Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 342

Monday, February 7 2000

• Fwd (ganeden@dnai.com): Re: Wine Related Discussion on Avodah
• 3 unrelated questions -Goal Yisroel
• Re: Not Appropriate for this Forum! Homosexuality & Judaism
• smoking
• Smoking and Halocho
• homosexuality and our list
• Re: Smoking and chavolo
• Smoking and Halocho; 3 questions
• Smoking
• smoking
• MZ Redux
• Re: Smoking and Halocho
• Re: smoking
• Wedding Takana (was Re: Smoking and Halocho)
• Smoking is *assur* because of *kos ikkarin*
• Re: Perspective on smoking and halacha

I have an i'net acquiantance who works for Gan Eden Wines. I asked him to
look out our discussion of winemaking, and give some feedback about what is
actually done in the real world.

I attach his response.

-mi

----- Forwarded message from Craig Winchell <ganeden@dnai.com> -----
: From: "Craig Winchell" <ganeden@dnai.com>
: To: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
: Subject: Re: Wine Related Discussion on Avodah
: Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:16:48 -0800

: B"H

: Micha, glad to help.

: Ari Zivotofsky and Harry Weiss are correct when they say it is illegal to
: add water to wine in California wineries.  There is water added in a very
: limited amount (enough to hydrate additives and freeze-dried yeast), but
: well under 1% is added.  I cannot believe that water would be added in
: large volumes to any wine made anywhere-- with the exception of wine made
: using reconstituted grape juice concentrate.  Such could be the case on the
: East Coast, where Concord grape wine, for instance, could be concentrated
: at harvest and then produced from concentrate year-round.  In most of the
: wine producing regions, however, concentrate is not used.

: Even in the case of amelioration (addition of sugar water to the grape
: juice in order to keep the sugar concentration constant while diluting very
: high acids in some grape juice, something which cannot be done in CA but
: could be done on the East Coast and in Germany, for instance), I would
: doubt that the total amount of water added would be more than around 10%
: (maximums are dictated by law, but I wouldn't know them since it is
: immaterial to my winemaking).

: In short, if Beis Yosef Wine is under 50% water, chances are that all are
: Beis Yosef, with the exception of some east coast "Concord" type wines made
: from concentrate.  I therefore wouldn't think too much of the term "Beis
: Yosef Wine" as being any better from that point of view than most other
: kosher wine produced in the world.

: Craig Winchell
: GAN EDEN Wines
----- End forwarded message -----

re: #2

BAsed upon several shiurim I attend

1) I think the gemor Brochos discusses it.  

2)The consensus i.e. the maskono was that the Shatz DOES say Goal Yisreol 
audibly but softly. EG, at the Belz School we were taught to fade out at Goal 
Yisroel, using falsetto etc. but NOT to say it completely silently.

3) Audibly for those who are NOT yet at the Amidah so they may answer Amein

4) Softly as one approaches tefillo belachash with a "dimnuendo".

5) The tzibbur avoids Amein by finsihing simultaenously with the shatz


Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: 3 unrelated questions 



2. Does anyone know of any written sources for the Shatz not saying goal 
yisrael out loud before the amida?


Chodesh tov
Joel RIch

On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 01:10:56PM -0500, TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:
: Actually, our group has an obligation to discuss issues that touch on Social, 
: Moral, and political, aspects of Torah and society...

Yes. But only if the word "Torah" as used in the discussion is actually Torah
as defined by Orthodox consensus.

As to whether or not "ein dorshin ba'arayos" is applicable, I leave to the
Rabbonim here. It's not mentioned in the membership agreement -- assuming one
sticks to lashon neki'ah. I'll take PRIVATE email as to whether or not you
feel/pasken it should/must.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

This is from the January 25 Jerusalem Post.



Rabbi issues halachic anti-smoking ruling

            A prominent Bnei Brak rabbi, Shmuel Halevi
            Wosner, has issued a strong halachic ruling
            condemning smoking.

            Wosner sent the ruling to Amos Hausner, the
            legal adviser of the Israel Society for the
            Prevention of Smoking, who presented him with
            data on the immense health damage that
            smoking causes and asked for a statement.

            Wosner wrote that it was clear no young
            person should start to smoke, and that parents
            and educators "are bound to prevent them from
            doing so." He added that whoever has already
            taken on "this bad habit must try, for his own
            future, to abandon it gradually." Smokers
            "shouldn't dare smoke in public places," he
            continued, because the smoke is very
            dangerous to others as well.

            He also charged tobacco advertisers in the
            newspapers and other media and those who
            assist them with "great responsibility" for harm
            to the public. The Bnei Brak sage also urged
            people not to help smokers "as one is bound
            according to the Torah."

            Smoking has been proven to be a "great
            danger... and shown beyond a doubt to cause
            serious illness to the lungs and the heart as
            reported by doctors in all the countries of the
            world."

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
writes:
>But what really bothers me is the implication of the proposals here. In a
>sense, they seem to me thoroughly "Brisker". The underlying assumption of
>the drive for halachic solutions to a health problem is that there is, in
>Yahadus, only Halocho and non-Halocho. I.e., either it is assur - or muttar.
>
>But Yahadus is not pure Halocho. There are other values beyond "Assur" and
>"Muttar". There is the greatest question of all: "Will this activity add to
>or detract from my Ahavas or Yiras Hashem?" And there are many other
>corollary questions, such as one which may even be halachic; "Will this
>activity make me a naval b'reshus ha'Torah?"
>
>So, it seems to me that it makes our Yahadus shallow, almost
>two-dimensional, if our sole criterion is Halocho: Muttar or Assur. Indeed,
>it seems to impart to the religious world a distinct aura of immaturity:
>"They are not sophisticated enough to understand health issues qua health
>issues, so let's attack them with their own weapon: religion."

Could one make a similar argument regarding the amount of money spent on a
wedding?  Why the takkanah there, and not here, based on your logic?

-- Eric

R YGB has raised objections to the recent posting which apparently was trying 
to twist the Torah into somehow not really saying that same sex relationships 
are a toevah.  While I understand the sentiments that prompted RYGB to make 
this comment, I don't think that we should ban this topic for discussion on 
our list. Unfortunatly, the why's and wherefore's of Orthodox Judaism's stand 
on this subject are widely sought in todays culture, and widely misunderstood.
 To invoke the principle of "ein dorshin baarayos" is IMHO a big mistake.  WE 
cannot become defensive and hide away when soemone asks us regarding our 
stance on this issue.  In the "outside world" this is considered a legitamate 
subject for public discussion, and shtika kehodaa if we don't express 
ourselves, it will be interpreted as if we have nothing to say Chas Veshalom.  
Al Achas kamma vekamma when soemone tries to use the Torah itself in order to 
justify their views, and they present a seemingly reasonable argument which 
the untrained eye might actually become convinced that this is a legitamate 
interpretation, how much more so are we mechuyavim to clearly, confidently, 
and without anger and frustration - refute these claims.  Any scent of 
apolegetics, or defensiveness would be very detrimental to our cause and if we 
withdraw into our cocoons and ay "ein dorshin" it would be interpreted by the 
public as if we had nothing to say.
Let me bring you an example.  If someone published a paper in a medical 
journal based on statistics and experiments that sounded scientifically sound 
to the layman that smoking was actually good for you, wouldn't it be the 
reponsibility of the trained scientists and physicians to speak up and 
demonstrate the basic errors that were made in the study (assuming of course 
that the study actually was flawed).  If someone knew that this was an error 
but he did not speak up, wouldn't he be at least in a moral ense partly 
responsible for the horrible consequences that can be suffered by those who 
follow the advice of the study?
In no less of a sense are those of us who are learned in the Torah, at least 
more than the general public, fully responsible to speak up when someone tries 
to use the Torah to be Mattir Issurim, especially issurim of the magnitude of 
mishkav zachar.
May the Ribbono Shel Olam forgive me for making this statement, but I believe 
that our Torah leaders reluctance to speak out regarding these types of 
subjects is - in a small way - partly responsible for the worlds' ignorance as 
to the severity of this issur.  Believe it or not, there are many people out 
there who completely misunderstand what we be believe, and are convinced by 
the popular PC propoganda that we are just backward "Homophobics".  I don't 
think that such an attitude serves our best interests in terms of Kiddush Shem 
Shamayim and the advacment of Yiras Shamayim in this world.
Shaul Weinreb

In Avodah 4#341, CMarkowitz wrote:
> In regards to smoking, there is another possible issur which
noone seems to have touched on-that is the issur of chovel es atzmo. ... It
should depend on what happens each time you smoke. It's possible that there
is tissue/lung  damage after each cigarette. <
Doesn't chavolo require the release of *blood* from the wound?  If so, I'm
told by my brother-in-law, a radiology resident, that smoking does not
cause such an effect.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 05:30:15 EST
> From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Smoking and Halocho

<<I'm wondering about the differentiation between smoking and other
scientific "facts". In an earlier gilgul we had a long discussion about
scientific "facts" from the time of the gemora or poskim that modern
science believes are no longer correct understandings.  There was a
sgnificant school of thought to discount these perceived changes for
halachik purposes. 

Do those who hold from this school believe smoking is a different case
and if so why? 
Is it a pragmatic issue or a non-symetric application(ie only "lchumrah")
or something else?>>

	I believe this is the crux of it.  We do not discount the seriousness of
medical conditions which the Gemara considers pikuach nefesh,  and we
would be mechallel Shabbos for them even in the absence of modern
scientific evidence that they are sakono.  IOW,  we are choshesh lekula
in Hilchos Shabbos/lechumra in Hilchos Pikuach Nefesh that these are in
fact sakono.

	However,  medical conditions whose danger has been discovered after the
Gemara   (an example escapes me at the moment)  would be treated the same
way.  We cannot discount the danger of particular "machalos" as sakono
because their origin as pikuach nefesh is post Talmudic or even "extra
Talmudic" in the sense of being rooted in science,  and we would be
mechallel Shabbos for such conditions also.

	It is hard to reason from pikuach nefesh d'Shabbos to pikuach nefesh of
smoking,  but it certainly seems reasonable to depend upon the medical
evidence,  mikal vachomer when no chilul Shabbos is involved.

As to your 

<<Subject: Re: 3 unrelated questions 
<< 1.Does anyone know of any written source for giving tzedaka during
chazarat hashatz?>>

	The traditional time is at vayevorech Dovid;  during chazaras hashatz is
probably osur.

<<2. Does anyone know of any written sources for the Shatz not saying
goal yisrael out loud before the amida?>>

	The written sources on this,  IIRC,  say that it is wrong.

<<3. Is there a halachik hakpada for davening with a minyan that is your
nusach versus a different nusach?(eg if there's a nusach sfard minyan at
a more convenient time or closer to my office how much, if at all, out of
the way do I need to go to attend a nusach ashkenaz minyan)>>

	Pass.

Gershon

> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:21:51 -0500 
> From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
> Subject: Smoking

<<Derech Agav-if one is over on hachovel es atzmo is he chayav malkos?>>

	Hmmmm.....   If he is over another lav sheyesh bo malkos,  and has
therefore brought chavolo upon himself (i.e., the malkos),  is he then
ALSO chayav because of choveil be'atzmo?

Gershon

> Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 11:17:25 -0500
> From: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>
> Subject: smoking

<< (When the burn center at NYsHospital saw an increased number of
serious burns in RW families related to yomtov and shabbat, they started
an educational campaign for fire safety targeting the Orthodox community.
 My recollection is that they realized that they first needed rabbinic
approval)>>

	My recollection is that they could not believe that such a family
oriented community as the Orthodox had such a high incidence of burns, 
which in their experience correlated to child abuse.  They therefore
sought guidance as to the reasons for such a high incidence,  not
rabbinic approval for educational efforts.  

	I highly doubt that anyone needs or needed haskamos for warning against
dangers.  The advertisements on some milk containers for child safety
such as bicycle helmets and the like have no haskomos;  are they ignored
because of that?

	BTW why do you say that NY Hospital noticed a high incidence of burns in
the RW community?  Was it limited to the RW?  The sources,  such as
Shabbos candles,  hot water urns,  Chanuka candles,  bedikas chometz, 
sereifas chometz,  etc,   have no political coloration.

Gershon

Found another list to discuss it.

From what I hear soc.culture.jewish or whatever it's called may be the
appropriate place.

Our list is not a catch all, as R' Mordechai noted earlier.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: sweinr1 <sweinr1@uic.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 11:48 AM
Subject: homosexuality and our list


> R YGB has raised objections to the recent posting which apparently was
trying
> to twist the Torah into somehow not really saying that same sex
relationships
> are a toevah.  While I understand the sentiments that prompted RYGB to
make
> this comment, I don't think that we should ban this topic for discussion
on
> our list. Unfortunatly, the why's and wherefore's of Orthodox Judaism's
stand
> on this subject are widely sought in todays culture, and widely
misunderstood.
>  To invoke the principle of "ein dorshin baarayos" is IMHO a big mistake.
WE
> cannot become defensive and hide away when soemone asks us regarding our
> stance on this issue.  In the "outside world" this is considered a
legitamate
> subject for public discussion, and shtika kehodaa if we don't express
> ourselves, it will be interpreted as if we have nothing to say Chas
Veshalom.
> Al Achas kamma vekamma when soemone tries to use the Torah itself in order
to
> justify their views, and they present a seemingly reasonable argument
which
> the untrained eye might actually become convinced that this is a
legitamate
> interpretation, how much more so are we mechuyavim to clearly,
confidently,
> and without anger and frustration - refute these claims.  Any scent of
> apolegetics, or defensiveness would be very detrimental to our cause and
if we
> withdraw into our cocoons and ay "ein dorshin" it would be interpreted by
the
> public as if we had nothing to say.
> Let me bring you an example.  If someone published a paper in a medical
> journal based on statistics and experiments that sounded scientifically
sound
> to the layman that smoking was actually good for you, wouldn't it be the
> reponsibility of the trained scientists and physicians to speak up and
> demonstrate the basic errors that were made in the study (assuming of
course
> that the study actually was flawed).  If someone knew that this was an
error
> but he did not speak up, wouldn't he be at least in a moral ense partly
> responsible for the horrible consequences that can be suffered by those
who
> follow the advice of the study?
> In no less of a sense are those of us who are learned in the Torah, at
least
> more than the general public, fully responsible to speak up when someone
tries
> to use the Torah to be Mattir Issurim, especially issurim of the magnitude
of
> mishkav zachar.
> May the Ribbono Shel Olam forgive me for making this statement, but I
believe
> that our Torah leaders reluctance to speak out regarding these types of
> subjects is - in a small way - partly responsible for the worlds'
ignorance as
> to the severity of this issur.  Believe it or not, there are many people
out
> there who completely misunderstand what we be believe, and are convinced
by
> the popular PC propoganda that we are just backward "Homophobics".  I
don't
> think that such an attitude serves our best interests in terms of Kiddush
Shem
> Shamayim and the advacment of Yiras Shamayim in this world.
> Shaul Weinreb
>
>

Those takkanos are generally effective in limited Chassidic groups that
adhere to their Rebbes' fiats. I cannot imagine that the recently discussed
"Litvishe" takkana will hold. At best, it will serve as a cover for those
wishing to make smaller, more sensible weddings.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 11:01 AM
Subject: Smoking and Halocho


> Could one make a similar argument regarding the amount of money spent on a
> wedding?  Why the takkanah there, and not here, based on your logic?

The JP's use of the term "rulin" here is, of course, simplistic and
inaccurate. This is precisely, however Da'as Torah in its finest meaning,
the Torah's perspective, beyond normative Halacha, as I have previously
maintained here.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Ari Z. Zivotofsky <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
To: Avodah List <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 10:33 AM
Subject: smoking


>
> This is from the January 25 Jerusalem Post.
>
>
>
> Rabbi issues halachic anti-smoking ruling
>
>             A prominent Bnei Brak rabbi, Shmuel Halevi
>             Wosner, has issued a strong halachic ruling
>             condemning smoking.
>
>             Wosner sent the ruling to Amos Hausner, the
>             legal adviser of the Israel Society for the
>             Prevention of Smoking, who presented him with
>             data on the immense health damage that
>             smoking causes and asked for a statement.
>
>             Wosner wrote that it was clear no young
>             person should start to smoke, and that parents
>             and educators "are bound to prevent them from
>             doing so." He added that whoever has already
>             taken on "this bad habit must try, for his own
>             future, to abandon it gradually." Smokers
>             "shouldn't dare smoke in public places," he
>             continued, because the smoke is very
>             dangerous to others as well.
>
>             He also charged tobacco advertisers in the
>             newspapers and other media and those who
>             assist them with "great responsibility" for harm
>             to the public. The Bnei Brak sage also urged
>             people not to help smokers "as one is bound
>             according to the Torah."
>
>             Smoking has been proven to be a "great
>             danger... and shown beyond a doubt to cause
>             serious illness to the lungs and the heart as
>             reported by doctors in all the countries of the
>             world."
>
>
>

On 7 Feb 00, at 12:53, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:

 I cannot imagine that the recently discussed
> "Litvishe" takkana will hold. At best, it will serve as a cover for those
> wishing to make smaller, more sensible weddings.

I'm not sure about this. 

First of all, the real cost in Israel is not the wedding itself. More and 
more weddings in Israel, especially in Yerushalayim and Bnei 
Brak, are structured such that all but close family are invited to the 
Chupa early, to a "Simchas Chosson v'Kalla" late, and NOT to the 
meal in between. At the Simchas Chosson v'Kalla all that is served 
is Yerushalmi Kugel, borekas, some kind of cake and soft drinks. 
Some of the less minimalist ones might include fruit or some other 
hot dish. If you're not close family you generally go to the Chupa or 
to the Simchas Chosson v'Kalla. As a working stiff, I generally go 
to the latter.

The real cost in Israel is the apartment (and to a lesser extent the 
appliances). Forcing the parents to wait five years to buy the 
apartment (the form of the takana that RJB heard) separates the 
wedding from the apartment purchase. It makes the apartment less 
of a matter to be fought over by the machatonim, it gives each side 
a chance to recover from the wedding expenses, and (hopefully) it 
gives the Charedi community an incentive to build some rental 
housing - which is virtually non-existent here (outside of Har Nof :-).

The form of the takana that I heard - limiting borrowing - if really 
enforced by the Gemachs (who are much more likely than the 
community in general to stick to such limits) would likely be more 
effective. Contrary to what many of you in the States think, most of 
the Charedi community here is not willing to take the risk of buying 
a plane ticket to the States to go schnorr money for their kids' 
weddings. It's much safer to try to schnorr the money here....

I should add that most Gemachs do not make large loans. My own 
neighborhood started a Gemach for making large loans for affairs. 
People were asked to pay a large sum (one time) in monthly 
payments (several hundred dollars - I forget if it was $500 or 
$1000). The Gemach has been handing out $5000 interest free 
loans for baalei simcha. To put this in perspective, $5000 is 
(substantially) more than the cost of my older son's Bar Mitzva a 
year and a half ago, with all things included (hall, caterer and an 
organist).

In sum, the wedding is not what this takana is getting at, and I 
think it has more of a chance of success than you give it if the 
Gemachs can be used to enforce it.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

I just got back from our hospital library and the first post I read
was that from R. Chaim Brown that the danger from smoking isn't
immediate. Less than 2 hours ago I finished reading a paper (British
Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2000;107:55-61) that mentioned the
evidence demonstrating the detrimental effect of cigarette smoke on
male fertility. I then remember that there has been extensive work
on the almost immediate (i.e. within 5-10 minutes) effect of nicotine
or cotinine lowering sperm motility, morphology, viability and count
(Fertility & Sterility 1993;59:645; J Asstd Repr Genetics 1995;12:217;
Fertility & Sterility 1996;65:835-42).

I then checked in Shulchan Aruch EVEN HA'EZER 5:12 and saw what the Beit
Shmuel wrote about Kos shel Ikkarin (even for a refuah it's assur). See
also the Aruch Hashulchan EH 5 #23 who calls it a psik reisha (and thus
assur).

I will also email this post to Rav Dr. Avraham Sofer Avraham, the Nishmat
Avraham, for his psak on this.

The good news ? There's a very simple way to stop smoking (our cardiology
group developed) and since we have a chiyuv *ushmartem me'od l'nafshoteychem"
I'll briefly list it:

WHAT TO DO                               WHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. stop for at least 24 hours           >noradrenergic overactivity
2. after 24 hours, suck on a ginger
   candy                                thromboxane synthetase inhibitor
                                        and prostacyclin agonist (and
                                        endorphinergic agonist)
3. hot Jacuzzi or mikva up to the
   neck for at least 15 minutes         vasopressin inhibition (prevents
                                        brain edema)

4. at night (as per Rambam Hilchot
Deot 4:5) sleep on your RIGHT side      skin pressure-vegetative reflex
                                        inducing vagal tone

Josh

----- Original Message -----
From: Rabbi Josef Blau <yoblau@ymail.yu.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 9:59 AM
Subject: Perspective on smoking and halacha


> Underlying the discussion about a possible rabbinic prohibition of smoking
> is a broader question.  Modern medicine's conclusions about what is
> dangerous (sakana) differ from those mentioned by chazal.  Eating meat
> together with fish is not seen as hazardous while smoking is. The nature
of
> modern medicine is to constantly reexamine and to modify earlier views
> while our halachic behavior remains static.
>  This touches on the deeper question of how and when to integrate current
> scientific knowledge into halacha.  Should DNA evidence be accepted in a
> Rabbinical court?

    Why not?

  What if it contradicts eyewitness testimony from two
> witnesses?

    why is this a problem?  Already Chazal understood that eyewitness
testimony is not 100% reliable and requires drisha and chakira.  The
presence of contradictory DNA evidence could be made oart of that process.
Additionally, the mere presence of eyewitnes testimony is not sufficient.
the witnesses must be credible as well.  DNA evidence would be a very good
test of witness credibility, where applicable.  Of greater interest to me is
the issue of the presence of DNA evidence and the absence of any testimony.
How would Beth Din treat that?
\>

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


[ 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/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]