On 10/6/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">saul mashbaum</b> <<a href="mailto:smash52@netvision.net.il">smash52@netvision.net.il</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><p>The Encyclopedia Talmudit indeed cites the principle "chalitza b'makon yibum eina mitzvah" (regarding yibum for chayvei lavim), and then says "not that chalitza is not a mitzvah *at all* (kol ikkar), but it is not the preferred mitzva in the face of yibum."
</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Totally tangential !<br>This is conceptually similar to my point about michemes Reshus - Mah matzinu that Chalizta is indeed RELATIVELY NOT a Mitzva but after all is a Miztva in the context of an ABSOLUTE scale - similarly - Reshus may not mean ABOSLUTELY peimitted but RELATIVELY permitted [
<a href="http://viz.as">viz.as</a> compare to milchems Chova/Mitzva] Same with mayyimr Rishonim being called Reshus vs. Mayyim Ahcaronim etc.<br><br>And FWIW Most Ein bein's are not literal either - rather contextually limited in scope and NOT exhasutive.
<br><br>There is another concept in Basar bechalav were a statement "there is no issur" is limited to the core Halacah but NOT to be construed as excluding Mar'eis Ayin<br><br>Hazal were rarely highly literal. Applying highly iliteral standards are mis-leading and often can lead to mis-perceptions of what is meant. Often teh Gmara itself reformualtes statemnts wti h"hachi Ko'amar...
<br> <br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com</a><br>Please Visit: <br><a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>