More Discussions for this daf
1. Filling the doorway 2. Tolesh from the ground 3. Not a Sheretz
4. Lice 5. Lice 6. Lice
7. הריגת כנים בשבת 8. רש״י ד״ה תחת כנפיו 9. ביצי כינים מינא הוא

isaac betech asks:

Is the following approach acceptable?

Kol tuv, isaac betech, mexico

The Kollel replies:

I am certainly not the one to judge approaches suggested by other Torah-observant Jews to explain passages in the Torah or Talmud, and to decide which are acceptable for orthodox Jews to study and which should be avoided. Thus, I certainly cannot answer your question definitively.

That having been said, I suppose you are referring to your review of Slifkin's article at . He writes that since "the louse is the only obligatory, permanent, 100% host-specific to the human being, ectoparasite, discernible to the human eye" which we know of, and since it lives a non-autonomous life, both internally and externally, therefore it is not comparable ot the ram, the life of which the Torah forbade us to end on Shabbos.

We wrote a different approach to this subject in our discussions of the Sugya. Nevertheless, it is evident that Slifkin put a good amount of time into researching the subject, and the approach sounds to me very interesting, appealing and original. I am sure that many people will find his approach easier to accept than what many others have written on this subject.

FYI, here is a small sample of other Marei Mekomos on the subject: See Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 316:9) and the Meforshim on it (i.e. Mishnah Berurah, Bi'ur Halachah, and contemporary Sefarim on Hilchos Shabbos), Teshuvos Heichal Yitzchak (O.C. #29), and Rabbi Aryeh Carmel's footnote on the letters of the Michtav Mei'Eliyahu (vol. 4, letter 31, note 4).


Mordecai Kornfeld