also be recognized that the divergence may also result in conflict.[7]
There is also the possibility that the Torah may actually be setting
a more relaxed standard than the standard of natural morality.[8] Yet,
if the Torah is to be recognized as having an effect, in some manner,
the Torah standard and value expression must be different than the
universal standard and value expression of natural morality.

This is not to say that the divergence must always remain. Natural
morality is somewhat malleable and can be affected by the teachings of
Torah. Over time, what was once natural may change due to the influence
of Torah to create a new natural, universal standard of morality. But the
eternal nature of Torah would then demand one to uncover new divergences
and new perspectives on the effect of Torah upon reality. In a certain
way, the Chassidic Rebbe also taught us not to be complacent but to
always see anew. Understanding purpose has the ability to create a
dynamic Halacha that is always revitalizing the ethical principle.[9]

Footnotes

1) See Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 65:1.
2) See, however, Rashi, Makkot 23b, d.h. l'zachot. This issue is actually
most complex with variant opinions that reflect fundamental differences
in the understanding of the mitzvot. See, also, Nishma B'Iyun: Women
in Judaism, Study Sheet 22 in connection with the presentation of this
concept as the basis for an explanation for the exclusion of women from
the command to procreate.
3) On a personal note, when appropriate, I specifically attempt at a
wedding to speak to the bride and groom --with intention, informally and
in a round-about way -- in some manner that would alleviate or minimize
the stress of this newness. I do this in recognition of this understanding
of the mitzvah of mesame'ach chattan v'kallah .
4)  See Shemot 20:12.and Vayikra 19:3.
5) See, further, Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 240:15.
6) For example, the positive duty of care toward others found in
Vayikra 19:16 may set a standard far beyond that expected under natural
morality. Another example of this may be Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua's
view of chatzi nezek. See, further, T.B. Baba Kamma 16a.
The relationship between the taryag (613) code of the Jewish people
and the Seven Noachide laws may also be of significance within this
discussion. In this matter, it is generally assumed that the Jewish code
is inherently more stringent. See, further, T.B. Sanhedrin 59a. Yet, it
must also be recognized that the Noachide Code and natural morality may
not be one and the same. See, further, Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot
Melachim 8:11.
7) The case of the mamzer, the illegitimate child, whereby the one who
suffers is not the perpetrator of the crime, is one example.
8) Rav Papa's view in regard to chatzi nezek may be an example of this.
9) Further on this entire topic, see Inquiry with Rabbi Benjamin Hecht:
Is There a Distinctive Jewish Ethical Perspective, Nishma Update 5755-2.

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 12:30:03AM +0000, I forwarded an email from
RBH <nishma@interlog.com> Insight 5762-28 which wrote (in part):
: I am told that there was a Chassidic Rebbe who questioned the purpose of
: the command of mesame'ach chattan v'kallah,[1] bringing joy to a groom
: and bride. Why is this necessary? Are the chattan v'kallah not already
: happy? ...

What about shilu'ach haken? Isn't this also a redundant mitzvah? Don't
chazal contrast it with kibud av va'eim (the other "lema'an yarichun
yamecha) for this very reason -- that its naturalness makes the fulfilment
trivial (unlike the difficulty of kibud av)?

: A mitzvah does not exist in a vacuum. A mitzvah is superimposed upon an
: existent reality and is expected to affect this reality. Recognizing
: this important idea is not just a theoretical concept for the world
: of thought....

Histail be'Oraisa ovarei alma.

One can see this in two opposite ways:

1- That halachah is an expression of the same underlying law as nature.
Therefore the two should be in concert.

2- That halachah aims to perfect the world. Therefore, it should fill
in the gaps, provide the perfection that nature on its own cannot.
(As otherwise there would be nothing left in creation for us to
participate in.)

Last, I find this thought provoking:
: The relationship between the taryag (613) code of the Jewish people
: and the Seven Noachide laws may also be of significance within this
: discussion. In this matter, it is generally assumed that the Jewish code
: is inherently more stringent. See, further, T.B. Sanhedrin 59a. Yet, it
: must also be recognized that the Noachide Code and natural morality may
: not be one and the same. See, further, Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot
: Melachim 8:11.

As Yiddishkeit is aimed at being lema'alah min hateva, it is the mitzvos
benei Noach, not our Taryag, that are more likely to be "natural".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (413) 403-9905                              taking control too extreme?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:35:12AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: This is the thread that RAM tried to get started. Not everything
: unnatural is classified as kishuf, but some things are...

Ah, but you were arguing that nothing (except perhaps neis) is
unnatural. So what's this?

:> And yet we are told that every cheit shows a chisaron emunah.

: Really? I thought chazal attributed it to a ruach shtus (which I would
: render as folly). Perhaps you should remind me who told us that.

Perhaps the Ramchal should. He says it in Derech Hashem 1:3:8, based
on that very gemara (Sotah 3a) -- shetus is that lack of emunah.

: Take, for example, the amora whose water was drawn by a sheid.
: Don't physicists study movement of water?

Not all movement. For example, they don't study the motivations
and psychology of human water drawers either.

:> Either non-existant, or non-natural. Since the former
:> option conflicts with emunas chachamim, I assumed the latter.

: But remember when you chided RAF for taking sides in the machloketh
: rishonim about the existence of sheidim. Aren't you doing the same
: thing by redefining sheidim in a way they didn't imagine?

I'm trying to cast their ideas into the garments of 21st century
science. To say it can't be done is to assume those ideas aren't
Torah or that modern science is further from emes than Aristotle's
was.

: Notice that you are even contradicting yourself on this point: compare
: your list of segulos (commented on below) with your ancient definition
: (which seems to exclude sechar mitzva):
:> I'm talking about things like the power of putting Seifer Razi'el
:> haMal'ach in a baby's crib.

: Doesn't the Rambam say...

You mean rabbi "there is no segulah or real kishuf"? Aren't we trying
to explain the /other/ shitah?

:> Or reading Zohar even if you don't know the
:> words.

: Isn't the claim here that this is still considered a form of talmud torah?

Not AFAIK.

:> The link between particular kibbudim
:> and specific forms of sechar: pesicha and easy childbirth, maftir Yonah
:> and parnasah (which don't even seem thematically connected), etc...

: None of these fit your previous definition of segulah, because they are
: all kiyum mitzvos.

Which is why I spoke of the /particularlism/ of the sechar. But also,
see the following.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 05:36:58PM -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
: True. In a world without black magic, a rational world, there is no place
: for such segulot. The only thinkg you might, unconvincingly in many cases,
: try, is to restate them as sa'har veonesh.

But then they are a different kind of segulah: a mitzvah for which one
can pre-know the kind of sechar. Thinking over my list again (e.g.
pesichah's impact on child birth) most of my examples were of this sort.

: My understanding is that kishuf acc. to Rambam is the supernatural
: doesn't exist, period...

But we conceded the Rambam's shitah. The question was in understanding
the rov who are choleiq.

Then is the totally opposite question: How the Rambam understands all
those ma'amarei chazal.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 12:23:39AM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: I am leaning very strongly to believe that the main difference is whether
: the source is in kedusha or tumah. Call it "white magic" and "black magic"
: if you like...

I would like to suggest a different chiluq, one raised in sifrei kefirah
(books of Enochian Gnosticism, "Xian Qabbala", "Magick" and the like):
theurgy is the art of doing the will of God, thaumaturgy is trying to
get God to do man's will. I would identify the latter with kishuf --
in ADDITION to idolatry. AZ itself includes more than idolatry anyway.
This would explain why one may not use pesuqim for refu'ah.

: This is a great example of how our knowledge of teva can change over
: time, and what was once considered to be supernatural is later learned
: to be a natural process...

This reminds me of critics of creationism that speak of "the God of the
Gaps". IOW, those creationists who point to some feature of beri'ah thqt
science can't yet explain and cite it as proof there is a Borei. And
as science explains more and more, the role of their notion of deity
is repeatedly reduced.

Using a metaphysical idea to wallpaper over ignorance of physics is
a no-win battle. You might as well go with shitas haRambam.

: ... until such time as the physicists come up with an explanation to show
: that these apparently random happenings really do have a deterministic
: pattern after all. And then the sheidim will pack their bags for greener
: pastures.

(Off topic: Bell's inequality was verified in the lab by Aspect. The
randomness is real, not a product of hidden variables.)

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 10:28:25AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: I think I need to clarify something I wrote yesterday. Many postings ago,
: when I classified some segulot as folk-beliefs, RMB suggested a chiluk
: between folk segulos and glatt segulos (my terminology)...

I was /trying/ to say that the general notion of segulah can't be simply
dismissed because shas is replete with things later identified as what
you're calling "glatt segulos".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (413) 403-9905                              taking control too extreme?

According to halacha someone requested to be chazan should refuse 2
times and accept only on the third time.
I have great difficulties with this. First most gabbaim don't know the
halacha and when someone frefuses they go to the next person.

Second in many shuls it is difficult to find a volunteer to be chazan.
If the gabbai asks each person 3 times in order to find out that he really
does not want to be chazzan it is a royal pain for everyone involved

kol tuv,
-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 04/23/2002

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


[ 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         ]