Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 036

Friday, October 31 2003

• Re: Incorrect Hebrew in the Payet
• Re: leaf falling
• Re: leaf falling
• Re: Heter Meah rabbonim
• RE: DT
• Re: Morid hatal
• Re:Morid hatal
• Re:Morid hatal
• Re: Morid hatal
• Re: Naked and Cunning
• Zaknus and Illness
• Re: RYBS and Heter Meah Rabbanim
• Sandak question
• speaking while putting on tfillin
• Mabul as historical event.

I received several questions and notes regarding my post on this topic
in Avodah V12 #34. Since many of them were fairly technical, I posted a
response to all on Mesorah. Anyone who is interested and is not on the
Mesorah mailing list may contact me for a copy.

Seth Mandel

RAMiller:
> To me, this sounds like arguing whether *I* put the food in my
> mouth, or whether my *fork* put the food in my mouth. Is this
> what the discussion is about, or am I missing something?

The rishonim who posit an HP vs tava-and-mazal balance do so by
viewing teva more like a watch then a fork. After all, deism is about
a watchmaker's universe, no? Wind it up, and let it run. The running on
its own, that's teva.

HP would be like pulling out the pin to advance the date when it flips to
"31" at the end of October. Something one needs to do rarely, and when
done it's being the scenes in a way that the actual motion on the face
is caused by the gears.

IOW, neis nigleh is parallel to eating with your hands, neis nistar is
parallel to eating with your hands while holding a fork to fool the eye,
HP is like eating with a fork, and teva is having an automatic feeding
machine.

What makes teva a non-bechirah *servant* is that it causes multiple
effects without intervention.

It's hard to understand what the Kuzari 3:20 means when he calls miqreh
an indirect consequence. Does he actually reduce the consequences of
nature to "eating with a fork", and that every causal chain starts with
a specific decision of HQBH? Or is he talking about the one time beri'ah
of nature being the act at the begining of the chain?

Is there a real difference? Given that Hashem, who is lema'alah min
hazeman, has no "later". So, if the Rihal was speaking of Hashem
intervening by starting each causal chain, the separation between
these interventions is only from our perspective. For that matter, the
separation between that and His setting up the initial conditions when He
set teva in motion is also only from the perspective of those within teva.

IOW, we can only divide Hashem's actions into multiple actions when
speaking of when their effects emerge into time. But my two tzedadim is
asking about the start of the causal chain, not the effect.

I took the Ramban to mean this when he speaks of nissim being written in
at the time of creation. They weren't a later decision reflecting a flaw
in Hashem's initial design because "*later* decision" is meaningless. It's
all one decision, from bereishis bara on.

Later, from RSSimon:
> WADR, I don't follow that line of reasoning. Or perhaps I don't
> understand what you mean by "Teva" (I took it to mean: general
> nature/laws of physics/etc.).

Which means that they exist because HQBH wanted rules that apply
in predictable ways. This could mean that while the majority of the
consequences of those rules are to His specific design for that situation,
some are simply there because otherwise they wouldn't be rules.

This position (which isn't what I personally believe) requires asserting
that in all possible universes, HQBH couldn't design a set of rules
that always happen to also fit his specific aims for those affects by
them. Perhaps not with rules that could be comprehended as such by people.

That reminds me of a comment I can't remember if I wrote on-list yet or
not: REED can't believe in only partial HP (in this sense of the word),
as he does not believe in the existance of any alternatives. He has no
teva, it's only an illusion to aid bechirah by hiding the HP from those
who choose not to believe.

Combining all the above meanderings, I'm left with the notion that the
Rihal /was/ suggesting universal providence. Nothing happens "merely"
because it was more valuable to His plan to have a predictable universe
than this specific outcome. Whether He tailors the outcome at the begining
or case-by-case, Hashem is at the start of even miqreh.

However, the Rihal's notion of an occurance being "E-lohis" is more
narrow than this definition of HP.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

RAMiller:
> To me, this sounds like arguing whether *I* put the food in my
> mouth, or whether my *fork* put the food in my mouth. Is this
> what the discussion is about, or am I missing something?

The rishonim who posit an HP vs tava-and-mazal balance do so by
viewing teva more like a watch then a fork. After all, deism is about
a watchmaker's universe, no? Wind it up, and let it run. The running on
its own, that's teva.

HP would be like pulling out the pin to advance the date when it flips to
"31" at the end of October. Something one needs to do rarely, and when
done it's being the scenes in a way that the actual motion on the face
is caused by the gears.

IOW, neis nigleh is parallel to eating with your hands, neis nistar is
parallel to eating with your hands while holding a fork to fool the eye,
HP is like eating with a fork, and teva is having an automatic feeding
machine.

What makes teva a non-bechirah *servant* is that it causes multiple
effects without intervention.

It's hard to understand what the Kuzari 3:20 means when he calls miqreh
an indirect consequence. Does he actually reduce the consequences of
nature to "eating with a fork", and that every causal chain starts with
a specific decision of HQBH? Or is he talking about the one time beri'ah
of nature being the act at the begining of the chain?

Is there a real difference? Given that Hashem, who is lema'alah min
hazeman, has no "later". So, if the Rihal was speaking of Hashem
intervening by starting each causal chain, the separation between
these interventions is only from our perspective. For that matter, the
separation between that and His setting up the initial conditions when He
set teva in motion is also only from the perspective of those within teva.

IOW, we can only divide Hashem's actions into multiple actions when
speaking of when their effects emerge into time. But my two tzedadim is
asking about the start of the causal chain, not the effect.

I took the Ramban to mean this when he speaks of nissim being written in
at the time of creation. They weren't a later decision reflecting a flaw
in Hashem's initial design because "*later* decision" is meaningless. It's
all one decision, from bereishis bara on.

Later, from RSSimon:
> WADR, I don't follow that line of reasoning. Or perhaps I don't
> understand what you mean by "Teva" (I took it to mean: general
> nature/laws of physics/etc.).

Which means that they exist because HQBH wanted rules that apply
in predictable ways. This could mean that while the majority of the
consequences of those rules are to His specific design for that situation,
some are simply there because otherwise they wouldn't be rules.

This position (which isn't what I personally believe) requires asserting
that in all possible universes, HQBH couldn't design a set of rules
that always happen to also fit his specific aims for those affects by
them. Perhaps not with rules that could be comprehended as such by people.

That reminds me of a comment I can't remember if I wrote on-list yet or
not: REED can't believe in only partial HP (in this sense of the word),
as he does not believe in the existance of any alternatives. He has no
teva, it's only an illusion to aid bechirah by hiding the HP from those
who choose not to believe.

Combining all the above meanderings, I'm left with the notion that the
Rihal /was/ suggesting universal providence. Nothing happens "merely"
because it was more valuable to His plan to have a predictable universe
than this specific outcome. Whether He tailors the outcome at the begining
or case-by-case, Hashem is at the start of even miqreh.

However, the Rihal's notion of an occurance being "E-lohis" is more
narrow than this definition of HP.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

In a message dated 10/30/2003 5:40:07 PM EST, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
> When I first saw this, I couldn't beleive that the same person I had known
> as my REbbi, had said such a thing. The power imbaance is not something
> new and it was present at the very inception of this takkana. Did the
> Rav argue with R. Gershom?! I think that this is a misquote somewhere
> along the line.

Sorry (see my earlier post on my leanings) but intellectual honesty
requires me to point you to "The Rav" vol2 p96 (translated from Yiddish
1955 lecture to RCA)

KT
Joel Rich

RMB
> Second, the question of a poseiq's authority most often revolves around
> deciding between shitos. In fact, if the halachah was discussed since
> the days of tana'im, and now some acharon wants to introduce a new pesaq
> based on a sevara that contradicts all of that history, no one would
> grant him the authority to do so. But that's the parallel to our case
> of taking a new direction in parshanus based on data other 
> than mesorah's.

Except for two things -
1) the mesora explicitly recognized that scientific issues do change -
and therefore accepting novel scientific ideas against simple pshat is
part of the mesora - that is part of the issue - the mesora recognizes
science as data...

2) Parshanut and hashkafa has a specific area of elu ve'elu and we don't
pasken - and we do accept novel ideas (to go back to an old thread -
the parshanut of the issur of astrology on the basis that it is false
was novel) The real issue is the attempt to put the parameters of psak
on hashkafa - and while this is a different issue than da'at torah,
it is related, with very similar fault lines.

> The Gra and RSRH both question the Rambam's approach in Hil Yesodei
> haTorah and MN. At some point one is no longer using modern thought to
> frame one's Torah but is instead fitting Torah non-Torah 
> assumptions and
> structure. Which is why many simply omit these from the curriculum.
> The Rambam obviously disagrees with these acharonim as to where the
> line is.

> But this puts the question of "who is authorized" in very lofty territory
> -- we're not 100% the Rambam was. I'm not going to talk about whether RAL
> presumed to make changes where inappropriate from a translation of a
> summary of his shiur.

No one is saying we are the rambam. However, the rambam is quite specific
that we are mekabbel haemet from anyone - including non torah sources -
and that anyone can use our reason. Remember the rambam on mattan torah -
that anochi velo hihye lecha mipi hagevura - that that means that they
reached it logically, and "vekol davar hanoda behochacha hare din hanavi
bo kedin kol mi sheyedao bli hevdel" - quite a radical position...(and
related to our discussion..)

> Does this mean the Rambam had no concept of such distinction between
> changes that are rewriting Torah and those that are recasting the old
> into new vessels? Or are we claiming that allegorizing the mabul is on
> the proper side of the Rambam's definition?

The rambam is quite explicit that the two guiding principles are 1) That
the torah should be consistent with reason 2) Miraculous explanations
are only permitted when the torah itself is explicit that everything
there is a miracle (see ma'amar techiyat hametim. So, given the fact
that the sequelae of the mabul are not thought to be explicitly a
miracle, yes, allegorizing (or reinterpreting as a localized or .. -
multiple possibilities which fundamentally change the simple pshat )
become on the proper side...

> The same exploring about where the line ought to go is the problem RHM
> is having in defining whether one is utilizing "legitimate alternate
> interpretations", looking at the same data through a different prism,
> or whether it's a change in the substance itself.

Today, our education (girsa dyankuta) is far more conservative
than the rambam - RYGB statement about how we lack authority is an
extreme statement of that position - so we are uncomfortable with it.
That reflects more on our education than the propriety of the position.

> We're debating the Rambam's defintion right now. I will comment on that
> after spending more time with the sources. But it still seems to me that
> the Rambam only considers the field of parshanut opten when it's untilled.
> Or, as in the case of ma'aseh bereishis, there's an eilu va'eilu from
> back in the days of the tana'im, opinions of Torah itself. If there is
> TSBP on the subject, how can someone declare it wrong? Unlike RGS's read,
> I don't think the MN2:16 is asserting that the darkhei bi'ur or sha'arei
> peirushim are always open. Not one pereq after he said that Aristo
> can be accomodated because, in part, the nevi'im and our chachamim
> do not dictate a contradictory position.

No, he never said that in 2:15 (a point we have made before) - he makes
the point that since Aristo is not proven, the nevi'im and our chachamim
now weigh in - quite a different issue (I don't know anyone who has
written on the rambam who understands him as you do). If Aristo was
proven, then we could reinterprete ma'ase breshit...

Remember that the rambam says three times in perush hamishnayot that
any issue where there is no practical consequence, we don't pasken.
These issues (which don't relate to the core issues of avodat hashem)
but are peripheral to the mesora are not viewed as central - unlike many
other rishonim and acharonim who do view issues of hashkafa as central.

For a simple counterexample where the rambam goes against TSBP - think
of the rambam's perush that the malachim's visit to avraham happened in
a dream - something that the ramban takes him to task - where do we have
anything in previous TSBP or simple pshat that would suggest that? Think
of all the midrashim you learned about the nature of the meal etc..

> In any case, those who do put the Moreh's approach outside of the pale
> lo kol shekein would find this allegorization to accomodate scientific
> theory outside as well.

Granted

> Ber 6:17 is pretty unequivical about the scope of the mabul. Beyond simply
> speaking of "ha'aretz" or "kol ha'aretz". "Leshacheis kol-basar asher-bo
> ru'ach chaim mitachas hashamayim." Would seem to /have/ to include all
> of the inhabited world, at least; more plausibly every part of the world
> that has any basar, not only humans. But even the smaller claim of the two
> is still too much to allow one to wiggle out of the 
> archeological issues.

> Can one call redefining this pasuq as the same Torah in a different
> light? How is being the first to say "to destroy all flesh under
> the heaven" doesn't mean the end of all human civilization *not* the
> declaration that parts of Torah can be shaved off to fit?

How is being the first to say that the earth revolves around the sun
*not* a declaration that parts of the torah shebealpe (and neviim -
shemesh begivon dom..)can be shaved off to fit?

How is this fundamentally different??

> Does this mean that RSRH or the Gra would not consider a need for
> a single truth that reflects both Torah and science? Of course not,
> particularly those two acharonim.

That need has consequences...However, I think that both RSRH and the gra
would have argued that the truth of the rambam's philosophical position
was questionable.

> I am not, as RYGB is, dismissing the strength of a scientific theory.
> However, like he, I'm unafraid of leaving my religion falsifiable. It's
> not being flippant (as RSG understood RYGB), it's having real emunah
> that science and Torah won't really conflict.

I also have emuna that the two don't conflict - but part of that emuna is
precisely that there exist mechanisms for resolving the two which is part
of torah. The belief is that science and tora won't conflict means that
there is no conflict that cannot be resolved either because the science
is questionable or because the torah provides a mechanism for resolution.
Some conflicts may be beyond resolution - and we believe those conflicts
won't occur, or that sometimes we may not know the resolution - but
we should be careful about where we are drawing the line - and what
we consider to be the core parts and the true meaning of the mesora.
The declaration that there is a conflict that we can't resolve (even
though we then come on the side of the mesora) fundamentally changes
the mesora.

> My own position is still closer to RSG's own. Emunah means that one
> accepts the conclusions derived from mesorah to be as sure as we are
> of that derivation. No less than science from its data. Both ought
> be inviolate. If one has that sort of confidence in both systems
> ignoring data points from either is the real intellectual dishonesty.
> The conflicts should be explored, struggled with, and perhaps shelved
> while we await more data. Not dismissed in some alchemical ignoring of
> data that doesn't fit the theory. Not if you really consider 
> both as data.

The mesora itself (as the rambam understands it) puts a different value
on data points from the mesora - recognizing that the mesora speaks in
riddles and meshalim even it seems to be pshat, and even if previously
the sources seem to take a pshat approach.

Meir Shinnar

From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
>...
> I made no comment when, a short time ago, someone wrote that "there is
> general agreement" that hatal is written with a kamatz under the tet.
...
> If there is no hefsek after hageshem, it follows that the hatal also
> should not have a pausal form and, therefore, should be with a patach.
...
> There have been attempts, on list, to justify the presence of a kamatz
> in tal by d'rash or mysticism that never convinced me. So, I don't like
> the siddurim with kil'ayim. Either both non-pausal or both pausal.

The Sefer Shaar Hakollel offers a halachic rationale for the pausal Hatal
and the non-pausal Hageshem, as it appears in the Baal Hatanya's siddur.

Morid Hatal is halachically optional, as stated in the gemara. As such,
the phrase stands apart from the nusach of the second brocho.

U'morid Hageshem, halachically required, becomes an unseparable part of
the brocho. Therefore, no hefsek.

Raffy

...
> If there is no hefsek after hageshem, it follows that the hatal also 
> should not have a pausal form and, therefore, should be with a 
> patach.

> There have been attempts, on list, to justify the presence of a kamatz 
> in tal by d'rash or mysticism that never convinced me. So, I don't like 
> the siddurim with kil'ayim. Either both non-pausal or both pausal.

The siddur Azor Eliyahu, which attempts to recreate the Gr"a's nusach
(and undoes many of Satanov's changes) has geshem and tal with a kamatz.
The footnote reads, "B'kanatz. Kein hu b'chol siddurei haS'faradim
v'haTeimanim, lamrot shegeshem m'nukad b'segol. V'gam bamikra matzinu tal
b'kamatz b'zakef katan, aval lo matzinu gashem b'kamatz b'zakef katan."

However, I believe that the second edition of the siddur changed hatal
to a patach.

EMT

On Friday 31 October 2003 00:26, Avodah wrote:
> R' Yitzhak Satanov
> decided it was followed by a hefsek. So he changed geshem in Ashkenaz
> siddurim to the pausal form gashem. Despite R' Moshe approving of
> gashem, of late it has been noticed that there should not really be a
> hefsek in this list of Hashem's activities. So many siddurim have
> changed back to geshem.  I am not talking of those many who retained
> the old forms and never accepted the kamatz.

If there wshould not be any hefseq, why *u*morid hageshem/gashem? There is
no vav in the list starting with mekhalkel 'hayim until umattir assurim,
umeqayem emunato liysheinei 'afar [hefseq].

[An erratum from another email. -mi]

Correction: I meant that there is no vav until verofe 'holim. My point
does not change, however. There is no going back and forth between with
vav- and without vav-prefix in that list, so mashiva harua'h *u*morid
hagashem should be the end of a prior paragraph.

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:00:52PM +0200, D & E-H Bannett wrote:
: The Gr"a  did not omit it and also did not say "morid hatal".  He said 
: "Mashiv haruach umorid hatal".
: 
: I admit that the Gr"a is not standard Ashkenaz but he's certainly 
: closer to it than to chasidut.

Actually, the Nusach in my collection closest to the Gra's (short of
almost-Gra attempts or derivatives) is haAri.

:-)BBii
-mi

R' Micha Berger attempted to give three examples of where the Chumash
puts homonyms in close proximity:

<<< At the end of the mabul (Ber 8:4), HQBH writes "vatanach hateivah"
... His yonah "lo matz'ah mano'ach lekhaf raglahh" (v 9). >>>

Rested, had a place to rest. Different forms of the same word, not
homonyms.

<<< The water recedes "halokh vashov" (v 3), not only "vayashovu". But
then, the oreiv too is "halokh vashov" (v 8). >>>

Back and forth, in both places. What am I missing?

<<< We also have Sarah say "tzechoq asah li E-lokim" upon Yitzchaq's
birth (Ber 21:6) and 2 pesuqim later she sees Yichma'el is "metzacheiq"
(v 8). Yitzchaq is "metzacheiq es Rivqa" >>>

A joke, laughing, playing. All very related.

<<< Eliezer's finding Rivqa involves a paragraph of gamal (camal) and
gamal (as a verb, gemillas chessed). >>>

Now, THIS is an example of what I meant. Two words which seem to have
totally different meanings, the way "arum" was both naked and cunning. I
have two totally different responses:

(a) I tried to look at these psukim directly. Didn't bother looking
in the Chumash, since the three versions of ther story make up such
a lengthy piece that I could easily miss them and not realize it. So
I tried Mandelkern, and he does not have the verb anywhere near those
stories. Plenty of camels, though. Could you please take another look
and verify where the verb "gamal" appears in that story?

(b - this one is a lot longer!)

I could answer that they are different forms (noun and verb), so there
might really be no difference at all, if it turns out that camels are
noted for their retribution. I looked to verify this thought, and my
very first reference in such cases is the "Etymological Dictionary of
Biblical Hebrew, based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch"
by Matityahu Clark (father of past listmember R' Eli Clark).

As I figured, he gives 5 meanings for this shoresh, and explains them
in such a way that I can see how "camel" is similar to "repay" (not to
mention "wean" and two others). This got me to think: Why didn't I look
in this sefer to see what "arum" means, and how "naked" is similar to
"cunning"?

So I looked up the ayin-resh-mem root. Sure enough, "cunning" is there
along with three other meanings -- NONE of which is "naked".

Huh? "Arum" *doesn't* mean naked? So I went to the source, RSR Hirsch
on Bereshis 2:25. Turns out that he had a lot of trouble figuring the
connection between "naked" and "ayin-resh-mem", and conjectures that
the true root of "arum" in this pasuk might really be ayin-vav-resh!

It seems that my use of the word "homonym" is even sharper than I
thought. This case of "arumim/arum" is not merely a single shoresh
with vastly different meanings, but (possibly) two entirely different
shorashim which end up getting vowelled and pronounced the same way.
Which makes my question even stronger: If the root of "arumim" is
"ayin-vav-resh" then why did HaShem choose to vowel it in such a manner,
if not for rhetorical purposes? What was the point He was trying to make,
when He chose to use virtually identical-sounding words for both "naked"
and "cunning"?

Unfortunately for me, that question does not seem to have bothered R'
Hirsch.

Akiva Miller

 From Areivim:
Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Yesterday, I spoke at the funeral of one of our members, a 95 year old
> lady who was very vivacious, witty and pleasant. She was so independent,
> that she still did her own taxes this year, last year she still baked
> cakes for yom tov which she shipped to her progeny. May we all be that
> witty and happy at that age and beyond.

Al Tashlichenu L'Eis Ziknah, Kichlos Kochenu... Al Tazveinu.

This statement taken from the Shma Kolenu we say on Yom Kippur and
during Selichos has much wisdom to it yet seems to contradict the above
story. But it really doesn't. The description above is something we all
strive for... a long, healthy and active life. Who among us wouldn't
want this Bracha? Why... Al Tashlichenu L'Eis Ziknah...?

Unfortunately, the answer is all too obvious to me. The key phrase is
"Kichlos Kochenu". But... you may ask, isn't it just the natural process
to weaken when we get older? It is to be expected. Of course we are weaker
but we can be a little less strong and still enjoy our golden years. Why
"Al Tashlichenu"?

I believe the answer lies in how we interpret "Kichlos Kochenu". "Kichlos
Kochenu" doesn't simply mean tolerable weakening of strength. "Kichlos
Kochenu" means the all too often terrible afflictions that accompany
old age, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, paralyzing stroke, macular
degeneration (a form of near blindness) or many other crippling diseases
associated with old age.

Let me just take one of the above examples, Alzheimer's Disease. The
debiltating feature most assocaited with this disease is dementia.
this defining feature of the Altzheimer's is characterized by a steady
deterioration of the mind caused by rapid dying of brain cells. At first
one is just forgetful about immediate past occurances. This is usually
attributed to normal forgetfullness. But after awhile it gets steadily
worse to the point where one doesn't recognize people that have been
near and dear to them most of their adult lives. Their grandchildren
become strangers. They do not remember what happens to them a moment
ago... will often repeat the same question over and over even though
they have been answered each time it was asked.

Eventually the brain deteriorates to the point where not only thinking
is affected but even motor skills are. Bodily functions once under their
control now become completely involuntary. And being able to walk or
feed oneself becomes impossible. Ultimately they become near comotose and
eventually die. But the proccess of death can take years and each stage
can last years by itself. Some people have the disease only for the last
5 years of life, while others may have it for as many as 20 years.

I believe that this is what the Pasuk: "Al Tashlichenu L'Eis Ziknah,
Kichlos Kochenu, Al Tazveinu" reffers to. I do not know what the
percetnages of elderly make it to old age what ever that might be
(...80 plus?) and what percentage of those who make it do not get any
of the maladies that often befall this age group. But I suspect that
the percenatges are succumb to serious problems are quite high.

This phenomenon swerves into another thread on Areivim dealing with
a comotose patient in Florida, Terri Schiavo. Briefly there is some
contorversy about it, but assuming for a moment that she is brain
dead (...flat EEG) the question arises about quality of life and the
tortuous feelings of the loved ones. In both the case of the advanced
Alzheimer's patient and Terri Schiavo, there is virtually no quality of
life what-so-ever.

Yet close family members are forbidden by Halacha to relieve the
suuffering of their loved ones (whose mother, father; aunt, uncle;
brother sister; mother and father...suffers from this malady) and who
live on a daily basis watching their loved one in this debilitated
non-functioning state.

So when I hear all the outrage about "murder" WRT such a patient and the
disdain for the loved ones who advocate "pulling the plug" it upsets me,
as they are the ones REALLY in the greatest emotional pain. I am upset
that anyone feels the moral indignation to preach Halacha to these people
instead of compassion. I am most certainly not advocating euthanasia. But
I at the same time I can certainly understand such thoughts by people
going through it and they are NOT to be condemned for it.

It is easy for a dispassionate observor to advocate the continuance of
having a feeding tube inserted in a comotose patient with a flat EEG
(if that is indeed the case) for 10 years. But to the parents or children
of such an individual, it is pure torture.

HM

> Just spoke with Rav Shurkin. He said he knew of a case where the wife 

The extreme circumstance or shaas hadchak of mental illness does not
prove that RYBS thought that the heter should be used irresponsibly or
in a willy nilly manner by collecting signatures of bachurim in every
beis medrash who are not baki bgittin ukiddushin in every case .

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

Recently I've seen a new custom. I do not know of it's origin or the
reason behind it.

Can someone please explain this:
After the berit milah, the attendees crowd around the sandak who is
still sitting in his chair and ask him for a beracha.

Have you noticed the same?

I've not seen it in any sefer.

Please help,
Joseph Mosseri

A while back we discussed whether apeaking between putting on tfillin was
a problem if you weren't saying a bracha(eg certain people on chol hamoed)

In R' Schachter's recently printed notes on R'YBS's shiurim on various
topics including tfillin he notes 3 reasons given for the issur:
1.Rashi-since he didn't "chozer uberach" and it's assur to be mkayem a
mitzvah without a bracha
2.Tos-because you caused a bracha sheano tzricha
3.Razah-there's a specific kiyum in doing the mitzvah(2 tfillin) byachad

It would seem that the 1st 2 wouldn't necessarily apply if no bracha
anyway but the 3rd would.

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

I saw this review in today; Jerusalem Post on-line.
M. Levin

Advertisement   
HISTORY
Before the Flood: Dramatic New Evidence that the Biblical Flood was a
Real Event by Ian Wilson. St. Martin's Press. 352 pp. $26.95

The biblical Flood of Noah was a real event, contends Ian Wilson, based on
the recent discovery by marine archeologist Richard Balard (famous for his
Titanic explorations) of man-made houses on a coastline deep underwater
near Turkey. Wilson supports the 1995 claim by biologists William Ryan
and Walter Pitman that the Black Sea, originally a freshwater lake,
rose around 5600 BCE, drowning the land mass that had separated it from
the Mediterranean. With scholarly proofs presented in a friendly tone,
the author of The Shroud of Turin and The Blood and the Shroud offers
a compelling thesis about an event that changed world history.

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


[ 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         ]