Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 6

Fri, 10 Jan 2014

• 1. Re: Areivim discussion of news stories scam (Saul Guberman)
• 2. Re: Why NOT to say Parshas Ha'mon (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: "Binfol oyivcha" does not apply to goyim (Micha Berger)
• 4. The GRA and Kabbalah was Why NOT to say Parshas Ha'mon (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Why NOT to say Parshas Ha'mon (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: "Binfol oyivcha" does not apply to goyim (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: "Binfol oyivcha" does not apply to goyim (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Why NOT to say Parshas Ha'mon (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 9. Re: "Binfol oyivcha" does not apply to goyim (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Why NOT to say Parshas Ha'mon (Daniel M. Israel)
• 11. Re: "KIDDUSH" in SHUL: PROPER CONDUCT (Daniel M. Israel)
• 12. When a Friend Commits the Ultimate Indiscretion (Prof. Levine)

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Robert Weiss <rwe...@robertweiss.net> wrote:

> However, I have been wondering and I will now ask, what is the halachic
> justification to post negative news items about other Jews here such as
> this one? Is there any toeles in doing so?
>

It has toeles.  I know of a not- for profit board that decided to look at
their policies and procedures because of this scandal and all the others
that have been in the news lately.  I am sure that there are others that
are doing the same.  On a personal level it reinforces the difficulties and
temptations that are out there.

If these items are not made public, then it stays off the radar and people
do not improve themselves and the organizations that they belong to.

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140109/a0040a05/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 02:44:29PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 02:38 PM 1/9/2014, Micha Berger wrote:
>> I knew R. Miller well for over 30 years...
>> >                                     I am pretty sure he would dismiss
>> > what you write above also.

>> You did not yet give any grounds for that certainty.

> Yes, I did. I said I knew him well and based on my interactions with him 
> I am *pretty* sure how he would react.  You turned it into "that  
> certainty."

But your argument is for rejecting the misuse of the original minhag,
turning it into a segulah. I was replying about repairing that misuse
rather than campaigning against minhagim. I would not assume that
centuries of rabbis who followed the minhag were necessarily wrong;
that carries a large burden of proof.

Minhag may be the reverse spoelling of gehenom, but that doesn't mean
that *all* minhagim should be trashed!

So, to rephrase: you do not give grounds to be "pretty sure" R' Miller
would be against the actual minhag as the Chida intended it, of picking
an auspicious day to make a big deal about parashas haMan (thanks for
the off-list correction) so as to maximize kavanah at least that one
time a year.

It would be a very Hirscian modality of davening; trying to become
the kind of person who deserves a different treatment by the Borei.
In this case, by remembering that all his hishtadlus requires siyata
diShmaya for success.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 03:31:27PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> And see the Chavot Yair, who explains this medrash away, while noting that
> he only bothers to do so because it is a medrash, so it deserves to be
> addressed, but the ikar is not like this at all.  But even taking this
> medrash into account, he says it only applies in the unique context of hallel.

The CY, even by your description, gives two shitos. Not gives one
and throws away the other.

I would like to see you too address the newly raised sources, anyway.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

At 05:13 PM 1/9/2014, R. Ben Waxman wrote:

>Are you stating that according to Rav Miller the GRA did NOT know kabbalah?
>
>Ben
>
>On 1/9/2014 9:16 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> >
> >
> > I once discussed with him R. Chaim Volozhin's  "proof" that the GRA
> > knew Kabbala well which he writes about in his introduction to the
> > GRA's perush on Saffra D'tzeniusa. He waved this away also.


Absolutely not.  It is well known that the GRA was an expert in 
Kabbalah and R. Miller certainly knew this and agreed.

His response was to Rav Chaim Volozhin's story that supposedly proved 
that the GRA was an expert in Kabbalah.  He felt he needed to relate 
this,  because Reb Chaim claimed that there were those (the 
Chassidim)  who claimed that the reason why the GRA was against them 
was because he did not know kabbalah.

I am referring to the story that Reb Chaim of Volozhin relates about 
the man who came to Vilna and claimed he could tell people's deepest 
secrets.  He was brought to the GRA who asked him is he indeed had 
this ability.  The man said he did, and he would prove it if the GRA 
allowed him to. The GRA told him he could, and the man related the 
following. "On such and such a day you (the GRA)  was sitting here 
and on one site of you was Reb Shimon Bar Yochoi and on the other 
side of you was the ARI and you were telling them over your 
chiddushim in kabbala on Parshas Haazinu."  Reb Chaim says that the 
GRA turned white and mumbled,  "But I sent the Shamash out that 
night."   He then said that the man did have this ability but it came 
from extreme bitterness and insisted that the man leave Vilna.

Reb Chaim's proof regarding the GRA's expertise in Kabbalah is the 
fact that he was teaching Kabbalah to Reb Shimon Bar Yochoi and the ARI.

(I have to admit that I have not seen this story in many years, so I 
may have some of details wrong,  but it is written in the 
introduction to Saffra D'tzeniusa.)

Now I know approximately when the GRA lived,  when the ARI lived and 
when R. Shimon Bar Yochoi lived.  How the 3 of them could be sitting 
in the same room at one time is beyond me.

When I told this story to R. Miller,  he waved it away.  I pressed 
him and said that the source was Reb Chaim Volozhin,  but he still 
waved it away.  That is when I asked him way he dismissed all such 
stories out of hand,  no matter the source.  His reply was, "Our 
emunah is strained enough by what we are required to believe,  to add 
to this is not wise."

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140109/5da2df35/attachment-0001.htm>

On 9/01/2014 4:01 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> My father called it "push-button Judaism."
> He objected to this approach for a number of reasons. One is that if
> you teach a BT (or FFB for that matter) that pushing button X yields
> result Y -- and it doesn't work -- it can lead to disillusionment
> with the whole religion.

The gemara addresses this, and says that a nochri will indeed feel that
way, but a yehudi will understand that if the button doesn't work the fault
is in him, he must have done something to prevent it from working.  While
some "push-buttons" are questionable, but some, such as tzedakah, are
explicitly endorsed by Chazal, or by Hashem Himself ("uvchanuni na bazos"),
on the understanding that if they don't work we will not lose faith.

-- 
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 9/01/2014 5:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 02:50:21PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>: No offense, but I'm only replying to this for the benefit of those who
>: may not have been here for the previous rounds. You've already been
>: told that your interpretation of the Pesiqta requires a major machloket
>: Chazal which not a single Rishon seems to have noticed...

> Because, perhaps as per R' Yaakov, there is no real machloqes, major or
> not. The gemara accepts "maasei yadai" as the reason for 1/2 Hallel on
> day 7. The medrash posits it as the reason for day 7. The gemara, though,
> continues and demands a different explanation for days 2-6.

What of the gemara in Megilah?  What of the machlokes between Mordechai
and Haman?

On 9/01/2014 5:28 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The CY, even by your description, gives two shitos. Not gives one
> and throws away the other.

He pretty much does. He says the ikkar is like the gemara, but since
the medrash can't just be dismissed he shows how it can be made not to
contradict the gemara Megillah, by limiting its applicability to hallel
alone. In general we *are* happy at the downfall of our enemies, e.g. the
Mitzrim or Haman, and binfol applies only to yisrael; the medrash, *if*
we are to take it into account at all, must be limited to a specific
situation.

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

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 05:48:51PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> What of the gemara in Megilah?  What of the machlokes between Mordechai
> and Haman?

I could simply answer "what about it?" After all, I am not asserting
that there is only One Torah Answer here, you are. You need to explain
my sources that predate the Enlightenment and its Humanism if you want
to continue to claim that the now numerically dominant shitah is
a recent assimilation. I really have no call to address your sources.

And that would really be my primary response. Nu, there's a sugya
here to discuss. You're the one who said it's open-and-shut, not I.

Or I could point out that if there are two conflicting gemaros, the
question isn't mine alone -- we need to say it's a machloqes or we can
treat it like a setirah to be resolved. Fortunately we already have
parallel resolutions between "binfol oyivkha al tismach" and "ba'avod
resha'im rinah" that have nothing to do with the Jewishness of the oyeiv.
The Zohar's idea about the rinah only being for the rasha who already
wasted every opportunity for teshuvah. Which dovetails with the PM's
resolution of the Yerushalmi distinguishing between the sadness of having
to kill the Amonim, Moavim and moutaineers of Sei'ir and the avod reshaim
through teshuvah, which causes rinah. Then one can add that if they've
exhausted the option of teshuvah, the Zohar's idea that their death would
then be a source of rinah would fit. Or we can go with the Maharsha,
that the simcha is about our fate -- we will no longer be vicimized,
but their fate is indeed a source of sadness.

Or I could point out that Megillah 10b already makes this distinction,
saying that Hu eino sas, aval acheirim sasim -- and who are the
"acheirim"? Those being saved.

Also, Mordechai contrasts Yisrael and bedidkhu, giving another possible
resolution. Yehoshafat's enemies weren't Amaleiqim. It's not Yisrael
vs nakhri, but everyone else vs Amaleiq and the 7 amim which we
are mechuyavim to wage war against (or bring to geirei toshav). See
Mordechai's prooftext of Devarim 33:29.

My problem with this is the Maharam Shik saying there is no berakhah
on mechiyas Amaleiq because they /are/ included in Binfol. I don't
know how he understands the gemara.

Another possibility is that the discussion of 1/2 Hallel doesn't dismiss
the maasei Yadai answer on Mordechai's grounds, that the drowning
Mirtzriim are aku"m because Mordechai didn't mean it -- it was a dechiyah
of the nakhri, and not a serious Torah position.

Because if you recall, the gemara drops the maasei yadai idea (R'
Yaakov Kamencki: for ch"m) because of the technicalities of saying
Hallel, not because it objected to the implied moral statement.

> On 9/01/2014 5:28 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> The CY, even by your description, gives two shitos. Not gives one
>> and throws away the other.
>
> He pretty much does. He says the ikkar is like the gemara, but since
> the medrash can't just be dismissed he shows how it can be made not to
> contradict the gemara Megillah, by limiting its applicability to hallel
> alone....

Actually, by limiting it to "dedavqa beshe'as hamapalah ein lomar
shirah" or "bayamim haheim bazman hazeh". Whereas David said Hallelu-Kah
(two words al pi Ben Asher) when contemplating "yitam'u chata'im min
ha'aretz" well after the fact.

In Hebrew, for the single email people and those hitting the appropriate
archive:
???? ??????'?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??' ????? ???
?????? ??? ??"? ?"? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???'
???? ????? ???' ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??"? ?"? ???
????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????
??? ????? ?"? ?"? ?????? ??? ??????? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ?????...??
?"? ???? ??? ?"? ????? ??????, ??? ??? ???? ???? ??"? ?????? ???? ?????
????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??"? ????? ??? ???? ?"? ???? ???? ??"?
??? ???.

BTW, Beruriah's chata'im velo chot'im works with the Penei Moshe and
the Zohar here too.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Problems are not stop signs,
mi...@aishdas.org        they are guidelines.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Robert H. Schuller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 09:59:35PM -0500, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: I really think that the people who have been so active and vocal on social
: media today about not saying Parashas HaMan are doing so because they
: learned the Biur Hagra on the Shulchan Aruch that says to say it every
day.

R'MB:
I don't. I think it's because we've seen how minhag after minhag and I dare
say halakhah after halakhah is turned into a mechanistic means of getting
what you want. Narcisistic religion. Magical thinking. Lechishah. The
pursuit of segulah threatens to overwhelm the pursuit of Avodas Hashem. It
creates a desire to push the line back.

In others, it creates a desire to make the opposite error, to dismiss the
minhag altogether despite the possibility of recovering a more avodas H'
perspective to it.
----------- 


I'm sorry, I should have tagged that last part of the post with a <sarcasm>
tag. I was saying that if you look at the sources, Parashas HaMon is
associated exactly with NOT working, contra to the anti-Chareidi criticism
that has littered my social media walls over the last 48 hours. And when you
look into the sources it is clear that saying Parashas HaMon is to remind
one that if he does what Hashem wants him to - namely learn Torah all day -
Hashem commits to supporting him as he did the Dor HaMidbar. 
I'm sure R'YL and others don't debate this basic Chazal, so I guess that
their criticism of saying Parashas HaMon is that people don't know the
message that they are to learn from it. In that case, echoing R' MB, the
correct response would not be to dismiss the Rimnover, many other great
Jews, and the classical sources, but to educate people in the correct intent
that they should have while saying it. 
In fact, as it is clear that the Shulchan Aruch would have wanted everyone
to say it everyday, perhaps the correct response would be to people saying
Parashas HaMon this past Tuesday, "Yes, you should say it today, but you
should say it tomorrow too!"
I found the note in Siddur Avodas Yisroel (R' Seligman Baer, R?delheim 1868)
of interest: "And ibn Yarchi writes in the name of the Yerushalmi, anyone
who says Parashas HaMon every day may trust that his sustenance will not be
lacking." As an ancient Minhag, we should embrace it, not reject it!

KT,
MYG

P.S. As far as magical thinking is concerned, I think that case is
overstated. I have not seen any of my friends, neighbors, or relatives -
even those who work - stop working because they said Parashas HaMon. They
say it because the Rimnover said that it's a good thing, and that's good
enough for them. And for me! (Though I confess to not having said it this
Tuesday.)

On 9/01/2014 11:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 05:48:51PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> What of the gemara in Megilah?  What of the machlokes between Mordechai
>> and Haman?

> I could simply answer "what about it?" After all, I am not asserting
> that there is only One Torah Answer here, you are. You need to explain
> my sources that predate the Enlightenment and its Humanism if you want
> to continue to claim that the now numerically dominant shitah is
> a recent assimilation. I really have no call to address your sources.
>
> And that would really be my primary response. Nu, there's a sugya
> here to discuss. You're the one who said it's open-and-shut, not I.

You cut out the context of my response.   Lisa pointed out that "your
interpretation of the Pesiqta requires a major machloket Chazal which
not a single Rishon seems to have noticed", to which you replied
specifically denying that there was any machlokes, "major or minor",
and all Chazal in fact agreed with you!   It was specifically in response
to that astonishing claim that I pointed out to you that you have ignored
the gemara in Megillah.    So no, you cannot answer "what of it".  You
have to deal with it, or else admit that there is a big machlokes Chazal,
in which case you then have to explain how all the rishonim seem to have
missed it.


> Or I could point out that if there are two conflicting gemaros, the
> question isn't mine alone -- we need to say it's a machloqes or we can
> treat it like a setirah to be resolved.

Or we say that the inferences you find in the other gemara aren't there,
and your Pesikta needs to be read some other way.


> Fortunately we already have
> parallel resolutions between "binfol oyivkha al tismach" and "ba'avod
> resha'im rinah" that have nothing to do with the Jewishness of the oyeiv.

Mordechai explicitly gave that resolution.  Any other resolution means
disputing his view.


> Or we can go with the Maharsha, that the simcha is about our fate --
> we will no longer be vicimized,but their fate is indeed a source of sadness.

This is not compatible with Mordechai's words.  Joy over the geulah that
had begun to appear did not require him to kick Haman when he was down.
He *explicitly rejected* the claim that "binfol oyivcha" was applicable
to his situation.


> Or I could point out that Megillah 10b already makes this distinction,
> saying that Hu eino sas, aval acheirim sasim -- and who are the
> "acheirim"? Those being saved.

Not "sasim"; "meisis".     And it's not restricted to those saved, but
even if it were, so what?  We *are* those saved, and thus even according
to your read Hashem *wants* us to rejoice, not to mourn, even a little bit.


> Also, Mordechai contrasts Yisrael and bedidkhu, giving another possible
> resolution. Yehoshafat's enemies weren't Amaleiqim. It's not Yisrael
> vs nakhri, but everyone else vs Amaleiq and the 7 amim which we
> are mechuyavim to wage war against (or bring to geirei toshav).

Really?  He says explicitly "hani mili beyisrael"!  Not "bedidan", which you
could interpret as "we non-Amaleikim", but specifically "beyisrael".  Thus
"bedidchu" can't mean anything but "you non-Yisre'eilim".


> See Mordechai's prooftext of Devarim 33:29.

What of it?  It doesn't specify Amalek or the 7 nations, it refers to all
our enemies.  Including the Mitzrim.  And the Edomim and Moavim in Yehoshofot's
time.



-- 
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 Jan 9, 2014, at 2:01 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> However, there is a gray area between magic and avodas Hashem.  For
> example, a segulah for having children is to ask your own parents for
> mechilla for anything you may have done against their kovod.  This
> isn't so much a magical formula as a way of correcting a real
> spiritual blockage that may be the reason you haven't had children
> until now.

I have never heard of this, but based on your description, I would ask
whether it is, strictly speaking, a segulah.  It is, as you say, a way of
addressing a real, relevant, and rational potential problem.  And therefore
if it doesn't work, the logical response is not "my magic box was broken,"
but rather, "I guess _that_ wasn't the problem," or even, "perhaps whatever
I did to deserve this was grave enough that that wasn't enough to fix it."

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140110/44fdc8b1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Moshe Y. Gluck <mgl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:
> By Rabbi Doniel Neustadt 
> When no wine or grape juice is available, there is a way of reciting
> Kiddush over schnapps which will satisfy the opinions of most poskim:
> Recite Kiddush on a revi'is of schnapps and drink a cheekful or a
> revi'is, but instead of swallowing it in one shot, sip it slowly, for
> a period of up to three or four minutes.(14)
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> I'm not sure why he didn't say that you can also drink it all at once - that would be the most l'chatchilah - and then, as more b'dieved to sip it slowly.


Is it possible that for most people, who do not normally drink that much
schnapps in one drink, and for whom it might be unpleasant, there is a
question of whether this is a real shtiya?  Or even just derech eretz?

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140110/ce0b8351/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/le9yr48

On March 15, 2013, the New York Times published 
the following letter in its ?Ethicist? column:

I am a single woman in my mid-20s. I recently 
learned from my dear friend that she has 
developed a longtime pattern of cheating on her 
husband of five years. I understand cheating 
happens for various reasons ? but if I remain 
friends with her, am I condoning her ongoing 
behavior? If I am ?anti-compulsive-cheating,? do 
I therefore have to be anti-her? I value many 
aspects of our friendship but don?t see her (or 
my) views on philandering ever changing.

This story might seem sad and foreign to a 
website like Torah Musings that looks at the 
world from an Orthodox Jewish perspective based 
on Torah law which offers a very unambiguous 
perspective on infidelity with two simple words ? 
?Lo Sinaf? ? do not commit adultery. However, the 
issue publicly started to hit the Orthodox home a 
bit more than a month later. For on April 23rd of 
the same year, NEFESH, the organization of 
Orthodox Jewish mental health professionals and 
the Task Force on Children and Families 
cosponsored a fantastic half day training 
entitled: ?Clinical and Halachic Perspectives on 
Treating Marital Infidelity in the Orthodox 
Jewish Community.? While the program was 
restricted to a unique audience ? mental health 
professionals who tend to see the extreme cases 
in any population ? the openness of the 
conversation and the capacity crowd of attendees, 
seemed to indicate that the issue of marital 
infidelity was not one that was to be seen as 
foreign in our community. In fact, one of the 
presenters, a world-renowned posek, made it clear 
that he saw his primary role in presenting as 
?coming to vent? about a problem that he has seen 
rising within the Torah -based community.

<Snip>

II. Thought # 2: Halachically I need to say 
something because after all, she may be Assur to him?

The Talmud (Pesachim 113b) tells the story of a 
man, Tuvia, who had engaged in a sexual 
indiscretion and was observed by Zigud. Zigud 
went and informed Rav Papa of Tuvia?s sin. In 
turn, Rav Papa punished Zigud. Zigud was shocked. 
He said, ?Tuvia sinned and Zigud gets punished?? 
Rav Papa answered in the affirmative. He noted 
that when one testifies by himself instead of 
with the required two witnesses, then the only 
possible outcome is rumor. Accordingly, by 
testifying by himself, Zigud had violated the 
Torah?s prohibition against being a talebearer (Vayikra 19:16).

Based on this story, one might choose to remain 
silent in the face of news of an adulterous 
affair. Yet, while Zigud?s case involved Tuvia, a 
male, would the halacha differ if the single 
witness would be believed as in the case of a 
female ? at least to potentially forbid her from her husband?

When it comes to an adulterous female spouse 
perhaps there is a different Halachic issue that 
requires consideration. The Gemara (Yevamos 11b) 
debates and the Rambam (Hilchos Geirushin 11:14; 
see also Smag, Lavin 82; & Yere?im 37) clearly 
concludes that the husband of an adulterous wife 
is not allowed to have relations with 
her.<http://torahmusings.com/2014/01/when-a-friend-commi
ts-the-ultimate-indiscretion/#fn-19982-4>4 
If he continues to have relations, he violates a 
lav. Am I obligated to tell a husband about his 
cheating spouse in order to prevent him from aveira?

<Snip>

The Noda B?Yehudah in a famous (or perhaps 
infamous) responsum (Noda B?Yehudah Kama, O.C. 
35) responds to a question posed to him by a 
Yeshiva student who had transgressed the halachos 
of adultery and was now about to marry the 
daughter of the adulteress. The questioner asked 
if he was required to tell the husband of the 
adulteress (and future father-in-law of the 
boy)of his transgression. In response, the Noda 
B?Yehuda assumed that the decision about whether 
to inform was based on the difference of opinion 
between the Rosh and the Rambam. The Noda 
B?Yehuda wanted to rule leniently in that case, 
citing pegam mishpacha ? or the potential 
disaster this revelation would have on the 
family. However, in the end, he too, rules that 
the husband needed to be informed because unlike 
the shaatnez case where violating the law of 
shaatnez was temporary, here the intimate 
relationship between the older man and his 
adulterous wife would be ongoing ? with constant, recurring sin.

See the above URL for more.  YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140110/2b6cbe30/attachment.htm>

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


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 32, Issue 6
*************************************

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