Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 71

Wed, 17 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Opening Yahadus to ridicule (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: YHA nidche (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: (Areivim) Two Income Families and the halacha (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Opening Yahadus to ridicule (Zev Sero)
• 8. Machon MaOhr Translation of Rambam?s Perush HaMishnah (Michael ORR)
• 9. More on Rav Moshe Vaye, Rav Eitam Henkin and Their Differing Views About Bug Infestation (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: Opening Yahadus to ridicule (Micha Berger)
• 11. DeOraisa (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: precedent (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: YT Sheni in Eretz Yisrael (was Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva) (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Opening Yahadus to ridicule (Zev Sero)

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:00:35AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Then there's my age old favorite of yachol lvarer - why is there no
: requirement to check entire length of any air journey?

According to the Yated (of Israel):
In this case it was checked. It's a known triangle of three cemetaries
near Cholon that planes from Cypress to Ben Gurion fly over. It's very
unlikely it would miss all three.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 04:23:33PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
:> I would think the difference is between being laughed at for
:> doing what's right, and being laughed at for how one goes
:> about doing it.
...
: I think it is safe to say, as a matter of historical record, that there
: WAS a time when even in the frummest areas of New York City, it was "pas
: nisht" (unseemly) to walk in the street with a yarmulka...

: But we need to distinguish between a yarmulke and other types of
: headgear. The objection was not to the fact that this courageous Jew
: did what's right by covering his head. Rather, the objection is for
: how he went about doing it - in just a blatantly Jewish manner, with
: "in your face" pro-semitic chutzpah...

Which I do not think is a bad idea. Standing up to anti-semitism. And
quite probably a qiddush hasheim, if done when not a safeiq piquach nefesh
(depending on which neighborhood in NY you tried this in).

Here the guy isn't being ridiculed for believing that kohanim shouldn't
become tamei, or that a plastic bag could stop the tum'ah, or anything
else about right vs wrong, Torah vs permissiveness, Yahadus vs Western
values. He is being ridiculed because a person in a bag strikes the
viewer as absurd. And only then is the Torah judged for purportedly
motivating absurd behavior.

Picture a guy who all he has is a propeller beanie, and chooses to wear
that rather than rely on heterim for not covering one's head. Perhaps
he's indoors. That's a closer parallel.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

On 17/04/2013 12:05 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> The plane is not a tzamid pasil, first because it's made of metal.  It's
>> possible that the 787 would indeed be OK as far as that's concerned.
>> The second reason the plane is not a tzamid pasil is because there's no
>> sealant.  Perhaps El Al could add some sort of tape to the doors.
>
> Why do you think an air-tight gasket doesn't count?

I don't know.  From what I can gather, the definition of tzamid pasil
involves a sealant.  Is an airtight container without a sealant also a
tzamid pasil?  Find a source that says so.  Did such things simply not
exist at the time of Matan Torah (or in that of Chazal)?

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 02:39:14PM -0400, David Cohen wrote:
: When did the Chanukah miracle of the oil lasting for its 8th day occur?  If
: it was on 2 Tevet, how can we sometimes say Hallel on 3 Tevet?  If it was
: on 3 Tevet, how can we sometimes say Tachanun on that day?

As already noted, Shavuos is similar. It would seem that sometimes
"date" means a point on the calendar, and sometimes it means n days
after such a point.

Which is different than sliding things around a fixed date.

I think Megillah 1:1 is more similar in this way, because it shows a
willingness to move the date to fit the day of the week.

But it differs in a crical way: While Megillah is deemed to serve the
role of Hallel, it isn't actually Hallel. Perhaps if we were talking
actual Hallel, AKhG wouldn't have been willing to adjust the date for
kefarim and ayaras gedolos. (The latter case would be when Purim was
able to fall out on Shabbos. Arguably moving Shabbos Shushan Purim to
Friday Purim wouldn't be the same question.)

After all, Shabbos 118b calls someone who says Hallel every day a
mechareif umegadeif, not someone who reads Megillas Esther.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

I wrote:
: RMB asks:
:> In a two-income family where husband and wife keep their money in joint
:> accounts, which of the two models of nechasim applies?
: 
: I am not sure I am understanding your question.  Or rather, this is where
it
: seems to me that dina d'malchusa dina has to come into play - and this
would
: have to be operating to overrule the halacha.  Because the government
: recognises her income as hers and his income as his, and the joint account
: as owned jointly.  It may, on the dissolution of the marriage, reallocate
: some of those funds based on alimony...

RMB replied:
>Before it comes to being contested, a husband might be obligated to arrange
his affairs -- his will (or whatever is the more proper technical term for
>what is colloquially called a "halachic will") or other paperwork-- to
insure that his wife receives what he owes her.

But how is it possible for him to do that in a two income family, when
according to dina d'malchuta dina she already is in possession of everything
he could possibly owe her and more - how exactly is he supposed to write a
halachic will that takes control of assets that according to dina d'malchusa
dina do not belong to him (but according to the standard halacha they do),
and give a certain portion back to her and the rest to his halachic heirs.

>There is also the possibility that the case is brought to BD for "legal
arbitration". In which case, what in principle would BD try for?

That's what I want to know.  It is one thing for Beis Din to try and apply
halachic principles, but when such halachic principles would involve
uprooting concepts such as the Married Woman's Property Act, by deeming
property that the state says is hers as his, I find it very difficult to
believe that the state would uphold such an arbitration.   Ie one can
arbitrate over property that the state understands to be legitimately in
dispute, but if the BD says her earnings belong to him and arbitrate based
on such a principle, I think any secular court would just strike that
arbitration down.

>Second, I don't think DDD overrides all dinei mamonos between two Jews,
just that it creates forms of qinyan.

I am not saying it does.  But in the *particular* case of husband and wife,
the state has determined that certain assets belong to the woman, in
particular her earnings (which is a day by day matter) and what I am
questioning is exactly how the halacha can in any practical way operate to
say differently.  How can you live your life, and write your will,
halachically or not, if you don't say DDD overrides in this particular case.


> At least, that's (minus the last clause about qinyan) what I think the
Rama is saying in CM 369:11, and looking at the Mahariq he cites (shu"t
#187; >thanks to Bar Ilan web site) reinforces that suspicion (and discusses
real estate contracts). The Rama mentions marriage and yerushah in
particular.

The problem is that the nature of DDD is very different now than in the
Rema's and Mahariq's day.  In their day, it would not have been very
difficult to operate outside of DDD if one determined that was the right
thing to do.  What I am questioning (in this thread, not in the thread about
kinyan) is how on earth you practically are able to do this, if you
determined that it was the right thing to do.  How do you go about restoring
the halachic status quo between husband and wife in an environment when the
DDD won't let you do so, when you are dealing with ma'asim shel kol yom.
The only way I can see to do this, is for women, constantly (and I meant
constantly, since earnings are pretty constant), to be signing over their
property to their husbands with legal documents that would stand up in a
secular court.  Does your wife do this?  Do you know anybody who does this?
And even so, I think those documents would be subject to serious scrutiny
and likely struck down if they were ever challenged.

>I understood the usage of DDD in the context of qinyanim to be an example
of simtuta. (Thus avoiding the question of "why not just use A rather than
.B?") Simtuta says that any convention that creates a mutual understanding
that one party lost ownership and the other party gained ownership is a
>qinyan. Dina demalkhusa is one way to create such conventions.

That, I think, was what I said in response to RET.  That creates a nice
harmony between DDD and the halacha.  No such harmony exists (as far as I am
aware) in husband and wife situations, but as far as I know, nobody runs
their marriages halachically anymore where a dual income structure is
involved (and I suspect not even that commonly when there is not).

>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha

Regards

Chana

On 17/04/2013 10:48 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>
> But I agree that (1) knotting the bag should be no more a seal than
> locking the airplane door. Recall, we're talking about a pressurized
> cabin -- it's airtight.

Yes, if the bag is merely knotted then obviously the rov who paskened
this way doesn't hold that a sealant is needed.  And in that case, a 787
should be OK without any additional sealant.  OTOH there may be a duct
tape or similar seal that we can't see in the photo.


> And (2) the bag can't stand on its own.

Again, obviously this rov holds that this is not a necessary criterion
of a keli.  One who holds that it is will have to find another solution.


>And (3)
> I am still waiting for someone to provide details on the machloqes about
> whether plastic is meqabel tum'ah and did we really reach a consenus.

What machlokes was this?  Why should plastic be mekabel tum'ah?  Maybe a
grade of plastic that can be melted and recast into the same thing could
be considered a kind of metal, at least mid'rabanan, just as glass is.
But it's my understanding that the plastic that is recycled from bags
can't be used for new bags, but must be used for purposes, and that
plastic can't be recycled more than a few times before it loses all use.
In principle, though, plastic should surely be considered like stone,
since it's made from stone-oil.


> And (4) was the airplane fusalage and pressurized cabin area both metal,
> one of them fiberglass, and does that make a difference (is fiberglass
> meqabel tum'ah)?

AIUI even if the cabin is not metal, the metal of the fuselage is ma'amid it.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 17/04/2013 12:23 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> Writing about this topic in general (and not specifically about
> yarmulkes 40 years ago) R' Micha Berger wrote:

>> I would think the difference is between being laughed at for
>> doing what's right, and being laughed at for how one goes
>> about doing it.

> I'd like to take both comments and suggest the following:

> I think it is safe to say, as a matter of historical record, that
> there WAS a time when even in the frummest areas of New York City, it
> was "pas nisht" (unseemly) to walk in the street with a yarmulka.
> (I'd think it was somewhat more than 40 years ago, but let's not
> quibble over details.)

Maybe in NYC that time had passed by 40 years ago, but in Melbourne I
remember hearing the term "chilul hashem" used about it, and being taught
that these people were wrong.


> But we need to distinguish between a yarmulke and other types of
> headgear. The objection was not to the fact that this courageous Jew
> did what's right by covering his head. Rather, the objection is for
> how he went about doing it - in just a blatantly Jewish manner, with
> "in your face" pro-semitic chutzpah. The times were such (difficult
> as it is for us to understand) that he could have - and SHOULD have -
> chosen to wear some sort of cap or hat instead.

I do not agree.  They *could* have used other head coverings, but there was
never a time when they *should* have done so, and wearing davka a yarmulke
at a time when it drew mal'igim was a mitzvah in itself, for those who had
the strength to do so.

I have also heard many times about what it was like in the '40s in NYC to
go about with a full beard.  People on the street would point at those who
had the strength to do this, and remark on them.  And they too were lectured
on "chilul haShem" by the mah-yofis yidden of their day.

And who can forget the exhortation of the maskilim to be "yehudi beveisecho
ve'ish betzeisecho"?

RMB seeks to prove from "TCh shenimtza revav al bigdo" and similar
maamarei Chazal that drawing scorn is a chilul haShem.  But that is only
when the reason you're dressed that way is because you're a slob.  If
there were some mitzvah, chumrah, minhag, or dikduk kal shel divrei sofrim
that involved wearing stained clothes, then it would be a mitzvah to do so
and brave the scorn of the mockers.  The gemara says that it's a beauty
for kohanim to go up to their ankles in blood; surely if a yisrael were to
go about like that as a fashion statement it would not be acceptable.
We've been talking about proper Shabbos attire; I think most would agree
it's not proper way to come to shul on Shabbos wearing scrubs and a pager
-- unless one is a doctor on call, in which case it is proper, because it
shows that one is doing a mitzvah.  (There's a separate issue of yuhara,
and mechazi keyuhara, but that *is* a separate issue.)


On 17/04/2013 1:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Picture a guy who all he has is a propeller beanie, and chooses to wear
> that rather than rely on heterim for not covering one's head. Perhaps
> he's indoors. That's a closer parallel.

Indeed -- and it is precisely to such a person that the injunction to be
"bold as a leopard, and not be embarrassed by the mockers" is directed.
He should try to summon the strength not to rely on kullos, and wear the
beanie.  If he can't, then he can't, and he has the heterim to rely on,
but he should know that he failed the challenge, and he should admire those
who succeed at it, and certainly not ch"v become himself one of the mal`igim!

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

?I originally posted this question on Areivim (and received no response).? It may be a better question for Avodah:
I am wondering if anyone has used the new Machon MaOhr translation of
Rambam?s Perush HaMishnah and can comment on its quality?? I tried to find
a review on line, but could not find anything useful.? Wikipedia refers to
it at the end of the following passage, but does not really address whether
the MaOhr translation itself?is a good translation:
?In 1168, Maimonidespublished a comprehensive commentary on the Mishnah. It
was written in transliterated Arabic(using Hebrewletters).... The work has
been translated a number of times. Rabbi Yosef Qafi?'s translation was
popular in the 20th century, buta recent translation by Machon MaOhr offers
much more comprehensive footnotes.?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130417/b5ecf202/attachment-0001.htm>

In response to my email about the article at 
http://tinyurl.com/cktrssv  Reb Zalman Alpert wrote to me

"I think the following is a legitimate observation based on halacha 
and Mussar. Can one trust a halachic posek who is making money (in 
this case probably his complete income) from the field he is 
providing expert advice on? Can this person not have negios.

"Should a rav decide on issues and then issue hechsherim based on his 
opinions?"

I replied to him,  "What you write about him being paid and hence not 
impartial is precisely why I am against private hashgachos.  I do not 
like the idea of the person who is being supervised paying the person 
who is supervising him directly."

YL

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 02:34:54PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Picture a guy who all he has is a propeller beanie, and chooses to wear
>> that rather than rely on heterim for not covering one's head. Perhaps
>> he's indoors. That's a closer parallel.
>
> Indeed -- and it is precisely to such a person that the injunction to be
> "bold as a leopard, and not be embarrassed by the mockers" is directed.
> He should try to summon the strength not to rely on kullos...

You're saying that a qiyum of a minhag is more important than whether
people think less of HQBH and His Torah. I very firmly diagree.

I would say you're asking him to be az kanemer and be meiqil in chilul
hasheim for the sake of not being meiqil in a minhag.

Just as anyone who imitates this kohein, now that they are aware of the
spectacle being made, would be choosing to be machmir on tum'ah in a
way most kohanim are not at the expense of marketing Torah and Truth.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, R Arie Folger wrote:
:                    And even the Ran wqho does believe it is pentateuchal,
: (how is that translation of DeOraita, after all, the Bible includes NaKh
: ;-)), defines it as messaro hakatuv lachakhamim.

DeOraisa is hard to define. OT1H, as RAF notes, it does not include Nakh.
OTOH, it does include halakhos leMoshe miSinai as well as derashos that
weren't explicitly law until later. (Eg our discussion of "Moavi velo
Moavis" being codified by Boaz's BD.) And it includes those derashos
even according to the Rambam who says that halakhos founded on derashah
can be repealed.

But given HLMMS, I would argue "pentateuchal" doesn't work.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 10:18:44AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago RMB cited H. Shmitah V'Yovel 10:6 about precedent  
> overriding sevara.  But there are limits.  See H. Ishus 11:13 where  
> manuscript evidence overrides precedent.  The language of the PhM  
> Kesubos 1:3, tr. Kafih, is especially stark: "kol hageonim", whereas in  
> MT he just says "yesh geonim".
>
> How does one harmonize these? What are the limits of precedent?

I don't see the harmonization problem. The Rambam appears to be
saying the authority of manuscript evidence overrides accepted
precedent, which in turn overrides sevara you find personally
compelling.

As for limits... The answer would differ between the Rambam and rov
rishonim. According to the Rambam, the intent at the time of writing
defines the law, and therefore textual precedent would have far more
authority than accepted precedent. Most of us follow a halachic system
in which the law can evolve from original intent, such that how the
halakhah was accepted is more important than indications from
manuscripts.

And, the limits aren't going to be etched in stone. One has to weigh
how compelling a sevara appears to be against how old and widespread
the accepted practice and how large the textual precedent is. And since
these magnitudes aren't comparable (they measure very different things),
it ends up being an art, not a science.

Search the archives for the word "heuristic" for prior discussions of
this latter idea.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:40:56PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB writes:
: > I did not understood this as a question of minhag avos vs minhag hamaqom.
: > After all, despite the use of the phrase "minhag avoseihem biydeihem", we
: > do not argue that the grandchildren of benei EY still keep one day in their
: > 2nd generation in chu"l!
: 
: Actually, as I mentioned, Rav Ya'akov Emden seems to tend the other way.
: That is, everybody who lives in Israel today is a fairly recent product
: of immigrants who came to Eretz Yisrael from Chutz L'Aretz, where they
: kept two days. On arriving in Eretz Yisrael, these immigrants kept
: the minhagim of the place they came from, with the exception of keeping
: two days Yom Tov. My impression is that Rav Ya'akov Emden really felt
: that they should have continued to keep two days Yom Tov like all other
: minhagim they retained on coming to Israel (which is why he holds that, at
: the very least, if people from Chutz L'Aretz come to settle a new place,
: which is not already settled with people who did not think the matter
: through when they originally came back, and where it is not definitively
: known that the shluchim came in the times of the Beis HaMikdash- since
: it was not known whether it was settled then, assuming the shluchim only
: came to settled places, they should definitely keep two days).
: 
: That does seem a consistent position, but it does ignore the minhag the
: other way, which is for people who come to settle, at least in areas that
: everybody agrees are Eretz Yisrael, whether or not they were settled
: at the time that shluchim went out, keep only one day (a minhag cited
: extensively in the Rishonim - but perhaps Rav Ya'akov Emden would argue
: that that was then, and they had a degree of connectivity to the original
: bnei Yisrael, but that there was a period of desolation after them, and it
: is all recent comers who should be keeping two days - or alternatively
: even what occurred at the time of eg Rav Yosef Karo was a mistake,
: and they should only have kept one day in the place of the Vaad who
: established the chodesh, but that seems rather difficult to say). But I
: agree, this opinion does not regard as relevant issues of kedushas EY.
: 
: It is fascinating that Rav Ya'akov Emden does not mention his father's
: psak (to which his is diametrically opposed). Did he not know of it?
: Seems unlikely. Did he not want to contradict or argue with his father,
: so he just ignored it? Does seem strange, because his father is stating
: that what he, Rav Ya'akov Emden, is suggesting is over on the Torah
: prohibition of ba'al tosif, and yet Rav Ya'akov Emden does not engage
: with that question at all (even as a hava mina). Very odd.
: 
: But I think most people pretty intuitively reject at least this part of
: the psak of Rav Ya'akov Emden (the major part, in which he comes down
: pretty hard on Bnei EY who go to Chutz L'Aretz for a temporary period,
: and only keep one day in any form, is probably a lot more accepted, and
: one can perhaps say that all these statements about what should happen
: in Eretz Yisrael are really only to buttress his very strong opposition
: to Bnei EY not keeping two days in Chutz L'Aretz. After all, if they
: really ought to be keeping two days in EY, then kal v'chomer if they
: travel to Chutz L'Aretz, even for a temporary period).
: 
: But if you accept that somebody who comes to settle, while keeping all
: their other minhagim from their time in galus, abandons the second day,
: you get back to the logic of the [Chacham Zvi]. Which is, that is the
: right thing to do, because continuing to keep that which those in galus
: were formerly doing out of safek due to the instruction to be careful
: of the minhag avoseihem b'yadahem is a separate takana (possibly of
: Hillel and his Beis Din, who fixed the calendar) - lest a time of shmad
: come and they make a mistake as is stated explicitly in Beitza 4 (and
: as the Ran says on the Rif on Sukkah 22a and the Ritva on Sukkah 43a),
: and this minhag avoseinu is very different form the minhag avoseinu of
: saying half Hallel which is also described as minhag avoseihem b'yadehem
: (in Ta'anis 28b). And while the Rabbis may have the power in terms of
: shev v'al ta'aseh to prevent people fulfilling mitzvos from the Torah
: (which can explain Sukkah 43b-44a where they may have banned taking of the
: lulav on the first day of Sukkos if it falls on shabbas - if you accept
: this conclusion and not the one that people outside of the beis hamikdash
: never took the lulav on first day anyway if it was shabbas), to add on a
: day of observance in Eretz Yisrael, well if that is not ba'al tosif it is
: hard to understand what is. And it is one thing to bring one's minhagim
: from one town to another town which happens to have different minhagim
: (but which could have originally formed exactly the same minhagim),
: and another to bring ones minhagim (which are really a rabbinic gezera)
: to a place where such minhagim/gezera are ossur d'orisa - and hence that
: the gemora in pesachim about keeping the chumros of both the town one
: leaves and the town one comes to is not speaking about such a case.
: 
: > Rather, I had assumed it's a question of whether minhag hamaqom is based on
: > where you are at the moment or where you live, defining "where you live",
: > and in this case, whether making an error is belittling qedushas EY ch"v.
: 
: And my point was that the question of Yom Tov Sheni of the golus,
: despite the reference to minhag avoseichem b'yadeichem appears by general
: consensus to be much more of a rabbinic gezera than a true minhag -
: Half Hallel is a true minhag (except that everybody keeps it now, with
: the only question being with or without a brocha so there is nowhere to
: go to abandon it) but YT sheni is not, and thus despite the references
: to the fourth perek in pesachim, it is not a good one to use as your
: illustration of the question.
: 
: >Tir'u baTov!
: >-Micha
: 
: Regards
: Chana
: 
: _______________________________________________
: Avodah mailing list
: Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
: http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
: 

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

On 17/04/2013 5:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 02:34:54PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> Picture a guy who all he has is a propeller beanie, and chooses to wear
>>> that rather than rely on heterim for not covering one's head. Perhaps
>>> he's indoors. That's a closer parallel.
>>
>> Indeed -- and it is precisely to such a person that the injunction to be
>> "bold as a leopard, and not be embarrassed by the mockers" is directed.
>> He should try to summon the strength not to rely on kullos...
>
> You're saying that a qiyum of a minhag is more important than whether
> people think less of HQBH and His Torah. I very firmly diagree.
>
> I would say you're asking him to be az kanemer and be meiqil in chilul
> hasheim for the sake of not being meiqil in a minhag.

On the contrary, it is you who is being "meiqil in chilul hasheim".
Defying public opinion to do mitzvos is the definition of kidush haShem,
and your "proofs" against this have no validity.   If people think less
of HQBH and His Torah *because of what that Torah says*, then their
opinion is worth nothing.  It's only when their opinion itself is valid
al pi Torah that it matters.   When a T"Ch looks like a slob because
he's a slob, then it's a chilul haShem.  When he goes naked in the street
because he discovered that his clothes were shatnez, then it's a kiddush
haShem.


> Just as anyone who imitates this kohein, now that they are aware of the
> spectacle being made, would be choosing to be machmir on tum'ah in a
> way most kohanim are not at the expense of marketing Torah and Truth.

Torah is not a marketing exercise.  Ein chochma ve'ein tevunah ve'ein
eitza leneged Hashem.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 71
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)