העורך Editor

While criticized for their silence regarding the rape of Dinah, the discussion and reasoning of the residents of Shechem, when deciding whether to admit Yaacov and his family are put forth at full length. It appears we can learn what sensible immigration policy consists of. By the way, the fact the king had to get their permission, is why they are held culpable for his son’s previous actions with Dinah.

These were the (convincing) points made (Bereishis 34:20, and onwards):

1. The land is spacious.
2. The incomers are merchants, not bums.
3. They are not enemies.
4. We see no problem with intermarriage — it is actually desirable.

So, the opposite not…

We have, I believe, made the case against going to Uman in large groups for Rosh Hashana from Israel, since this denigrates the place of origin. A timely note: the same applies to women going there for (Shabbos) Chanuka (or is it Rosh Chodesh Kislev? Tu B’Av?).

If this custom grows even more popular than it is now, even worse.

צריך לדעת יסוד כללי. גם היתר “גמור” ושל חז”ל יש לו גבולות. ולמשל,  אם אמרו, הלכה כהמיקל בעירובין, הרי אין ההוא כובס והצדוקי בכלל. כי אמנם מ”ט פנים יש, אך לא לא יותר ולא בכל שאלה. וכן אם כתמים תולין “בכל מידי”, אין זה פשוט ממילא להתיר כתם כגריס בזה”ז. וגם אם כל הענין רק סייג, עכ”פ גם סייג יש לו שיעור למטה כל דהו. והבן.

It’s short; one page.

See it here.

I haven’t finished learning the matter, but it appears from Shach on Shulchan Aruch Y.D. (190:27, S.K. 37) the words of the S.A. are based upon a scribal error in the Ramban, and are against the Gemara. How come the Beis Yosef didn’t think twice?

The Gra idem says:

וכן אם כו’, טעות הוא דזה לכו”ע טמאה כמש”ש בגמ’ ועש”ך

The Achronim seem to elegantly dance around the issue.