Druckschrift 
Napoleon's influence on Jewish law : the Sanhedrin of 1807 and its modern consequences / edited by Walter Jacob in association with Moshe Zemer
Seite
146
Einzelbild herunterladen

146 Mark Washofsky

unable to locate the statement in Natansons Resp. Sho el Umeshiv.

91. R. Hayim Elazar Shapira, Resp. Minhat Elazar}:74. See, in general, Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar, Maagalei Zehut Yehudit Basifrut Hahilkhatit(Tel Aviv : Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2000), 93-94.

92. R. Yitzhak Halevy Herzog, Resp, Heikhal Yitzhak, Even Ha ezer 2:26.

93. R. Moshe Feinstein , Resp. Igerot Moshe, Even Ha ezer 4:59. Note that this ruling is based upon a narrative of its own, namely that the non-observant Jew , precisely because he does not accept the Torah in its entirety(i.e., as the Orthodox rabbinate interprets it), is as likely to transgress against the Torah s ethical precepts as he is to violate its ritual laws. Not all poskim adopt this narrative account of the modern non-Orthodox Jew ; see Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Osef Piskei Din(1950), 337-338 and, for analysis, Menahem Elon , Miba ayot Hahalakhah Vehamishpat Bemedinat Yisrael(Jerusalem : Hebrew University , Institute for Contemporary Judaism, 1973), 22ff.

94. R. Shmuel Halevy Wosner, Resp. Shevet Halevy 9:198.

95. B. Avodah Zarah 26b and Rashi ad loc., s.v. leteiavon. See Shulhan Arukh Yoreh De ah2:1-4 and Siftei Kohen ad loc., n. 4: the mumar leteiavon isone who would not eat forbidden meat if permitted meat were available. Thus, while it is always forbidden to eat meat slaughtered by a Gentile, that which has been slaughtered by a mumar leteiavon may be eaten if the slaughtering was done under very close supervision.

96. Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 2:5.

97. Note 12, above.

98. I should add here that the question of narrativecorrectness cannot be answered by social scientists, historians, or the practitioners of other disciplines. This is a legal question that must be resolved through the application of-legal discourse. That is to say it is a rhetorical matter: we are asking not about the factual accuracy of either narrative construction but rather which of them can persuade the majority of the legal audience to adopt it as their own view of the law.

99. LaRue,(note 30,* above), 121-153[emphasis mine- MW].

100. See White, Heracles Bow(note 20, above), 46-48 and 117-138.