(c) Apr 18 2001 RashiYomi Inc. MY COLLECTED & INDEXED MAIL JEWISH POSTINGS-Ver #1
Individual Postings 1st appeared(& were copied in html form) on the Email List Mail Jewish

From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@saber.towson.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:56:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Using Law to suggest reasonableness vs Proof

Carl in Mail Jewish Volume 32 Number 32 cites a posting of mine in which
I cite Rambam, Laws of Gifts to the Poor to the effect that "part of the
definition of charity is that a poor person MUST be given gifts in
accordance with his former life style"

I then go on to extrapolate to living in Israel--I suggest that if a
person had a "luxurious life style" in America it would be morally wrong
to ask him to have a lower one in Israel and I cite the above Rambam as
a proof. I conclude that "going to Israel" is "an act of Piety" but not
obligatory

Carl then carefully cites the Rambam (too long) and points out that the
above Rambam only applies when the person FIRST became poor. Since 'rich
Americans' going to Israel do not become poor it follows that my
argument does not follow. In other words Carl is claiming "All you can
do is prove that halachah recognizes the extreme difficulty of
transiting from a 'rich style' to a 'poor style' PROVIDED THE PERSON
ACTUALLY BECAME POOR...you cannot prove it in your case where the person
probably remains middle class"

However the disagreement between me and Carl is NOT on whether a "rich
American" would reach the poverty level. The difference between us is
not even on whether I have proven my point. The difference between us is
on whether I have a right to EXTRAPOLATE a law to make an argument of
REASONABLENESS.

Let me recap my argument and state the difference between Carl and
myself. I am stating that "GOING TO ISRAEL" is not an obligation but
rather "an act of piety". To support my opinion I show that IN THE CASE
OF POVERTY, halachah recognizes the great emotional difficulty in
transiting from a "rich life style" to a "lower life style".  I then
argue that it is REASONABLE to extend this concept to going to Israel--I
apply this argument of reasonableness to conclude that it is not
obligatory but an act of piety.

I don't believe Carl has answered me. If the difficulty of transiting to
a lower life style exists for the poor why is it not reasonable to apply
this concept to the middle class--why is the burden of proof ON
ME--doesn't Carl have a burden of proof to answer a rich American who
does not feel obligated to go to Israel. I think there is some symmetry
here.

I hope this clarifies my position

Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA
RHendel@Towson.Edu; Math Towson
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/