Subject: Meshech Ch & Ben Pekuah more info - msg#00153

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Ma'aseh eretz Mitzrayim

>>  A subset of the first opinion is > that if they just sleep together once they are married.>> [--old TK}RZS writes: >>I don't think this is tenable, because it would seem to eliminatethe position of kedesha.  The pasuk says "lo tihyeh kedesha bivnotyisrael", which implies that there is no such prohibition for BN.And Yehudah seems to have had no more than mild embarrassment atadmitting to having been with one, so long as that admission waslimited to his partner, and to discreet enquiries of people in theimmediate vicinity.<<   . >>>> My impression is that the opinion that sleeping together once makes BN "married" is distinctly a minority opinion.  In any case, sleeping with many men -- even if you say the woman is "marrying" each of these men -- is classified as promiscuity and thus would probably be forbidden to a Noahide woman.   As for your contention that Yehuda seemed only "mildly" embarrassed, my reading of the same pesukim is that he was VERY embarrassed and must often have asked himself, "What on /earth/ came over me?!" -- as this was such NOT typical behavior for him, plus, he was no youngster when all this was going on.  (He had to wait to read Rashi to find out that, indeed, "what came over him" was supernaturally induced and not an aspect of his bechira.  At least I think it's a Rashi.) --Toby Katz============= _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Throwing a Drop

>R' Akiva Blum writes: >>>Bigdei kehuna: The gemorah states, Pesochim 65b, that soiled bigdei kehuna >are possul.<< > >. RnTK: >>>>> >My next question then is: didn't they therefore need new begadim every day?! Why? They generally didn't get blood on their clothes. >And what about the clothes of the kohen gadol -- very expensive clothes it >seems to me -- did they make new ones every day?! Ditto. >But then what about the paroches? They couldn't well have taken it down and >washed it every day. Contact of the paroches with blood wasn't part of the daily avoda. Only YK, par heelem dovor shel tzibbur and par kohen moshiach. >(R' Arie Folger wrote that it was cleaned twice a >year.) Cleaned twice a year? A source please? WRT the original question, it could be that it isn't listed amongst avodos koshos because it was such a rare occurance, as opposed to chafina, malika and kamitza which took place regularly. But is it physically possible to throw a drop of blood 20 amos? Akiva Blum _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Astrology

Anyone want to comment? Apparently it's emetic A.C. Grayling's analogy of astrology with theology is in principle a forceful one (LRB, 2 November ). He uses it to suggest that religion, like astrology, consists of 'pre-scientific, rudimentary metaphysics' which reflect 'ancient ignorances'. But in some ways it is also unjust. In ancient Israel astrology was an offence, and was rejected as a source of knowledge, as were all other kinds of divination, magic generally, and consultation of the dead. Ancient Israelites believed (according to Genesis) that the sun, moon and stars were merely 'lights'. Israel's pre-scientific perceptions deserve some credit for their long-range anticipation of what Grayling has lately concluded 'on the basis of rational investigation'. Jim StewartUniversity of Dundeehttp://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n23/letters.html -- Yisrael MedadShilohMobile Post Efraim 44830Israel _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Holiness of (Eretz) Israel

Regarding the two issues of 1- The Jewishness of the Medinah (whether Jews having sovereignty makes the state Jewish) and 2- Qedushas ha'aretz   I would suggest a new book, Nachlat Yaakov, 2 Vols., 930 pgs. which, among other topics, devotes, for example, 100 pages to the inyan of the three oaths.   And to the point of the topic currently under discussion, the Gemera of Moed Katan, 26A, reads that kri'ah should be done for "the cities of Judea, the Mikdash and Yerushalyim" from which one can infer that these are three separate matters in that each one merits the ceremony for something intrinsic of each, i.e., although they are equally treated by kri'ah, there are three distinct reasons why so or, on the other hand, while one might think that they are at different levels, the decision is that they are indeed equal after all.   There is an addition by Rabbi Chelbo there who adds a stipulation "in their destruction" and the question is what is the definition of such status?  Is it no Jews living there?  Is it physical destruction?  Or is it "kol she'yad ha'ummot sholetet alav" - if sovereignty or its equivalent is in the nads of the non-Jew?  For example, Jericho or Shchem today in that the ruling authority has been recognized as an institution termed the Palestine National Authority?  The Satmar Rav, R' Yoelisch z"l, considered a secular Jewish government as worse ("elah adraba garua achshav b'otah memshalah...d'galut ha'erev-rav kasha yoter m'galut ha'ummot" - Divrei Yoel, O"H, 30:6).   The author, Rav Yaakov Zisberg, concludes that those cities administered by the PNA do not require kri'ah unless an actual state is established by the PNA.-- Yisrael MedadShilohMobile Post Efraim 44830 Israel _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org