<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/21/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Chana Luntz</b> <<a href="mailto:chana@kolsassoon.org.uk">chana@kolsassoon.org.uk</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
RRW writes:<br><br>> Rav Sachter's article seems to imply to me that one may NOT<br>> exploit certain heteirim when those heiteirim lack a<br>> tradition for doing so. That avoiding exploiting a certain<br>> heter is proof that one SHOULD not exploit that heter.
<br><br>Actually, to be fair to RHS, I think this may be slightly overstating<br>his case. Rather RHS really seems to be arguing that where there is a<br>masorah not to use a certain heter, one should not use it, rather than
<br>that their needs to necessarily be a tradition to use the heter (a<br>subtle difference but significant difference). The real target of RHS's<br>article is the giving of aliyot to women. <br>Regards<br><br>Chana
<br></blockquote></div><br>See YD 1:1 BY and Schach<br>Not exploiting a textual heter is by no means a slam dunk in either direction.<br>The levuch posits the reaons women were excluded for Shechita was due to faintin?<br>
<br>Based upon this levuch would you exclue NOWADAYS a fmale doctor or nurse who is completely desentized to seeing BLOOD? <br><br>I would answer, Assuming this Levush to be correct, then this minhag has an inherent loop-hole that was only NOT exploited due to societal and NOT halachic considerations.
<br><br>To me it is analogous to reading on Friday night to an electric lamp as opposed to the oil lamp of the Talmud.<br><br clear="all"><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>