Please contact me if you are planning on attending
Friday, May 31, 2013
Rav Triebitz: Challenges of Modernity and Rav S. R Hirsch
Please contact me if you are planning on attending
Did the Gra strongly oppose the Maskilim as he did Chassidim
In Yale Professor Eliyahu Stern's recently published book on the Vilna Gaon - inserted below - asserts that he didn't publicly oppose maskilim such as Mendelssohn.
In contrast in Rabbi Dovid Eliach's 3 volume work on the Gra - he cites letters which clearly indicate that the Gra was active in opposing the Haskala.
Prof Etkes in his biography of the Gra cites the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe claim that the Gra was very pleased with Mendelssohn's translation and encouraged its distribution. Etkes rejects it as baseless. Any thoughts?
Update Prof Stern's Review of R' Eliach's book:MODERN RABBINIC HISTORIOGRAPHY
AND THE LEGACY OF ELIJAH OF VILNA:A REVIEW ESSAY (Modern Judaism 24 (1 )2004
Nowhere is the modern-day significance of the GRA highlighted more than in Dov Eliach’s The Gaon: The Story of His Life and an Explanation of the Teachings of Our Teacher and Rabbi the GRA. Upon opening his work, the author informs us of his cultural biases (though, of course, never calling them such). Eliach wastes little time publicizing that his unique and groundbreaking book has been blessed by his rabbi, Chaim Kanievsky, a leading figure in Haredi circles—a man who seldom if ever gives his blessings to such books. For our purposes, this blessing is mixed. On one hand, it signals an immediate red light to the critical reader. On the other hand, it also notifies the reader just how important and relevant this book is in present-day Haredi society. [...]
In volume 2 of The Gaon the strength and uniqueness of Eliach’s work emerge. Here, he offers one of the most comprehensive overviews of the GRA’s relationship to Torah study and secular knowledge. As is the case with every subject touched on by Eliach in this 1,300-page tome, it is obvious that he read through every book, manuscript, and document (though not all are cited) relating to the GRA’s stance toward knowledge not normally identified with Torah. [...]
However, the main novelty in Eliach’s analysis is his employment of the GRA as a historical marker. Specifically, Eliach uses the GRA as a figure through which he paskens (decides the religious status) on abroad range of different issues and figures identified with modern intellectual Jewish history. A paradigmatic example of Eliach’s historiography is his analysis of Maskillim such as the Av Beit-Din of Berlin, Tzvi Hirsch Levin, and Nafatali Hertz Wesseley. The GRA had little, if any, contact with these Berlin rabbinic figures. Yet Levin’s involvement in writing the only approbation for Mendelssohn’s controversial German translation of the Bible, coupled with Levin’s close ties to many individuals in the GRA’s inner circle, compels Eliach to ask how present-day Haredi culture should perceive these Berlin Jews’ religious identity. Unlike modern historians, such as Jacob Katz, who would have sought to verify whether or not someone such as Rabbi Levin was a Mendelssohnian modern, a Rabbinic apologist, or a Traditionalist, Eliach has concerns that are different but no less descriptive. Namely, he attempts to discern whether Levin or Wesseley should be termed “friend or a foe” of the GRA’s world and, by extension, modern-day Haredi culture. In Eliach’s narrative, historical categories are replaced with subjective sociotheological modes of definition. On some levels, this shift is only semantic. What the historian labels as modern is what Eliach calls “foe,” and what Eliach calls “friend” is what the historian might call traditionalist. However, in other respects this shift marks profound differences. Whereas the intellectual center for most modern Jewish historians is Western Europe and the universe and language of Moses Mendelssohn, Eliach makes the Vilna Gaon and the language and categories of the Eastern European rabbinic elite the basis from which to understand modern Jewish intellectual history. Eliach’s privileging of an Eastern European and rabbinic historiographic paradigm offers him the material to connect modern Jewish history to present-day Haredi society. This connection champions the claim of almost every leading Haredi rabbinic figure: namely, that Haredi yeshivot and social institutions are carbon copies of those thatexisted in pre–World War II Eastern Europe.[...]
Nonetheless, Eliach’s historiographic choices come with a heavy price. His attempt to make the GRA into a general in a war against the Haskalah is historically impossible. Ironically, in describing the GRA’ s relationship to the Haskalah Eliach employs a military trope. Somehow for Eliach the GRA goes from being the frail Talmudic Sage described in volume 1—a man who speaks glowingly about a diet consisting of bread and salt—to a powerful “warrior” “fighting” against the Haskalah described in volume 2. Nonetheless, the stark structuralist lines and oppositions that Eliach draws between the GRA’s Lithuanian community and Mendelssohn’s Berlin world simply could not have existed during either of their lifetimes. It was only after the GRA’s death that a demarcation between these two communities could be seen. As Edward Breuer and others have pointed out, during the GRA’s lifetime these two communities shared a great deal of intellectual currency and did not perceive each other in a hostile manner.
AND THE LEGACY OF ELIJAH OF VILNA:A REVIEW ESSAY (Modern Judaism 24 (1 )2004
Nowhere is the modern-day significance of the GRA highlighted more than in Dov Eliach’s The Gaon: The Story of His Life and an Explanation of the Teachings of Our Teacher and Rabbi the GRA. Upon opening his work, the author informs us of his cultural biases (though, of course, never calling them such). Eliach wastes little time publicizing that his unique and groundbreaking book has been blessed by his rabbi, Chaim Kanievsky, a leading figure in Haredi circles—a man who seldom if ever gives his blessings to such books. For our purposes, this blessing is mixed. On one hand, it signals an immediate red light to the critical reader. On the other hand, it also notifies the reader just how important and relevant this book is in present-day Haredi society. [...]
In volume 2 of The Gaon the strength and uniqueness of Eliach’s work emerge. Here, he offers one of the most comprehensive overviews of the GRA’s relationship to Torah study and secular knowledge. As is the case with every subject touched on by Eliach in this 1,300-page tome, it is obvious that he read through every book, manuscript, and document (though not all are cited) relating to the GRA’s stance toward knowledge not normally identified with Torah. [...]
However, the main novelty in Eliach’s analysis is his employment of the GRA as a historical marker. Specifically, Eliach uses the GRA as a figure through which he paskens (decides the religious status) on abroad range of different issues and figures identified with modern intellectual Jewish history. A paradigmatic example of Eliach’s historiography is his analysis of Maskillim such as the Av Beit-Din of Berlin, Tzvi Hirsch Levin, and Nafatali Hertz Wesseley. The GRA had little, if any, contact with these Berlin rabbinic figures. Yet Levin’s involvement in writing the only approbation for Mendelssohn’s controversial German translation of the Bible, coupled with Levin’s close ties to many individuals in the GRA’s inner circle, compels Eliach to ask how present-day Haredi culture should perceive these Berlin Jews’ religious identity. Unlike modern historians, such as Jacob Katz, who would have sought to verify whether or not someone such as Rabbi Levin was a Mendelssohnian modern, a Rabbinic apologist, or a Traditionalist, Eliach has concerns that are different but no less descriptive. Namely, he attempts to discern whether Levin or Wesseley should be termed “friend or a foe” of the GRA’s world and, by extension, modern-day Haredi culture. In Eliach’s narrative, historical categories are replaced with subjective sociotheological modes of definition. On some levels, this shift is only semantic. What the historian labels as modern is what Eliach calls “foe,” and what Eliach calls “friend” is what the historian might call traditionalist. However, in other respects this shift marks profound differences. Whereas the intellectual center for most modern Jewish historians is Western Europe and the universe and language of Moses Mendelssohn, Eliach makes the Vilna Gaon and the language and categories of the Eastern European rabbinic elite the basis from which to understand modern Jewish intellectual history. Eliach’s privileging of an Eastern European and rabbinic historiographic paradigm offers him the material to connect modern Jewish history to present-day Haredi society. This connection champions the claim of almost every leading Haredi rabbinic figure: namely, that Haredi yeshivot and social institutions are carbon copies of those thatexisted in pre–World War II Eastern Europe.[...]
Nonetheless, Eliach’s historiographic choices come with a heavy price. His attempt to make the GRA into a general in a war against the Haskalah is historically impossible. Ironically, in describing the GRA’ s relationship to the Haskalah Eliach employs a military trope. Somehow for Eliach the GRA goes from being the frail Talmudic Sage described in volume 1—a man who speaks glowingly about a diet consisting of bread and salt—to a powerful “warrior” “fighting” against the Haskalah described in volume 2. Nonetheless, the stark structuralist lines and oppositions that Eliach draws between the GRA’s Lithuanian community and Mendelssohn’s Berlin world simply could not have existed during either of their lifetimes. It was only after the GRA’s death that a demarcation between these two communities could be seen. As Edward Breuer and others have pointed out, during the GRA’s lifetime these two communities shared a great deal of intellectual currency and did not perceive each other in a hostile manner.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
A review of Masoras Moshe by Rabbi Yair Hoffman
[see my previous post on this subject Mesores Moshe - What is it?
update: see my recent post Get Me'usa an apparent contradiction between Igros Moshe and Mesoras Moshe
Five Towns Jewish Times [...] R. Mordechai Tendler, who had kept notebooks and letters of his saintly grandfather’s rulings in his 18 years as serving as his grandfather’s Gabbai, has just printed a new book of Rav Moshe Feinstein’s oral rulings. The rulings number well over one thousand, and most of the them are quite fascinating.
update: see my recent post Get Me'usa an apparent contradiction between Igros Moshe and Mesoras Moshe
Five Towns Jewish Times [...] R. Mordechai Tendler, who had kept notebooks and letters of his saintly grandfather’s rulings in his 18 years as serving as his grandfather’s Gabbai, has just printed a new book of Rav Moshe Feinstein’s oral rulings. The rulings number well over one thousand, and most of the them are quite fascinating.
The book has approbations from both of Rav Moshe’s sons, Rav Dovid Feinstein Shlita, and Rav Reuvain Feinstein Shlita, as well as Rav Shmuel Fuerst from Chicago and Rav Dovid Cohen from Brooklyn, both leading and well-respected Poskim in the United States. Rav Chaim Kanievsky Shlita, of Bnei Brak, appended his signature as well to Rav Dovid Cohen’s approbation. [Rav Dovid Cohen and Rav Chaim Kanievsky are very close]. [...]
It is interesting to note that a similar but much thinner volume of rulings from Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l was published approximately two years ago by Rabbi Aharon Felder from Philadelphia. Indeed, the Rav Felder volume contains rulings that were significantly more controversial than this more recent volume. Certainly, R. Tendler was aware of these rulings as well, yet either he or, more likely, the editors of this volume chose to exclude them. Of course there have been rulings emanating from Rav Feinstein that appear neither in this most current volume nor in the Rav Felder volume. [...]
In this author’s opinion, the vast majority of Rav Moshe’s rulings that entered into general acceptance when he was alive still remain generally accepted. There are some rulings, however, where the trend has been to look elsewhere. For example, Rav Moshe permitted the use of rebar to prevent cement from cracking when pouring cement for a mikvah. [Rebar is short for reinforcing bar which helps reinforce or compress concrete through either a bar or wires made of carbon steel]. He held that the metal was batel to the cement. The tendency for the past number of years of Mikvah builders is to stay away from rebar. Perhaps this can be explained by the development of greater proficiency in pouring, but conversations with Mikvah builders indicate that there is a halachic trend at play here. In a similar vein, numerous Bnei Torah now look at the U shaped insertable Cholent pot as a problem of Hatmana – insulating, relying on the view of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. This is a position that was summarily rejected by Rav Moshe.
Perhaps only time will tell, but the question of how the arrival of this new volume will affect current halachic rulings of contemporary Poskim is certainly an interesting one. Finally, family members have confirmed that there will be a total of eighteen volumes to be published. The Sefer is available at all major Jewish bookstores.
Jerusalem Formula: Jewish solution oriented therapy by Dr. Shulem
This is the introduction to Dr Shulem's new book. It deals with how to do sucessful solution-oriented psychotherapy while being consistent with Torah values. Focus is on the precise use of language to cause cognitive shifts and reframing. Dr. Shulem has successfully used this approach and taught it to hundreds of students over the years. On the one hand it seems simple - but it does require proper practice and guidance to be done properly. It clearly demonstrates that good therapy doesn't have to be long or focused on the past.
Why Lapid is strengthening radical Chareidim or How not to draft the ultra-Orthodox
Times of Israel by Rachel Azaria a Jerusalem councilwoman representing the Yerushalmim Party
The government’s Peri Committee is offering a
solution to the unequal burden of military service that is far from
ideal. Why? Because it won’t result in the ultra-Orthodox joining the
army, at least not for the next four years.
If so, why are Yair Lapid and Yesh Atid
determined to pass the law? Ah… It’s simple: they live in Tel Aviv. In
other words, they have never actually met the ultra-Orthodox.
Over the last decade, Jerusalem residents have
witnessed a lengthy, difficult struggle over the character of our city.
We have succeeded on a number of fronts: the fight against excluding
women from the public sphere, retaining the pluralistic character of
neighborhoods, and so much more.
We have succeeded because we became acquainted
with the ultra-Orthodox community and we realized one key fact: the
ultra-Orthodox community is undergoing significant changes, with two
distinct undercurrents pulling in opposite directions. The first trend
is an increasing interest in being part of Israeli society. These are
people who feel Israeli and value the State of Israel. The other group
is increasingly disinterested in joining society at large.
The ultra-Orthodox who wish to integrate into
society face two main challenges. One is that they don’t know how to
join society, so many don’t. But given the chance, they will gladly find
their place. The second challenge is pressure from their more radical
peers, who deny their religious devotion, threaten to not accept their
children to schools, and other such sanctions. [...]
What we’ve learned in Jerusalem is to
encourage the moderate voices in the ultra-Orthodox community, those who
wish to join the Israeli and Jerusalemite public sphere and to resist
the zealots.
The problem is that the Peri Committee does
exactly the opposite. According to its plan, it will continue to exempt
the entire ultra-Orthodox community from service. And in four years,
anyone who doesn’t join the army – will go to jail.
This precisely empowers the more radical
voices, who are waiting for a chance to prove that the secular want only
to harass the ultra-Orthodox. Of course they’ll fight the Committee’s
plan. It is clear that being jailed will be equated with “martyrdom for
the sake of G-d,” playing right into the hands of the more radical
groups [...]
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Nachlaot Abuse Scandal: Rav Moshe Shapiro accused of instigating the beating of a woman who was alleged to be involved in pedophilia and missionizing
See this link for some of the confusion and conflict as to who she was
These are the items discussing the indictment
It is important to keep in mind that the Nachlaot scandal was originally described by police as the biggest case of pedophilia in Israeli history. Then it was eventually revealed to involve pedophilia but was grossly inflated by mob hysteria. The top link is the most recent.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/117839/panic-in-jerusalem
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/117839/panic-in-jerusalem
Rabbi Micha Berger: Why Yeshiva World preferred Mussar Movement to Chassidus
.jpg)
Rabbi Micha Berger responded:
I don't think it's a mystery. Mussar is founded on the writings of the Vilna Gaon. E.g. the title of Even Sheleimah ch. 1 tells us that the essence of Torah is the breaking of [bad] middos. In the next generation, Nefesh haChaim is an ambiguous work depending on how you understand the relationship between the first three she'arim, and the fourth. One way produces the yeshiva movement. Read the other way, and you see how R' Chaim Volozhiner had R' Zundel Salant as a student.
R' Zundel is the one who noticed a young Yisrael Lipkin trying to stay out of sight as he watched his behavior and meditations in the woods. He set R' Yisrael on the path that would become mussar when he shouted to the youth, "ישראל, לערן מוסר, אז דו זאלסט וערען א ירא שמים — Learn mussar so that you will be one who lives in awe of [the One in] Heaven!” (I don't know Yiddish well enough to know if I remembered the conjugations correctly.) In Nesivos Or, R' Itzele Petersburger writes that Rav Yisrael Salanter called the moment a “thunderbolt” that changed his life.
So, hashkafically, what divided Mussar from the Yeshiva velt isn't goal, but means. The yeshiva velt believes that learning is metaheir, like a miqvah. (Mashal taken from NhC sha'ar 4) Personal refinement doesn't require a conscious work on middos, because "barasi yeitzer hara, ubarasi Torah tavlin -- I [Hashem says,] created [yeitzer hara], and I created the Torah to spice it." Mussar believes that it does require a conscious commitment to work on one's middos; to view avodas Hashem as a conscious process of growth.
The gap is thus FAR smaller than that between Litta and chassidus. At worst, Mussar was seen as a waste of time better spent on learning. Not a misdirection in purpose.
But it did hit opposition. The last volume of R' Dov Katz's history of Mussar (Tenu'as haMussar) is titled Pulmus haMussar. Modern editions, following the general trend to revise history, omit it. The only copy I have I had Lulu print from Hebrewbooks.org. (Available here.) The primary issue was taking time from learning. This issue led to Kamenetz breaking away from Slbodka as a yeshiva for those who wanted a more normal curriculum. And the matter also led to fights within Telzh.
But there were those who objected because they saw any change as being Haskalishe. And their arguments were simply about chiddush -- how could mussar be of value if generations of ancestors didn't need it? (An issue the Alter of Novhardok raises in the title lecture of Madreigas haAdam is to explain what he believes changed in RYS's day to require the innovation.)
I don't think everything quieted down until the Alter of Slabodka sent talmidim out to keep other yeshivos afloat.
Rav Eliashiv: Moderation is normally required but extremism is required in times of spiritual danger BK (60b)
This is explained by Rav Eliashiv (Yeshurun #28) in his commentary to Avos to refer to one's approach to religious observance. This is elaborated by Orech Yesharim.
Orech Yesharim (brought by Daf ahl Daf to Bava Kama 60b): As a general rule a person should always go in the moderate path and not be an extremist. However when there is an epidemic in the city i.e., there are many people who deviate from the proper path of observance – then one can no longer take a moderate position and he should not follow the majority in sin. Rather he should take an extreme position. That is because the Angel of Death who is Satan can easily seduce people to sin at this time. It is only during a time of peace i.e., when people are observant and attached to G‑d – then it is necessary to take a moderate position. In fact if a person takes an extreme position during times of general religous observance he places himself in great spiritual danger. Because at that time Satan has domain over those who conduct themselves as fanatics and extremists since their conduct is not for the sake of heaven.
Chaim Weiss Murder: Reward for Info about NY yeshiva student killed in 1986
To whom it may concern,
I thought this was an Interesting shaila, as it is something I have been thinking about recently.
The murder investigation into the Long Beach yeshiva killer was re-opened. If you do not remember the story, a boy Chaim Weiss was killed some 25 years ago in long beach yeshiva. The police never solved the case yet they suspected someone in the yeshiva committed the murder. I have always believed that the one who killed Chaim was a specific bochur. It is not based on anything other than age. behavior, and a few specific things about him. He also is appx the same size as the suspected killer was. I don't know this guy well, not do I know which yeshiva he learned in. Anyway, is it permitted halachically to tell his name to the investigator on the case that I suspect he may have killed him?
Rav Meir Treibitz told me - in response to the above question - that someone who has information or even suspicions is obligated to report it to the police. I conveyed this psak to the one who wrote the letter and he said he will contact the police.
Anyone with information is asked to call Nassau County Crime Stoppers at
1-800-244-TIPS , log onto the county Crime Stoppers Web site, or text code word NCCS and a tip to CRIMES (274637.)Update HaModia of May 28 reports Mesivta of Long Beach asks for cooperation with police
See also Hamodia's article on Crime Stoppers
The Nassau District Attorney felt that the productive way to gain the community’s cooperation and trust was to involve the Orthodox community directly.Which is what brought Gregory Quinn, a 40-year veteran of the Nassau County police homicide division, and James Carroll, the lead detective in reopening the Weiss files, to Hamodia last Thursday.“We need you,” Quinn said at the meeting with Hamodia.
The yeshivah seconded the DA’s call, urging anyone with knowledge to come forward, in a statement released to the public on Tuesday.
“The Mesivta of Long Beach applauds the perseverance of the Nassau County Police Department as it commences the reinvestigation of the tragic but unsolved murder of Chaim Weiss in November 1986,” the release read.
“We at the Mesivta have met with the Police Department and pledged our full cooperation in the investigation. We encourage all who have relevant information that could prove useful to the investigation to extend their full support to this process.”
Huffington Post The unsolved killing of a 15-year-old rabbinical student found bludgeoned to death in his dormitory at a suburban New York yeshiva in 1986 is receiving renewed attention from homicide detectives.
"There's somebody out there that knows a secret," said Lt. John Azzata, commander of the Nassau County Police homicide squad. "I'm looking for that person to give me that secret."
Flanked by the victim's father, county officials announced Tuesday they were increasing the reward for information leading to the arrest of Chaim Weiss' killer from $5,000 to $25,000. The announcement came at a press conference intended to spark renewed interest in the case, Azzata said, adding that police have already begun to receive telephone tips. [...]
Weiss was described at the time as a bright student. He was found bludgeoned to death in his room at a religious school in Long Beach, a Long Island community east of New York City, after he failed to show up for morning prayers. [...]
There were no signs that anyone broke into the room.
It was later revealed that the victim's body had been moved to the floor from his bed, where he is believed to have been slain with a sharp, blunt object. Also, a window in the dormitory room was left open despite late autumn temperatures that hovered in the low 40s. Some have suggested the moving of the body and the opening of the window were somehow related to the young man's religious faith.
On Tuesday, chief of detectives Rick Capece specifically addressed the Jewish community, saying that detectives were aware that witnesses may be reticent to suggest those who may have been involved in the killing without having "positive proof" of their involvement.
"We are sensitive to and respect that belief," Capece said. "However a homicide has occurred and we need any information that can help us solve this case and bring justice and peace to the Weiss family."
Anton Weiss, the boy's father, spoke briefly at Tuesday's news conference [...]
He noted his son's classmates would be in their early 40s by now.
"His classmates by now are married, are parents on their own and understand what it means to be a parent," Weiss said. "I am appealing to you and urging you in the strongest way, if you have any information that you feel the police might need in this murder investigation, I ask you, I urge you, to please contact the police department." [...]
===From my sefer Child and Domestic Abuse volume II my copyrighted translation
Maharam Schick (C.M. 50): [In the case of someone’s brother who had died suddenly and his sister‑in‑law is suspected of poisoning her husband. Based on Bava Metzia (83b) regarding R’ Eliezer catching Jewish robbers for the Roman the halacha would allow reporting her to the police.]. While that is the halacha, nevertheless that gemora itself indicates that it is inappropriate for gedolim to be the ones to report the transgressor to the secular authorities. This is also the view of the Rashba cited by the Beis Yosef (C.M. 388). An even greater proof against reporting transgressors to secular authorities – even when there is a possible danger in not reporting – is found in the Rambam. The Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 5:5) writes that if non‑Jews specify which Jew they want and they will kill all the Jews if he isn’t handed over – they should give him over. However the Rambam notes that if that wanted Jew deserves the death penalty he can be given over to save the others – but this halacha is not to be publicized. This is also the view of the Yerushalmi (Terumos 8:4)…. Consequently while one should not protest against those who follow the straight halacha and report the criminal to the authorities - which has many poskim to rely on - nevertheless the gedolim should not get involved in reporting these crimes but rather should be passive. This is as we saw with Shimon ben Shetach who did not have proper evidence that someone was a murderer - even though it was obvious – and therefore he did nothing. Also look at Sheilas Yaavetz (2:9)…
===From my sefer Child and Domestic Abuse volume II my copyrighted translation
Maharam Schick (C.M. 50): [In the case of someone’s brother who had died suddenly and his sister‑in‑law is suspected of poisoning her husband. Based on Bava Metzia (83b) regarding R’ Eliezer catching Jewish robbers for the Roman the halacha would allow reporting her to the police.]. While that is the halacha, nevertheless that gemora itself indicates that it is inappropriate for gedolim to be the ones to report the transgressor to the secular authorities. This is also the view of the Rashba cited by the Beis Yosef (C.M. 388). An even greater proof against reporting transgressors to secular authorities – even when there is a possible danger in not reporting – is found in the Rambam. The Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 5:5) writes that if non‑Jews specify which Jew they want and they will kill all the Jews if he isn’t handed over – they should give him over. However the Rambam notes that if that wanted Jew deserves the death penalty he can be given over to save the others – but this halacha is not to be publicized. This is also the view of the Yerushalmi (Terumos 8:4)…. Consequently while one should not protest against those who follow the straight halacha and report the criminal to the authorities - which has many poskim to rely on - nevertheless the gedolim should not get involved in reporting these crimes but rather should be passive. This is as we saw with Shimon ben Shetach who did not have proper evidence that someone was a murderer - even though it was obvious – and therefore he did nothing. Also look at Sheilas Yaavetz (2:9)…
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)