Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 130

Friday, November 12 1999

• RYBS and Psak
• Re: Avodah V4 #122 SINAS CHINAM/Lashon Harah ALERT!
• SINAS CHINAM/Lashon Harah ALERT!
• Re: SINAS CHINAM/Lashon Harah ALERT!
• The jewish bear (humor alert)
• Re: Avodah V4 #129, RE: Rebbes
• Re: RYBS and Psak
• Re: Brain death
• Techiyas HaMaysim (was: Sidelight on Brain stem dead)
• RE: Social Reasons to do Mitzvoth
• [none]
• Source of 39 Melacoth
• Re: The jewish bear (humor alert)
• RE: The jewish bear (humor alert)
• Re: Sin'at Chinum
• Fw: Interview Questions on Genetic Engineering (very long)

FWIW, AFAIK RYBS did NOT pasken personal shei'los in NYC or at YU.  He did 
pasken in Boston.  And AFAIK he would pasken at YU for those talmidim that he 
knew from Boston.

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Chabad/Rav Dworkin 
 [A not-do exact parallel: there is the story that RYBS would hand new 
Rabbis their smicha certificate with Moshe Feinstein's phone number 
written on the back. I doubt that anybody thought the less of RYBS for 
it.]

__________________________________________________________________
Claude Schochet                                claude@math.wayne.edu        

=========================================================================
=====
WHAT KIND OF NONESENSE IS BEING PEDDLED HERE?????
THIS IS RISHUS, RECHILUS AND MOTZEI SHEM RAH!!!!!
=========================================================================
====
- ----- Original Message -----
From: harry maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>

> This flies in the face of the oft ***more like never*** attributed
aspect of
> Chasidus in general and Chabad Chasidus in particular
> 
****What! Chabad Chassidus? Has anyone read the Baal Hatanya's Hilchos
Talmud Torah or the 4th and 5th chapters of Tanya that elevate the
learning of Torah to the highest possible calling a Jew can have! 
 
 Have you seen the detailed program for learning Talmud and Poskim that
is the core of the Fifth Lubavitcher/Chabad Rebbe's book to the students
of the Lubavitcher Yeshivah "Kuntres Etz Chaim"? 
 
 Do you know how many young Lubavitcher Chassidim went underground in the
Soviet Union and were sent to Siberian labor camps for pursuing in depth
lumdos in unspeakable conditions in the secretive Botei Medrash the
Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe set up? 
 
Do you know that the highest honor a bochur in the yeshivah at "770" can
attain is to be one of the "Shivas Kenei Hemenorah" and be priviliged to
give over a Pilpul to the whole Yeshivah?
***********************************************  

>that it is Emunah Pshutah that is the higher form of
> Emunah (as opposed to Emunah MiDaas) and therefore,
> Chasidus discourages ANY type of, serious learning 

****No such statement is made anywhere in Chabad Chassidus, this is a
modern  BLOOD LIBEL
R"L*************************************************************

> even Limudei Kodesh, as a P'gam in one's EmunahP'shuta.
>> HM
***Reb Harry! You have Rabbis in a Shul you claim to go to whose whole
being refutes this premise and you have the Brazeness to make a statement
like that? I think that as soon as it snows in Chicago you should be
doing some serious Gilgul Sheleg and other Sigufim to atone for this type
of post*************** 

>>Not all Limudei Kodesh. 
***See the Maamar Lo Tashbis and it's Biur in Likutei Torah Parshas
Vayikra (by the founder of Chabad) as to the advantage of learning Gemara
and Poskim over learning Nistar*** 
>Just those areas of Chassidus that are not from the Rebbes of Chabad.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

**********Reb Yosef, talk to your uncles in LA/Toronto  and ask them what
they think of such malshinus! "Only chassidus Chabad"! What Narishkeit!
Have you ever heard of the Chalukas Hashas or seen the Kovtsei Chidushei
Torah that come out of the Lubvitcher Yeshivos (including Ohr Elchonon)
by the dozen?*************

Hakoseiv Beleiv Nishbar Veruach Do'eig
SDY

----- Original Message -----
From: Shlomo Yaffe <syaffe@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 5:19 PM

> >Just those areas of Chassidus that are not from the Rebbes of Chabad.
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
>
> **********Reb Yosef, talk to your uncles in LA/Toronto  and ask them what
> they think of such malshinus! "Only chassidus Chabad"! What Narishkeit!
> Have you ever heard of the Chalukas Hashas or seen the Kovtsei Chidushei
> Torah that come out of the Lubvitcher Yeshivos (including Ohr Elchonon)
> by the dozen?*************
>

Perhaps you misunderstood. I was not referring to Nigleh. Chabad is for
studying Nigleh in the same manner, more or less, as a standard Litvishe
Yeshiva.

I was referring to what in Chabad is called Da"ach, I believe, Divrei Elokim
Chaim. In Chabad, study of other Chassidus, such as, for example, R' Tzadok,
Sefas Emes, etc., is discouraged. As is study of the works of many of the
mekubbalim after the Arizal (such as the Ramchal). I have spoken to my
uncles about this. Haven't you noticed the kinds of sources that my Uncle
Immanuel uses in his footnotes? They are overwhelmingly either from the Beis
Medrash of the Ari or from Nesi'ei Chabad.

OTOH, I do not know that, say, Gerrers study any Chassidus other than that
which originated with their Nesi'im (plus some classics that antedate the
Chiddushei ha'Rim. Since Chabad was founded early on, I think the
exclusionary policy stretches further back, historically, than with the
other Chasiduyos), or that Tzanzers study anything from other Battei Medrash
either. Most of us, however, grew up perceiving that Chabad is "breiter"
than other Chasiduyos, so it is more jarring, at first glance, to realize
that they, too, curtail their area of pursuit in Da"ach.


Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

In a message dated 11/11/99 7:18:36 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
writes:

> Perhaps you misunderstood. I was not referring to Nigleh. Chabad is for
>  studying Nigleh in the same manner, more or less, as a standard Litvishe
>  Yeshiva.
>  

That is what I thought you meant, as you have written so before, I guess the 
writer wasn't Mavchin, and as I said I haden't read the whole Hemshech.
BTW when I was about 14 I had a very strong Ntioh to learn Kabbalah, and I 
had actually begun I my own, when I went into Yechidus I decided to ask the 
Rebbe, to which the Rebbe told me "Es iz dir Genug Chabadziker Chassidus 
Lkutei Torah Tanyoh Torah Oir " obviously I stopped with Kabbalah.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

The jewish bear

A Jew is out in the woods in Montana when he comes across a bear.
Frightened for his life, he runs as fast as he can to escape the bear and
hides in a cave. He is horrified to find that the bear has run after him
into the cave, and now the man is trapped. He closes his eyes and begins
to recite "Sh'ma Yisrael" in anticipation of his final moments.

When he is finished, he opens his eyes and is surprised to see the bear in
front of him with his eyes closed,-- also praying. The man thinks to
himself, "How lucky am I to be cornered by what must be the only Jewish
bear in North America! We're mishpocheh - I'm saved!" He then listens more
carefully to the bear's prayer: "...hamotzi lechem min haaretz"

This idea of Chassidic Rebbeim not paskening is not universal.

For example, 
The 1st Munkatcher Rebbe - the Minchas Elozor was also a major and
prolific Posek whose Teshuvot remain a staple of the genre.

The Divrei Chayim -the first Rebbe of Tzanz is known by the same name as
his Sefer of teshuvos. His son the Shinover was also a much turned to
Posek.

The last two Lubavitcher Rebbeim referred Halachic Shaalos (Though they
often spoke out -(with Mekoros) on neglected areas of Halacha-e.g. the
issues surrounding Israeli manned ships and Shabbos violation in the
50's) to posekim in general. The first ( Baal Hatanya) and 3rd (Tzemach
Tzedek) Rebbe's were major poskim in their times with many recorded
Teshuvot.

I guess the rule on this particular issue is that there is no consistent
rule.
SDY

In a message dated 11/11/99 5:48:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< FWIW, AFAIK RYBS did NOT pasken personal shei'los in NYC or at YU.  He did 
 pasken in Boston.  And AFAIK he would pasken at YU for those talmidim that 
he 
 knew from Boston. >>

This is not the case. I know a number of Talmidim and even non- Talmidim in 
NYC  for whom the Rav extended himself and offered psak when asked.

Jordan

DB wrote:
<<R' Halperin said that heart and lung dead was halakhic death when it
was  irreversible. Today it is reversible and, therefore, is not death.
At the present time, brain stem dead is irreversible and today that is
death. That too may change in the future.>>

One of the interesting points of R. Moshe's teshuvas is that he
specifically does not redefine halachic death in accepting BD=D.  He
simply demonstrates that BD is equivalent to the halachic category (or
possibly categories) of death.  This is davka why the article in
Neurology has no bearing on the halachic issue.  Coincidentally, the
letters to the editor regarding that article just came out in October,
and I just saw them today, and- bein hayeter- the author's response to
the criticisms (and they were all criticisms) is that he was not denying
that BD=D, but rather only trying to philosophically define why that is
the case (in fact, his current attempt to do so, not coincidentally, is
being published in the Journal of Medical Philosophy).  This problem is
a non-sequitur for halacha where philosophical considerations do not
(routinely- I know I'm opening up a Pandora's box with this statement)
shape the existing halachic categories into which all of our normative
decisions must fit.  

I must agree with RYGB, too, that this cannot be construed as a RW/LW
debate; I don't think most people would consider R. Bleich (YU
professor, Law Professor, objector to BD=D) as a representative of
whatever we're defining as RW here .

Shabbat Shalom.
David Eisenman

D Bannett quoted R' Levi-Yitzhak Halperin as saying <<< that heart and
lung death was halakhic death when it was irreversible. Today it is
reversible and, therefore, is not death. >>>

I do not understand that logic. Jews *DO* believe in techiyas hamaysim.
It was practiced by neviim, and I once heard that it was done
occasionally by rishonim as well.

R' Bannett told over a story in R' Helperin's name, about a man who had
no heart action or breathing, but was then revived. <<< He goes home to
discover that, by the halakha of these RW rabbis, he is no longer
married. After all he was halakhically dead and the time for techiat
hametim hasn't arrived yet. His almana doesn't allow him to stay. He runs
to the bank to make a withdrawal only to be told that his sons have
already inherited. Of course, he is mugged and stabbed to death shortly
after that but nothing can be done to the murderer because, like the ben
peku'a one cannot re-kill a dead person. >>>

What is meant by <<< the time for techiat hametim hasn't arrived yet >>>
??? Yes, it is quite obvious that the mass revival of large groups of
people has not yet occurred, but how does this render it impossible for
scattered individuals?

Behold the words of the Igros Moshe (Yoreh Deah 2:174, Anaf 1, second
paragraph from the end) where he paskens for a future day, if and when
doctors are able to reconnect a detached head:

<<< Therefore, if someone is decapitated, even though his head and body
are jumping around, his status is entirely that of a dead person. Even if
we would say that there is a way to connect his head and body so that he
would live, there is no obligation to do so even on a weekday, because
there is no obligation to revive the dead, and so on Shabbos it would be
forbidden. >>>

Rav Moshe is clearly arguing against R' Halperin: Ability to restore life
does NOT mean that the person was not dead during the procedure. Rather,
the person WAS dead, but was then brought back to life. As a practical
example of this, later in that same paragraph, Rav Moshe cites the story
of <<< Tosafos in BM 114, of Eliyahu, who was a kohen. The R"i asks, How
could he have revived that boy, for he needed to be with him in the ohel,
and had to carry him and touch him? >>> And Rav Moshe points out that the
answer to the question has to do with it being a Pikuach Nefesh
situation, but NOT regarding the boy's life, and rather the boy was most
definitely considered dead despite his subsequent revival.

I would like to see what other poskim say to R' Halperin's examples of
the revived man's wife being single, and his sons having already
inherited from him. Bizarre as it sounds, they make sense to me. (I'm not
familiar with the ben pakua case. Are we talking about a calf which was
found alive in its mother's womb after the calf was shechted? I had
thought the calf is considered alive but shechted, and could be eaten
after any form of killing. If so, then those who murdered R' Halperin's
victim *would* be liable to the death penalty.)

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I wrote
> >>If Reuven had known that the Tnach
> >>would write up how he tried to save 
> >>Joseph he would have run and acted 
> >>more intensely
> 
> So we see that positive mitzvoth ARE
> affected by social pressures

Carl responded:

I won't argue that they never are, but I think that more often than 
not social pressures have nothing to do with positive mitzvos. And 
the Gemara about someone who wants to be over an aveirah 
wearing black and going to another town certainly implies that the 
social pressure is for the negative mitzvos.

So then it seems we agree that
	>social pressures can lead to both positive and negative
	performances (Agreed)

	>there are people who do both positive and negative
	performances anyway (Agreed)

	>Using social pressures is a good technique when
	the urge to do a sin is strong (Agreed)

	>Social pressures are more operant in negative
	commandments then in positive

It is only on this last point that I don't know if I agree

Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Relative to our recent discussion re:  Aramaic vs. Hebrew in davening,
etc.  I am attaching a piece from Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler in this context.

The Eitz Yosef explains that the fifteen terms listed in 'Emes ve'Yatziv'
correspond to the fifteen pesukim that comprise the first two parshiyos
of the Shema. All fifteen are really varied expressions of acceptance, to
say that we accept the vitally important issues mentioned in those two
parshiyos with a full heart. 
That will explain why the second word 've'yatziv' is written in Arama'ic
(as opposed to the other fourteen, which are all Loshon ha'Kodesh. It is
because, assuming that each consecutive word represents a consecutive
posuk
in the Shema, 've'yatziv' will correspond to 'Boruch Sheim', which we say
quietly because Moshe Rabeinu stole it from the angels, as the Medrash
Rabah informs us.
Consequently, we say 've'yatziv' in Arama'ic, a language which the angels
do not understand.

*

While looking up references today I had a chance to examine
the Yerushalmi on the BIblical source for the 39 melacoth (Rabbi
Bs homework assignment).

The Gmarrah (Chapter 7: Mishnah 2) lists 3 proofs
---the 39 times the word MLACHA occurs in the Bible
---the 39 times VHAMLACHA occurs in Vayakhel Pekuday
---ELEH HADEVARIM


My suggested understanding of this is similar to the Rav's
explanation of Gen32-4. The true derivation of Rashi
is from the distinction between
	>GR=Sojourn vs YSHV = to live
Hence if Yaakov says I sojourned in a place where
he had 2 wives, 20 children and was established it denotes
differences of opinions on ideological matters.

Rashi however EXPRESSES this grammatical point with
a play on WORDS---GARTI TARYAG


Thus the Rav established the principle that Rashi could
use a gematria to express a thought which is established
by grammatical rules.


Now it seems to me that the Gmarrah in Shabbas is suggesting
as follows:

--we know that Mlaceth shabbos is the melacoth used in 
building a house/mishkan (we learn this from juxtaposition
of Shabbas and mishkan)---however we don't yet know
the UNITS of melachah (When does a person have to
bring multiple korbans)

--the gmarrah suggests that there are 39 melacoth corresponding
to the 39 times that melacha occurs in the BIble. So that suggests
that the 39 times cover 39 different types of activity (We would
have to look it over to check this).

In other words the Midrash would not be on the same number
39-39 but rather on the different types of melach.

Similarly the 2nd opinion in shabbath that we learn melachah from
the words melachah in the mishkan would mean that the melacha
in the mishkan corresponds to 39 types of melacoth (Again we
would have to list the cases and discuss them).

The Gmarrah concludes by pointing outthat it does not say
---ZEH HADAVAR but
---ELEH HADVARIM.

In anoter words DVARIM denotes MANY melacoth (not just
one). Then the number of melacoth would correspond to the
# of  times melach occurs

There is no intention of learning from the gematria of ELEH 
rather from the grammar of ELEH HADEVARIM which refers
to a multiplicity of melachah.

Notice how my suggestion is neither right nor wrong but
rather testable...we would have to list the 39 times and
see if they correspond to the 39 melacoth. (An excellent
thread for avodah


Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

In a message dated 11/11/99 6:44:26 PM US Central Standard Time, 
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:

<< He then listens more
 carefully to the bear's prayer: "...hamotzi lechem min haaretz" >>

Let's analyze this so-called joke carefully. Could a bear really be a Jew? I 
presume the bear isn't circumcised. I therefore presume that he only pretends 
to be a Jew. Perhaps he's yet another Evangelical trying to convert yet a Jew 
to Christian idolatory. After all, the pseudo-Jew has contrived a situation 
to force a real Jew to recite his final prayers in a falsified circumstance, 
all to carry our the former's destructive desires. We've seen such tragic 
scenarios throughout our history.

Perhaps the bear is a real Jew. In that case, one real Jew is preparing to 
devour another real Jew. Imagine what Shas might say of this! Is the bear a 
Chassid? Is he some other form of RW? The bear has more hair than the other 
Jew, suggesting this probably is the case. Is this cannibalism, at least 
symbolically speaking? Isn't that really what's been happening to our 
community? The RW is, in fact, devouring the MO among us . . . . 

I invite further thoughts on the real, doubtless tragic hidden meaning of 
this tale.

David Finch

> Is the bear a
> Chassid? Is he some other form of RW? The bear has more hair
> than the other
> Jew, suggesting this probably is the case. Is this
> cannibalism, at least
> symbolically speaking? Isn't that really what's been happening to our
> community? The RW is, in fact, devouring the MO among us . . . .
>

Assuming your post *wasn't* meant in humor...

> I invite further thoughts on the real, doubtless tragic hidden
> meaning of this tale.

Here goes...

<INSULT MODE ON>

And maybe the "more hair" indicated a MO with long hair?

Maybe the devouring are the MO devouring Halacha by turning Bidieved Kulas
into l'chatchila halacha?

<INSULT MODE OFF>

It's easy to insult.

Seriously, WHY do so many people on this list feel the NEED to slam the RW
(whoever they are -- are Satmar and Gush both RW)?

Why does *every* issue turn into a RW slamming fest? Small wonder the
RW/chassidic element either lurk or leave.

Attacks like these usually indicate insicurity with one's self-image/belief
system. Something to think about.

Akiva

(returning to lurk mode...)


===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

I've had a very interesting experience with this post.  Most of the
responses showed that people read what they expected to read and _not_ what
I had written.   Some have asked me when this happened;  some have implied
that this must have been a garbled third hand report etc.

"Objective roporting?"  I don't know.  She saw the plastic bag of milk hit
her friend.  She saw a bag of detergent +water hit a local resident and she
narrowly escaped a few herself.   They were hastled and as she entered the
area she was called a Shiksa.  As many here do know how Ulpana girls dress
in Israel (long floor-length skirts) and as it was cold they were bundled
up.   I myself have encountered this phenomenon of being called a Shiksa b/c
I didn't wear stockings of the same kind worn in MS (I do wear very long
skirts).  BTW, I never shared my experience with my daughters thinking that
this was just a mishigas.

I also noted that there were some kind women who offered some of the girls
sanctuary and tea.  I even noted that someone shouted that "these are jews
they can stay", not that this influenced the mob.

How big was the mob?  I don't know.  It was sufficient to frighten the
girls.

That not everyone partook?  Of course not.  But this is  a clear case of Oy
LaRasha and Oy LeShcheino.  So how can the communittee allow such behavior,
especially if it is a minority/small group and then say "Lo Yadi BaMa'al"
and consider this sufficient?

Akiva wrote:
>Again -- if they were wearing slacks, maybe. If they were dressed in a
>tznius manner, and acting in a tznius manner?

As I said -- these were Ulpana girls: long skirts and sleeves.  They weren't
wearing tichels or sheitels -- but then they aren't married yet.

BTW, a girl who came to the Ulpana from Beit Ya'akov told them that it is
forbidden by them to wear ankle/floor length skirts b/c that is what many of
the serious Dati Leumi girls wear.  In Bnei Brak the hem line is a tefach
below the knee and rarely longer.

Someone complained that I had complained about what happened.  They
considered this Lashon HaRa.  I consider this a learning tool.  BTW, if we
had Sanhedrin and this happened to boys who are obligated for Eidut -- would
they have indeed been forced to report this to the local Beit Din?

Shoshana Boublil

Here is an example of a post that I think could be of interest to many
members of Avodah.  I would certainly like to see responses from others than
conservative and reform leadership.

I apologize for the length, as it is very long.

Shoshana

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Schwartz <SCHWARTZ@POSTBOX.CSI.CUNY.EDU>
To: KOL-CHAI@JTSA.EDU <KOL-CHAI@JTSA.EDU>
Date: יום חמישי 11 נובמבר 1999 17:10
Subject: Interview Questions on Genetic Engineering


Shalom,

    The interesting and challenging questions below from a student
doing research for a paper on effects of bio-engineered food on
kashrut issues are related to issues previously discussed on this
listserve.

    If you have any suggestions re responding to any or all of the
questions, or about others to contact about them, please let me know.
My e-mail address is schwartz@postbox.csi.cuny.edu

    I think that considering these questions can be valuable re
providing insights for many environmental issues, based on Jewish
teachings.

    Since the "Alliance for Bio-Integrity", led by Steve Druker, is,
I believe, the leading group in this area, I have sent them these
questions and have given the student information about them.

    Many thanks and best wishes,

    Richard

============
The Effects of Genetic Engineering on Kashrut of Food

Interview Questions

There are several reasons to suspect that genetically engineered
foods might become un-kosher.   The following is a list of concerns
that Judaism raises about genetic engineering.   All of these
concerns are directly or indirectly related to the halachot (Jewish
laws) of kashrut; even those that are more specifically moral,
scientific, or philosophical.

Halachot of Kashrut:
Bitul is the Hebrew word for nullification. There are several
different ways in which a non-kosher food can be nullified and
therefore considered kosher.
-Genes used to genetically manipulate fruits, vegetables, or foods that are
otherwise generally kosher can easily come from non-kosher animals.  Will a
gene from a non-kosher animal cause the final product to be considered
non-kosher?

- Can the non-kosher element in genetically engineered foods become batul?


Ta'am, or taste is one element that is often discussed in the halachot of
kashrut.  For instance, whether a small amount of non-kosher food can
become batul when accidentally mixed with kosher food often depends
on the way that it contributes its taste to the dish being prepared.

-Does the idea of ta'am necessarily have to be understood in its literal
translation from the Hebrew word for  'taste', or can it be more loosely
interpreted to mean 'essence' or 'effect'?  This would radically change the
meaning of the statement " Kosher food imbued with a noticeable taste of
non-kosher food is considered the equivalent the non-kosher food itself."
Engineered crops are bred to be aesthetically and reproductively different
from their organic cousins; traits that can be considered noticeably imbued
in otherwise kosher foods.

In order to prepare a kosher product, all machinery and utensils used
in the process must also be kosher. For a non-food item to be kosher
can not have come in contact with non-kosher foods or other non-
kosher materials.

-If a gene from a non-kosher animal is used in the process of genetically
breeding a species (e.g. as a catalyst) then can the final product
still be considered kosher?

There is a commandment in the Torah known as pikuach nefesh, which
decrees that one is to take care of one's bodily health.  A rabbinic
response to this prohibits the eating of any foods which might be
considered a sakana, or dangerous to one's health.

-Scientific research speculates that genetically engineered foods may have
adverse health effects on humans.  In light of this, can genetically
engineered foods be considered kosher?

-Is it more likely that  a selection of some, rather than all, genetically
engineered foods would be considered non-kosher based on their contents?

There are many moral and philosophical issues to be dealt with in
genetically engineered foods.

-If it is decided that genetic engineering is morally wrong, is it
enough to disqualify any genetically engineered product from being
considered kosher?

Text-Based Concerns Not Having to Do With the Laws of Kashrut
Leviticus 22:24 states "And that which is mauled or crushed or torn you
should not offer up unto the Lord; nor should you do this in your own land."

   This statement is made specifically in relation to the sacrificial
animals from the temple era.  However, many prohibitions from the
temple era have taken on new identities in modern times and have
become more relevant prohibitions.

-Can genetically engineered foods be considered 'mauled'? If so, are they
only considered unfit to 'offer up to the Lord', or are they also
considered unfit for human consumption?

-We are specifically commanded not to maul or crush in our land.  If
genetic engineering can be considered mauling or crushing, then does
it mean that we are prohibited from  practicing it at all?

One of the first commandments in the Torah, found in Genesis, is to
work the land (which God had just created) and act as it's steward.
-There are global problems such as food shortages, which could
theoretically be remedied by genetically engineering crops  to
produce a higher yielding or more resilient harvest.  Despite this,
concerns remain about the effects of genetic engineering on ecosystem
health.

-In this case, is the commandment of stewardship overridden by the law of
pikuach nefesh?

-Does stewardship include practicing sustainable agriculture?

-Is it part of our responsibility as stewards to maintain
biodiversity? Can breaking down species barriers apply to the
prohibition against "mauling?" (See above.)

Moral and Philosophical  Issues

After each one of the seven days of creation, God proclaimed that what he
had created that day was "good."

-If all that God created is good, do we as humans have a right to tamper
with it?

In the morning prayer services, there is a blessing which thanks God for
creating us according to His will.  A related blessing, recited over
some foods is "Blessed are you, God, who created everything with his
words."
-If one acknowledges that all is created by the will of God, is it
hypocritical to try and 'improve' on God's creations through genetic
engineering?

-If all is created by the will of God, is it not reasonable to assume that
genetic engineering was also a Godly idea?

An implication of the commandment of circumcision is that  in order for a
human male to become fully Jewish, he  must improve upon what God gave him.

- Does this statement give humans a right to manipulate God's creations by
engineering them to suit our changing needs and demands?

-Can all of the questions asked about genetic engineering also apply to the
"improvement" of animals and plants through crossbreeding (e.g. apricots,
donkeys)?  If so, would the same restrictions apply to the products of
crossbreeding and genetic engineering?  Where is the boundary between
permissible and punishable manipulations of Gods creations?

Glossary:
Batul - nullified (adj.)
Bitul - nullification (v.)
Halacha - Jewish law (n.)
Halachot - Plural form of Halacha (n.)
Kosher - A standard of dietary laws based on pre-denominational Judaism
(adj., n.)
Kashrut - The state of being Kosher.  (n.)
Pikuach Nefesh - An action that must be taken in order to save a life.
Sakana - a health hazard or danger (n.)
Ta'am - Literally means "taste."

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]