Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 117

Wed, 17 Jun 2009

• 1. Re: Shelach (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Officiating at a Mixed Marriage (Micha Berger)
• 3. crime and punishment (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 4. Re: Officiating at a Mixed Marriage (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 5. Re: Shelach (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: Officiating at a Mixed Marriage (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 7. tcheilet (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 8. tannur shel achnai (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. Re: Request for Sources (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: Yom Kippur x 2 (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Re: Shelach (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: tannur shel achnai (Daniel Israel)
• 13. Re: tannur shel achnai (Joshua Meisner)
• 14. Hashgacha Pratis for goyim (Michael Makovi)
• 15. Avodah] Hashgacha Pratis for goyim (Michael Makovi)
• 16. Avodah] Hashgacha Pratis for goyim (Michael Makovi)
• 17. Re: Hashgacha Pratis for goyim (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: tcheilet (Micha Berger)
• 19. what must O believe? (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 05:44:45PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
:> OTOH, who did he pick? The successful merageil from last time around -
:> Kaleiv, and a known zealot for HQBH - Pinechas.
:> - Micha

: But this is ONLY al pi midrash!

: My LOR growing up -R Wm. Cohen (not the senator!) - Darshened thusly:
...

Yes, the fact that it's al pi medrash gives your LOR room to say
otherwise.

I, OTOH, figured that the point I was making was part of the thesis of
the medrash.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 01:57:01PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: No, he doesn't.   He sends actual spies, secret agents whose names
: are not revealed, whom he chooses for their expertise, and trusts to
: report to him *in secret* on the enemy's military position and what
: weaknesses might be exploited....

But the medrash has him picking two prominent people as Kaleiv was one
of the people sent on MRAH's political junket and the other was in line
to be kohein gadol (Rashi 25:15, based on Zecachim 111b), if he wasn't
the kohein gadol yet..

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 06:40:45AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:>A mixed wedding is not a valid chasuna, so how could a rabbi officiate?
:> To ask where is the source would be lending credibility to a mixed
:>marriage.

: And yet it is a valid legal and social act - at least valid enough to
: trigger the issur of "lo titchaten bam".

And one of the 7 mitzvos benei Noach recognizes such women as eishes
ish.

For that matter, I half remember a Ketzos in which he talks about 2 dinim
in Jewish marriage, that qiddushin is in addition to Noachide marriage,
not instead. The amazing nafqa mina is that he holds a pilegesh requires
a get shichrur. And unlike R' Moshe Feinstein, who ruled that a couple
who lived together thinking they were married (and thus "ein adam oseh
be'ilaso..." doesn't make a presumption of qiddushin a"y bi'ah) would still
require a get -- but a get shichrur, not a get kerisas qiddushin.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

unfortunately , our communities suffer  allegations of crime,  with 
defendants/convicts  ranging from balebatim  to gdolim; with crimes 
running the gamut  from all types of monetary  torts--bein  adam 
lechaveiro or beinadam lmakom[ makom being the city, state ,govt];  and of 
course increasingly frequent 
allegations/convictions  for  varieties of lewd conduct, especially with 
minors.

it is not clear at  what  point it is permitted to believe or  act on 
these allegations/convictions.  i am  not sure even after conviction what 
halachic remedies there are or need to be --
  1]  monetary crimes 
 
2]  abuse type issues

3] does it make a difference if halacha says the crime is muttar, but the 
government says no, and criminalizes it?

 4] status in halacha if a klei kodesh is the convicted.  can one retain 
rav/rabbi/rebbie/rebbe  status when leaving jail---or is this purely up to 
the community  they serve? 

5] if this type  of data is important , what vehicle should disseminate 
it? 

6] where does the public right to know  interface with the halachic right 
to be free of lashon hara?




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090616/bd2e55bc/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> A mixed wedding is not a valid chasuna, so how could a rabbi officiate?
>>  To ask where is the source would be lending credibility to a mixed
>> marriage.
>>
>
> And yet it is a valid legal and social act - at least valid enough to
> trigger the issur of "lo titchaten bam".


The issur is triggered bShas B'ilah (Rambam Hil Issurei Bi'ah 12:1).


> There's certainly no validity to a mixed marriage anymore than
>> 2 non Jews who marry (as far as the halachic definition of a Jewish
>> marriage goes).
>>
>
> The marriage of two non-Jews certainly does have halachic validity;
> the wife becomes an eshet ish.


Here too the Geder of Eshes Ish is not Chal until B'iah (Rambam Hil. Mlochim
9:7)

NOTE: this has obviously nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090616/78fddf4a/attachment-0001.htm>

> But this is ONLY al pi midrash!"


Amasla:
It has come to my attention that this statement is being read as dismissive

But It was not intended to be, rather
It was meant that
This is aisi the drash not peshat
Or
That this is ONLY one way of shiv-im panim.

It was not meant to convey that drash in general or in this case
is somehow inferior. I wish to clarify that this was not my goal.
Rather I wanted to explain this is but ONLY one approach and that my
rabbi's approach provided a more specific tiqqun AIUI.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> : And yet it is a valid legal and social act - at least valid enough to
> : trigger the issur of "lo titchaten bam".
>
> And one of the 7 mitzvos benei Noach recognizes such women as eishes
> ish.
>
> Since Kiddushin are not Tofes in a BN, I would think that untill there was
B'ilah a Ben Noach would not be Neherag for Eishes Ish, Since that "Bdina
Didon" (in Jewish law, when the act was performed by another Yid) the second
person would not be punished by death, (see earlier mentioned Rambam Hil.
Mlochim 9:7).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090616/e9de80c8/attachment-0001.htm>

http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2009/06/should-you-wear-because_16.html
safek doraisah lechumrah?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090616/f51fd373/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.springbird.net/  on the similarity between uncertainty of 
reality in physics,  and in halacha, as demonstrated  by the upcoming 
gmara 
lecture with sourcesheets 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090616/688a359b/attachment-0001.htm>

RRW wrote:
> A friend asked me:
> "Vu shtait geshribben that a rabbi may not officiate at a mixed
> wedding?". Apparently a Reformist argued to my buddy that since the
> couple is doing the deed NOT the rabbi therefore the Rabbi himself is
> off the hook.

See the Mishna in Shevi'it, quoted in Bavli Gittin, and in Yerushalmi
Shevi'it, about helping 'ovrei 'aveira. (mash-elet isha lishkhenta
nafa ukhvara ...), where we learn that it is for example prohibited to
greet someone while he ploughs during shemitta. Methinks that
officiating is much more than being me'hazeq yedei 'ovrei 'aveira.
Furthermore, see the gemara in Kethuboth regarding the merit of the
Nations, she-ein kotvin kethuba le-zakhar, which ipso facto shows that
even halakhically invalid contracts and unions are halakhicly relevant
and subject to censure, otherwise the question of whether there ever
was homosexual "marriage" would be moot, as it would anyway be
halakhicly unenforceable and hence not subject to recognition.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Barukh She-Amar Elucidated (from 06/17 at 12:00pm GMT+2)
* The Anatomy of a Beracha
* Basic Building Blocks of Jewish Prayer

R' Jonny Dickson (welcome to the list!) asked:
> My question is, why is there no second day Yom Kippur? The
> usual answer to this is because people can't fast two days,
> but if that's the case, why not at least have an issur
> melacha on 11th Tishri? Or perhaps allow people to eat after
> nightfall on the 11th, because of pikuach nefesh, and then
> (having removed the risk) require them to fast for the rest
> of the 11th?

Such rules make sense to those who are very learned, but the average person
would all too easily have concluded that if a snack is okay on the night of
the 11th, it is also okay on the night of the 10th. And if I can eat a
snack, why not cook it too?

It is a great example of "Tafasta meruba lo tafasta" (biting off more than
one can chew) or "Yatza s'charo b'hefsedo" (you lose more than you gain).
D'rabanans are supposed to strengthen the Torah law, and something such as
you suggest could end up weakening it.

Besides, how would you phrase such a law? How much can one eat on the night of the 11th? How early? How late?

Your suggestions fit in very well with current ideas of taking "some of
this and some of that" to effectively compromise different goals in an
attempt to accomplish as much as feasible when those goals conflict with
each other. Two examples which come to mind are visitors to Eretz Yisrael
who "go l'chumra" on the second day of Yom Tov (a/k/a "a day and a half"),
or eating the afikoman after chatzos "al t'nai".

I do not mean to demean those procedures in any way. They are good and
valuable, and they solve a real problem. But let's be very honest and clear
about exactly which problem they solve. Namely: We don't know what the
halacha is. If one wishes to wax philosophical and refer to the problem as
"galus" or "lack of Sanhedrin" or whatever, that's fine; it still boils
down to the same thing: We don't know whether Sof Zman Afikoman is chatzos
or alos, and we don't understand the concept of Yom Tov Sheni And Visitors
as well as we'd like. And so on.

Chazal did not suffer from this problem. At least not to the degree that we
suffer from it. Of course there were things they disagreed about, but it's
not wrong to say that a great deal of their efforts went into
*establishing* the halacha, not merely *clarifying* it. When disagreements
arose, or when values conflicted, they were able to decide what was more
important than what, and the clear halacha emerged.

Here's an example which might illustrate my point: Shmini Atzeres in Chutz
Laaretz. This is the one case where one Yom Tov conflicted with another Yom
Tov, and Chazal had a difficult debate on what to do about it. Yom Kippur
was really no problem; the only reason to have a second day was "lo plug"
(as you wrote), but that is easily answered by the difficulty and danger of
a second day. (It just now occurred to me that all the arguments against
having Yom Kippur fall on Friday or Sunday would be equally effective
against a second day.) But Shmini Atzeres is a much bigger problem. We
really ought to have an eighth day of eating in the Sukkah, and Chag Bifnay
Atzmo is not as strong of an argument as Sakanas Nefashos. So they
discussed and came to a decision.

I'm not going to say exactly what their decision about Shmini Atzeres was.
Suffice it to say that it is merely to illustrate what a no-brainer Yom
Kippur was. Yes, they could have legislated something about 11 Tishrei. But
for what purpose? It just wasn't worth it.

But what do I know? I'm the sort of am haaretz who gets confused by all
this stuff. I fully expect that someone more learned than me will come
along soon and cite mesechta and daf, and tell us that "The reason we don't
have a second day of Yom Kippur is explicit in gemara such-and-such..."

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here for great quotes from top international movers!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsKdC6LtCogEJQsgslFrrjCkOhKZcHE3BY7DWAhVcYLzqr9G6TGePm/

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 01:57:01PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : No, he doesn't.   He sends actual spies, secret agents whose names
> : are not revealed, whom he chooses for their expertise, and trusts to
> : report to him *in secret* on the enemy's military position and what
> : weaknesses might be exploited....
> 
> But the medrash has him picking two prominent people as Kaleiv was one
> of the people sent on MRAH's political junket and the other was in line
> to be kohein gadol (Rashi 25:15, based on Zecachim 111b), if he wasn't
> the kohein gadol yet..

There's nothing that says famous people *can't* be competent spies.
Mata Hari was both, using her public career as a cover for her espionage.
Being a member of a political delegation might in fact be a good cover
for a real spy.  If one were writing this as fiction, one might look at
Kalev's private side-trip to Chevron, and wonder whether he might not
have had private orders from Moshe.  But the point is that, famous or
not, when he's in his role as meragel he's not named, even after his
death, and it remains for the Medrash ~1500 years later to reveal the
secret.

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

Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> http://www.springbird.net/  on the similarity between uncertainty of 
> reality in physics,  and in halacha, as demonstrated  by the upcoming gmara
> lecture with sourcesheets

Do we know who it is that is giving this shiur?

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Daniel Israel <d...@hushmail.com> wrote:

> Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
>> http://www.springbird.net/  on the similarity between uncertainty of
>> reality in physics,  and in halacha, as demonstrated  by the upcoming gmara
>> lecture with sourcesheets
>>
>
> Do we know who it is that is giving this shiur?
>

It was delivered at the 2006 AOJS summer convention by Aviva Bieler, an
engineer: http://preview.tinyurl.com/lm37to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090617/9b7b264a/attachment-0001.htm>

Responding to R' Mordechai Cohen:

> OTOH, most rishonim held that there isn't HP for Jews either (except for individual tzadikim).
> R Chaim Friedlander z'l in his (controversial ?) sefer on the subject felt
> that this was the view of ALL rishonim.

I won't try to argue with the Rishonim on metaphysical grounds; forget
their Torah knowledge - they know Aristotle a million times better
than I do! (Not that I grant any particular favor to Aristotle's
views.) So even if I disagree with them, I won't try to do so on
dialectical grounds.

Also, I do think that in the confrontation between naturalistic and
inexorable science, and HP, the Rambam provides us the best starting
point, i.e. Hashem working miracles from within the laws of nature.
          Or, to quote the Ran (Drashot 7), as quoted by R' Leo Levi
("Torah `Im Derech Erets in Our Time", Tradition 28:1, Fall 1993): "It
is God's wish and desire to maintain the 'custom' of the world
whenever that is possible; nature is in fact dear to Him, so that He
deviates from it only when necessary. . . . Events do not occur
according to individual causes but general causes, because God does
not wish nature to change according to [the needs of] every
individual."
          Or to quote Ramban (on Deut. 20:9) from R' Leo Levi (ibid.):
"He does not wish to change the nature of the world except when no
other sort of salvation will do...". Or as Hazal say (`AZ 54a), if
someone steals wheat and sows it, it shouldn't grow, but nature is as
it is, etc. But all this concerns nature versus science in general
(where I agree with the rishonim), and has nothing to do with tzadikim
versus beinonim and reshai'm, or Jews versus gentiles (where I might
DIS-agree with the rishonim).

Also, Rambam in the Moreh (I am relying on secondary sources, I will
admit) and Rabbi Berkovits in Essential Essays, both based on the
conclusion to Sefer Iyov, both state that G-d often must allow certain
injustices in order to uphold the greater ovearching needs that He has
in creation. For example, free will demands that the righteous and
wicked not be obviously rewarded and punished. This is in contrast to
the Mutakalimun, who argued like Job's friends. According to Rabbi
Berkovits's formulation, sometimes G-d must act according to His
mishpat ( = derech, i.e. His overarching plan and purpose), and ignore
what is strict justice in the given present case. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan
(Faces and Facets) cites a midrash to the effect that a certain poor
man would have to have creation recreated, with his being placed in a
different generation, in order to be saved from his poverty; Rabbi
Kaplan concludes that the wheels of history sometimes demand a few
people suffer undeservedly.

Regarding tzadikim and beinomin/resha'im, and Jews and gentiles, where
I will differ with the rishonim, I will not disagree on dialectical
grounds, as I said. Rather, I will suffice with words we say every
Shabbat, from Psalm 33: Mishamayim hibit Hashem, ra'ah et kol benei
ha'adam. M'machon shivto hishgiah, el kol yoshvei ha'aretz. Ha'yotzer
yahad libam, ha'meivin el kol ma'aseihem. Artscroll: "From Heaven
Hashem looks down, He sees all mankind. From His dwelling place He
oversees all inhabitants of the earth. He fashions their hearts all
together, He comprehends all their deeds."

Note that Psalm 33 explicitly says "kol benei ha'adam"/"kol yoshvei
ha'aretz" and "hishgiah". Apparently, hashgahah is given regardless of
whether one is a Jew or gentile, righteous or not. Of course, perhaps
His *act* of hashgahah will differ, between reward and punishment, or
consigning one to the whims of nature. (As Rav Hirsch interprets "If
you walk haphazardly/indiscriminately towards Me, I will deal
haphazardly/indiscriminately towards you".) Indeed, the continuation
of Psalm 33 says, Hinei `ein Hashem el y'rei'aw, lam'yahalim l'hasdo.
L'hatzil mimawet nafsham, ulehayotam bar`a'av. Artscroll: "Behold, the
eye of Hashem is on those who fear Him, upon those who await His
kindness, to rescue their soul from death, and to sustain them in
famine."

So perhaps G-d only feeds the righteous, whereas He even causes famine
to the wicked, or simply consigns them to the whims of natural law.
(This would bring us back to Rambam et. al., about G-d working within
nature.) But in any case, He certainly pays attention to everyone,
righteous and wicked alike; how He acts is perhaps otherwise.

But even Hinei `ein Hashem el y'rei'aw implies that there is no
distinction between Jew and gentile; to paraphrase Rabbi Meir, it says
not "el y'rei'aw im hem kohanim, lewi'im, yisraelim, elah el
y'rei'aw". This answers what R' Mordechai Cohen said,
> There were those Areivim members that "believed" or that "it's only fair
> that" there s/be be HP for goyim.
> NO proofs. NO sources.
Additionally, Rabbi Hirsch on Shemot 19:6 says that the relationship
between Jews and G-d is not special at all, is only the relationship
all mankind ought to have and will have. If so, then why should Jews
and gentiles be different in HP? Perhaps the righteous and wicked will
have different HP, but "righteous and wicked" is regardless of Jewish
or gentile.

Michael Makovi

Of course, my knowledge of the rishonim is basically a combination of
Shemonah Perakim, Kuzari, and whatever else I've managed to pick up
from secondary sources. I still stick by what I said, but I'll say
that I probably have no idea whatsoever where or when I'm agreeing or
disagreeing with the rishonim.

Michael Makovi

Re: Torah and science

I've taken to joking that Rabbi Slifkin could have taken a translation
of the Moreh, added an appendix with statements of Rabbis Hirsch and
Kook on science, and called it a day. The route he rather took (i.e.
his book The Challenge of Creation) is merely more comprehensible for
the masses. But for a person willing to expend massive amounts of
contemplation, the Moreh's method of reconciling Torah and science is
quite usable even today. (Rabbi Isidore Epstein in The Faith of
Judaism indeed explicitly says his solution to evolution is exactly
the same as Rambam's treatment of Aristotle's eternity of the universe
and Plato's preexistent unformed matter.)

Michael Makovi

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 04:29:28PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I've taken to joking that Rabbi Slifkin could have taken a translation
: of the Moreh, added an appendix with statements of Rabbis Hirsch and
: Kook on science, and called it a day....

First, my apologies. I had intended to reject this post rather than
invite another RNS debate. I have too many other things going on in my
life to willingly volunteer to moderate that. The damage having been
done, here's what I replied on the substance of RMM's email within that
attempted rejection notice.

The Moreh dealt with Aristotle and a universe that had no beginning. The
Rambam had to conclude that either Aristo was wrong (which he did) or
we misunderstood the Torah. We are contending with Hubble, Wegener,
Safronov and Darwin (the universe, solar system, earth and life,
respectively). Closing the gap between two descriptions of a universe that
had a beginning is far smaller, and can be done with reconciliation. The
Rambam had to show that one side was wrong.

:                                   ... The route he rather took (i.e.
: his book The Challenge of Creation) is merely more comprehensible for
: the masses.....

(BTW, Slifkin doesn't say anything substantially different than what was
already published in English and easily accessible to the masses decades
before by R' Aryeh Carmell [and the authors he and R' Cyril Domb collected
in Challenge], R' Aryeh Kaplan, etc...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 03:42:03PM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2009/06/should-you-wear-because_1
: 6.html
: safek doraisah lechumrah?

Focusing just on this question...

AISI, that requires only one side being a chumrah, and not (as is often
the case) that being machmir in one place causes a qulah somewhere else.

There is a machloqes rishonim about the proper color for lavan
strings. Teimanim, following the Rambam, wear strings the same
color as the begged; a purple shamla would be adorned with purple
tzitzis. Alternatively, perhaps they should be literally white even when
the beged isn't. Ashkenazim and Sepharadim (to an even greater extent --
they don't even have colored stripes) avoid the question by wearing white
begadim. (BTW, this is a halachic problem with olive drab tallisos qatan
sold in army surplus stores.) In either case, the preference isn't for
a blue string on a white beged.

Tosafos hold this issue is hiddur. According to the Rambam, the color
is me'aqeiv.

So, one might argue that this chumrah risks one being yotzei lavan as
well, and even causes one to of wear a four cornered garment that has
no tzitzis on it.

However.... one isn't talking about the usual lavan strings. Here one is
talking about strings worn instead of techeiles in order to round out
the number 8. Would the Rambam still require they be white, and other
rishonim (albeit not Tos') that they match the beged?

Li nir'eh, that this would require wearing the most likely candidate
for techeiles -- but only on the fewest number of strings possible.

According to Rashi and Tosafos, "gedilim" means two (mi'ut rabim 2)
ropes, and thus two pairs of strings -- one of each color. Thus, four
white string-ends, four blue ones. The Raavad holds one string is the
"pesil techeiles", and thus 2 string ends. The Rambam defines pesil as
a single string-end.

If one is chayav to wear white strings on a white beged, and tries to
follow the Ashk rishonim with blue string, they could be eliminating
any chance to be yotzei tzitzis altogether al pi haRambam.

Thus, I would argue that safeiq deOraisa lehachmir would require one only
color 1/2 of a string, thereby not losing any chance of fulfilling lavan,
and gaining some chance of wearing techeiles too.

Although, truth in advertising forces me to admit that if RSRH's
explanation of techeiles in CW III weren't so moving to me, I wouldn't
be wearing murex-dyed strings at all (I tend to only break mimeticism
for passion) and his explanation revolves around the eighth string being
the blue one. (8 = beyond maaseh bereishis; blue = beyond olam hazeh.)
So I have emotional reason to prefer this conclusion anyway.

RHS holds 4 blue, 4 white, arguing that as an Ashk, Rashi and Tosafos
carry the day for him. I don't know if it's because he rejects the above
line of reasoning about keeping the dye to strings worn as techeiles or
instead of techeiles, or feels that murex is close enough to certainly
the chilazon for it not to qualify as a safeiq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

http://www.beyondbt.com/?p=1242  on questions  of  'uncomfortable' 
traditions,  medrash, etc  and whether   one must  believe in these to be 
considered frum..


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090617/e204469b/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 117
***************************************

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..."