Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 039

Tuesday, November 4 2003

• Zaknus and Illness
• Re: Zaknus and Illness
• Rav Aharon Feldman shlit"a letters - critique and comments
• Solar cooking
• Re: Solar cooking
• Re: Oldest trees
• Re: IE and Qadmus
• Stops
• Re:New Manuscripts and Chazon Ish
• Re: goyim buying kosher food
• RE: DT
• Re: DT
• Re: Hashgocha protis and suicide
• RE: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• Re: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• Book Search.... Ssedah LaDarekh

> 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"?

R. Chaim Boruch Faskowitz Z'L explained this as the fact that when the
elderly go down, they detriorate very rapidly. It is common that an
independant, healthy elderly person fals and breaks a hip and within
a month is incapacitated, ill, unalbe to live alone and begins to
lose mental capacity. That's "al tashlikheinu" - a rapid process of
detrioration.

M. Levin

RHM wrote:
> 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.

The doctors on the list should tell you. There has never been a patient
who stayed 10 years on life support despite having been brain dead. There
has never been a case of a brain dead patient where halakhah mandated
to keep the body on life support for 10 years. I am being told that in
the most extreme cases, there can be up to two weeks (14 days) when the
heart can be kept beating while the brain stem is dead and the rest of
the brain not yet. As soon as the brain stem dies, the rest starts dying,
too, and soon the body becomes incapable of maintaining vital functions
even with heart lung machines. Reb Josh will happily send you a text
file that explains exactly how the process develops.

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.

From: "Sholom Simon" <sholom@aishdas.org>
> ... The correct way, imho, to respond to Jewish homosexuals,
> is with the commpassion demonstrated in the "Letter to
> a Homosexual Baal Teshuva", by Rabbi Aharon Feldman. See
> <http://www.jerusalemletter.co.il/archives/March24,1998/homow.htm>

From: "Sholom Simon" <sholom@aishdas.org>

To be frank -- I'm not sure I understand your objection.

Nevertheless, to those who did object to his original letter, he wrote a
follow up which appears at
<http://www.jerusalemletter.co.il/archives/Jun22,2000/friends.htm>

Perhaps that articles answers your concerns?

>> The correct way, imho, to respond to Jewish homosexuals, is with the
> commpassion demonstrated in the "Letter to a Homosexual Baal Teshuva",
> by Rabbi Aharon Feldman. See
> <http://www.jerusalemletter.co.il/archives/March24,1998/homow.htm> <
> That letter certainly represents one way of responding, but to call it
> "the correct way"?

What I meant "correct" was not necessarily that all his answers and/or
conclusions were correct -- but that it was "correct" to respond with
compassion.  The letter is full of compassion and sympathy, and completely
devoid of things like "yuck" that we have seen on our list.

I hope that clarifies what I mean.

 - Sholom

[The next two posts are from an scjm dialogue. It's bounced here at
RJBackon's request, with RZSero's agreement. -mi]

>"Eliyahu Rooff" <lrooff@shotmail.com> wrote in message >
>>> I see you conveniently deleted the sources I brought which CATEGORICALLY
>>> prohibit using a solar oven on shabbat based on Rashi d"h "d'shari" in the
>>> gemara in Shabbat. Bishul b'chama is only permitted "d'ein derech bishulo
>>> b'kach". However, poskim have ruled that when "she'b'makom she'derech
>>> l'vashel b'chama" (a place where people DO cook in the sun) it may even
>>> be an Issur D'Oraita !  I suggest you read in detail Iggrot Moshe Orach
>>  Chayim
>>> I 52 on microwave ovens on shabbat.

>>> Perhaps there might be a difference in a do-it-yourself solar oven vs.
>>> one that is purchased ready made. But certainly in one that is purchased
>>> since it is USED for cooking, it no longer comes under the category of
>>> "bishul b'chama".

>>> Or using another analogy: perhaps 50 years ago, when no one used a solar
>>> oven to cook in, it may have been permitted. But once the solar oven
>>  becomes
>>> associated with cooking and thousands of people buy one, it looses its
>>> permitted status of bishul b'chama.

>> I'm afraid I'm not following here. Why should the popularity of something
>> affect its status AFA being permitted or prohibited? If non-Jews suddenly
>> each decided to buy a blech for the stove, would it no longer be permitted
>> to Jews?

>> Eliyahu

>I concur in the question. Dr. Backon, could we have the
>development/basis of the rule you stated that Bishul b'chama is only
>permitted "d'ein derech bishulo
>b'kach".

See Rashi d"h "d'shari" [Shabbat 39a] ("d'ein derech bishulo b'kach ...].
See also Minchat Chinuch 7 #5 quoting the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot
Zahav s"k 6 on Orach Chayim 318 that bishul b'chama in reality *is*
like cooking with fire. And Iggrot Moshe OC I 52 (re: prohibition of
cooking in a microwave oven on shabbat). See also the reasoning of the
Piskei haRID "lo chashiv bishul mi'shum she'ein chama m'vashelet heiteiv
k'mo bishul ba'eish"[ergo, if there would be a solar oven, it would be
fire and thus forbidden]. The Eglei Tal (M'lechet ha'Ofeh 19 s"k 44)
also discusses "shelo k'darka" on shabbat as assur m'drabban [but only
because the result of the cooking is different. However, a solar oven
would engender the same results as a regular oven and thus would be
forbidden d'oraita even though it's "chama"].

Josh

[Bounced from scjm, by agreement of the authors. -mi]

backon@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> I see you conveniently deleted the sources I brought which CATEGORICALLY
> prohibit using a solar oven on shabbat based on Rashi d"h "d'shari" in the
> gemara in Shabbat.

You did not give any such sources.  What I deleted was where you very
generously allowed as how:
>>> On a theoretical basis only (we don't follow these opinions): the
>>> Yerushalmi (Perek ha'Kira halacha 5) and in its commentaries Korbn
>>> ha'Eda and Pnei Moshe; and in the Chiddushei haRamban on Avoda Zara
>>> (very end) indicate that the prohibition may only be rabbinical.

Since you were going on earlier about *toldot* chamah, which is indeed
a rabbinic prohibition, as I had said from the beginning, (and yes, we
do follow these opinions, that toldot chama is a rbbinic prohibition,
not a torah one), it had no relevance to our case, which is cooking in
the direct sun.  Then you threw in, giving no sources at all:
>>> From a Rashi in the Bavli there
>>> it would seem that if people did cook routinely using the sun's heat,
>>> it would be forbidden Toraitically.

This is not something you quoted from sources, you gave it as your
own speculation, and accordingly I saw no need to quote it.

> Bishul b'chama is only permitted "d'ein derech bishulo b'kach".

Says you.  Will you also say that squeezing oranges is nowadays a
Torah prohibition?  Perhaps theoretically it should be, but it would
take broad shoulders indeed to maintain that it is.

> However, poskim have ruled that when "she'b'makom she'derech
> l'vashel b'chama" (a place where people DO cook in the sun)

And where might that be?  These ovens are hardly in common use.

> it may even be an Issur D'Oraita !  I suggest you read in detail
 > Iggrot Moshe Orach Chayim I 52 on microwave ovens on shabbat.

Thank you, I will.

> Perhaps there might be a difference in a do-it-yourself solar oven vs.
> one that is purchased ready made. But certainly in one that is purchased
> since it is USED for cooking, it no longer comes under the category of
> "bishul b'chama".

Once again, says you.  Even if your reasoning from the Rashi is valid,
which I highly doubt, the fact that a strange oven can be purchased in
a camping store hardly makes it a `derech'.

> Or using another analogy: perhaps 50 years ago, when no one used a solar
> oven to cook in, it may have been permitted. But once the solar oven becomes
> associated with cooking and thousands of people buy one, it looses its
> permitted status of bishul b'chama.

Given modern populations, can a few thousand people make a `derech'?
And I bet even those people don't cook like this at home.  In any case,
I deny your whole approach, that you can change laws of shabbat, and
overturn explicit rulings in the shulchan aruch, because of social
trends that you have noticed.

--
Zev Sero                    Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
zsero@free-market.net       They go well together, but are completely
                             different concepts.		- James Lileks

The oldest trees using tree ring dating are dated as being close to
5,000 years. <http://www.wcsscience.com/oldest/thing.html>
and Creation Magazine. 
The Oldest Tree in the World
Creation Magazine 17(3):26, 27 Author: Carl Kerby

On a wild Tasmanian mountain there is a magnificent, recently discovered
stand of Huon pine trees that has been called the world's 'oldest known
living organism'. Newspaper reports have claimed that what looks like
hundreds of trees densely covering one hectare (2.5 acres), is all part of
the one tree, since all these 'trees' appear to have identical DNA. Over
the years, it is believed, 'snow has forced its branches to the ground,
where they have taken root'. (The Sydney Morning Herald, January 28,
1995, page 1.)

It is hard to see how a tree could be older than the time since the
biblical Flood, so if its published age of ,more than 10,500 years old'
were correct, then this would present a serious challenge to Old Testament
chronology. In fact, some media reports claim the tree 'could be 30,000
or 40,000 years old'. So have these dates been obtained from drill-core
sampling of the growth rings in the main trunk? Not surprisingly, the
answer is 'no'. The source of the reported 'age' may be a 'guesstimate'
based on core sampling a lake below the mountain which contains Huon pine
pollen. This is clearly based on far more assumptions and uncertainties
than tree-ring dating. Even the apparent absence of DNA differences is
not 100 per cent certain, it seems, though probable. It appears that
traditional tree-ring dating on any timber found growing at the site
so far gives an age of no more than 4,000 years. This is well within
the ages of the oldest living bristlecone pines, which have around 4,600
tree-rings and are still the world's oldest living organisms. (Bristlecone
pines are native to the Rocky Mountains of the United States.)

One of the scientists working on the project has issued a statement on
electronic mail saying that they had only said it was plausible that
these trees might turn out to be part of a much older tree that was now
underground, but that this was definitely not a foregone conclusion. He
said the media 'decided to run with the story that scientists working in
Tasmania have definitely found the oldest living organism in the world. We
have made no such claim'. If there was a global Flood around 5,000
years ago, no living thing should be older than that. There are still
some uncertainties with tree-ring dating, which is by no means absolute
(for example, trees can form more than one ring per year). Nevertheless,
it is worth noting that the maximum tree ring ages for living trees
fall just within this range. Apart from the biblical Flood, there seems
no reason why, if certain trees are capable of living for 4,000 years,
some should not have lasted much longer.

We can add the Chovos HaLevavos who lists belief in creation ex nihilo
as an obligation in his introduction (p. 3 in the Feldheim/Qafih edition).

Gil Student

Posted by: dbnet@zahav.net.il

Re: R' Akiva Miller's posting on not ending an aliya on a sad note:

I call your attention to a short discussion in the introduction to Koren
one-volume TNach where it is suggested that the purpose of many Petuchas
and Setumos is for this same reason. It would make this custom presumably
Mosaic in origin.

M. Levin

Anyone interested in understanding the view of Chazon Ish and other
Gedolim on new manuscripts should read the article in Tradition Magazine
1993 by Rabbi Moshe Bleich.

Moshe Schor

In Avodah V12 #37 dated 11/3/03  kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> On Areivim, R"n toby Katz wrote: <<< Some of the Noahides that Michael
> used to teach took it upon themselves to buy only kosher meat, because
> treif slaughtering methods leave a doubt of whether the animal is
> halachically dead before they start cutting it up, resulting in a safek
> of eiver min hachai. >>>

> 1) Why would it matter if it is halachically dead when they start cutting
> it up? For Eiver Min HaChai, all that counts it that it is dead when
> they eat it, no? 

No. My husband did a lot of research on Noahide halacha when he was
teaching Noahide classes in Tennessee in the '80's and found out a lot
of fascinating things.

If a limb or an organ or whatever was removed from an animal while it
was alive, that eiver acquired the status of eiver min hachai and is
forever forbidden, even after the animal dies. Even if the animal was
already a goses when the limb was removed, and died a minute later.

Other interesting things he found out had to do with marriage and divorce.
Bnal Noach are not allowed to commit adultery, but what determines
whether a woman is married? Goyim don't have chupa vekiddushin, after all.
And they don't have gitten, so how can they get divorced--or can they?

Gets complex and very interesting.

Oh if I've aroused your curiosity, there are different opinions about
everything, natch. Mainstream opinions seem to be: Re marriage, if they
live together and say they're married, they are. If they separate and
say they're divorced, they are. But there is an opinion like the Catholic
Church, that goyim can NOT get divorced.

Anyway, as I said, it's very complicated, there is plenty to study there.

 -Toby Katz

WRT to the debate about the flood, RMB keeps insisting that the
rambam accepts that the neviim override things we learn from Aristo.
Furhtermore, he (and RDE cites two "talmide chachamim" who state it even
stronger and argue even epikorsut) argue that allegory is permitted only
when there is a tradition.

BMKVT, I don't think that there is a single serious talmid of the rambam
who would agree with that position (please bring proof to the contrary),
and this position (WADR) raises serious issues of ziyuf hatora.

First, WRT to the second point, the issue has been made that ma'ase
breshit as allegory is different, because there is already a tradition
that ma'ase breshit is not pshat. This ignores that the rambam allegorizes
many other places, for which there is no such tradition. Eg, the rambam
holds that any mention of an angel automatically means that this is a
prophetic vision occuring in a dream (or similar state), rather than
actual reality. This is applied, among other issues, to the angels
appearing to avraham (with the entire meal episode), Yaakov's fight
with the angel, aton bal'am, etc. Please find a single source prior to
the rambam (and preferably in hazal) that suggests that the meal served
by avraham was not a real meal (note that the ramban on vayera raises
serious issue with the rambam on precisely this issue)

Second, the rambam himself is explicit that his allegories are not based
on tradition - as previously cited from ma'amar techiyat hametim
>know that these prophecies and similar matters that we say that they
>are allegorical - our word in them is not a decree, that we did not
>receive a prophecy from hashem that will tell us that it is an allegory,
>nor did we have a tradition for one of the sages from the prophets who
>will explain that these details are allegorical.

If you will look in the introduction to the more nevuchim (p 6 in kafih
edition)
vechalal ma'amar ze inyan acher, vehu beur inyan meshalim stumim meod
shene'emru besifre haneviim velo nitparesh bahem mashal, ela yera'e
lasachal velapeti shehem kipshatam

Part of the whole purpose of the more nevuchim is to explain those
meshalim which are not explicit - and the rambam is talking to someone who
is aware of the mesora - and these meshalim are not explicitly meshalim
in the mesora, otherwise there would be no need for the more nevuchim.

Second, with respect to the issue of the priority of nevi'im over
aristotle - note that the rambam addresses the more nevuchim to someone
who (kafich p 5) shekvar nikba belibbo vehusag beda'ato amitat toratenu)
- the question is always whether the simple pshat of the neviim or
a reinterpretation is needed, as the rambam believes in the ultimate
congruity of the two sources of truth - but that (unlike many here) we can
not be sure always about the meaning of the truth from the neviim, as they
speak in meshalim. However, wrt to 2:15 - look at all the commentaries -
I have at work only kafih, so will cite him (2:16 note 7) - bibehinat:
lo tehe tora shelema shelanu kesicha betela shelahem

Lastly, if we look at the hakdama to the more nevuchim, (kafih 5-6) about
those who view the opposition bewteen mesora and sechel and choose sechel

velo yimashech achar sichlo venimtza shepana achor misichlo uferesh
mimenu, veyachshov im zot shehu hevi al atzmo nezek vehefsed beda'ato,
veyisha'er im otam hadeot hadimyonot toch hargashat za'ar umu'aka

note that interpreting the mesora against sechel leads to "hadeot
hadimyonot"...I would add that in this discussion, those who oppose
allegory don't accept the damage that the rambam suggests exists in
rejecting sechel for mesora.

Meir Shinnar

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:11:00PM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: WRT to the debate about the flood, RMB keeps insisting that the
: rambam accepts that the neviim override things we learn from Aristo.

NO!

I'm asserting that the Rambam believes the situation could never
arise.

-mi

In Avodah V12 #37 dated 11/3/03  Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> 
writes:
> There is a view that one suffers exactly according to Heavenly decree.
> Thus the Chinuch 241 that one should not take revenge because you got what
> G-d wanted you to get, ...  > How then does one understand suicide according
> to the view that suffering - even at the hand of a person - is always
> a Heavenly decree? Does that mean that there is a Heavenly decree that
> this person must die and that he should be his own murderer? 

"Hakol beyedei shomayim chutz miyiras shomayim." That is one of the
principles that applies here.

For the other principle, you talmidei chachamim will have to supply the
quote, but the idea is that if someone intends to perform an evil act,
and actually carries out his intention, then Hashem counts the kavana
along with the act.
However, if the act was NOT carried out, then He does not count the
kavana. If someone intended to perform a worthy act, then He does count
the kavana even if the act was never carried out.

You can see that there is a tremendous amount of hashgacha involved in
whether one's intentions ever come to fruition. Bottom line, whether we
ever carry out our intentions is not up to us, we are all helpless really.
It is all in G-d's hands.

The ONLY thing in our hands is yiras Shomayim (or the absence thereof)
and I guess since Hashem yirah laveivav, He knows whether the would-be
suicide is so intent on evil that his kavana should be mitztaref to his
ma'aseh--and therefore his suicide should actually succeed. And if it
does, he deserves to be punished for the intention to murder himself.

I do not speak of extraordinary circumstances of course where suicide
may be halachically required (to prevent the Big Three Sins) or where
the person is mentally ill.

 -Toby Katz

[Email #2. -mi]

The following is forwarded from my husband:

In Avodah V12 #37 dated 11/3/2003:
> 1) Why would it matter if it is halachically dead when they start cutting
> it up? For Eiver Min HaChai, all that counts it that it is dead when
> they eat it, no? Are they conflating this halacha with some kind of
> "tzaar baalei chayim" issue?

> 2) As I understand it, shechita is *not* sufficient to mattir meat for
> a Ben Noach. IIUC, if an animal has been shechted but is still jumping
> around, a Jew is allowed to eat it (if he can find a practical way to
> deal with avoiding the blood etc.) but it's still considered alive and
> assur to a Ben Noach until it stops moving. (L'maaseh, this has surely
> happened by the time he buys it and eats it, but l'halacha, he might
> want to be aware of this distinction.)

Let R' Miller know that he is mistaken. If the meat is butchered while
the animal in mefarcheses the meat is assur mishum eiver min ha'chai
regardless of the status of the animal at the time that the meat is
consumed.

Secondly, after shechita the meat is mutar even to a goy because of the
principle that there is nothing that is assur to a goy while being mutar
to us.

 -Michael Katz

> I have spoken to two individuals not connected to each other or this
> list in any way, one a respected Talmid Chacham, and the other a widely
> known name in the Torah world. For various reasons they do not want
> their names mentioned.

Anonymous comments are worthless. We've learned that from posters slapped
up on walls.

> But in both cases they have called the above
> view near Apikursus. Let me repeat this... APIKURSUS!

Whick is it -- NEAR apikursus or Apikursus?

> They told me in
> no uncertain terms that if there is not a Mesorah for an allegoriztion
> from Chazal who had their own Mesorah, we cannot on our own make such
> allegorizations.

AIUI the Rambam would disagree with these two, no? If so, who are they
to argue with the Rambam?

> any conclusive evidence that there was no flood. To call it a Metzius
> that there was no actual flood is a rejection of a clear Mesorah on the
> subject without any CONCLUSIVE evidence to the contrary.

And CONCLUSIVE evidence would NOT be akikursus according to you and your
two T.C.s?

Would they allow treating the Mabul as allegory in the face of conclusive
evidence?

> of higher critisism. Archeologists have as of yet not turned up any
> physical evidence of the Exodus either.

IIRC they have -- check the archives.

> That would seem to be exactly what you are doing... denying the deeds
> of Hashem recognized by Chazal and all of the Rishonim simply because
> you cannot see any evidence of it.

No -- it's the evidence *against* it that's the problem.

> Firm evidence that somethiong DIDN'T HAPPEN? None of the above disciplines
> offers conclusive proof. They just say that there is no evidence of it
> in their respective fields. That is not the same thing as proof.

It can be. If an event MUST leave evidence behind -- Obvious evidence --
and you know exactly what to look for -- and you know where to look for
it -- and you still don't find it -- that would be proof.

If you claim a bomb went off in your house, destroying everything --
and I visit a week later and your house in the same condition it was
a day before the alleged explosion -- I'd say that's conclusive proof
there wasn't an explosion

Keep in mind we're talking about a *global* flood here -- AND we excluded
God's removing of evidence for the flood.

Akiva

I'm a bit puzzled by some of RHM's remarks.  There are three arguments
getting confused here:
1. a halachic argument
2. an argument about exegesis, and
3. an argument about science.

With respect to 1. RHM cites two anonymous people who say:
> if there is not a Mesorah for an allegoriztion
> from Chazal who had their own Mesorah, we cannot on our own make such
> allegorizations.

I've deleted the accusation of Epicureanism. RAK's A Handbook of Jewish
Thought I p. 145 cites and endorses the opinion of R. Saadiah who
disagrees with this. While I'm willing to believe that two scholars
might pasken against RSG, I don't believe that they would accuse him
of Epicureanism.

With respect to 3 RHM opines
> I do not have the arrogance to say the the lack of archeological
> evidence of a Mabul is a Metzius.... To call it a Metzius
> that there was no actual flood is a rejection of a clear Mesorah on the
> subject without any CONCLUSIVE evidence to the contrary.

I believe that RHM is saying here that, given our current state of
geological knowledge, it is reasonable to contend that a world-wide flood
would leave no traces that we have detected. I'm not a geologist, but
I find this claim surprising, and, just as RHM supported his previous
claim by citing anonymous scholars, I'd be much happier if he cited
anonymous expert geologists in support of this one.

David Riceman

Can you help me please?

I'm looking for a book. It is called Tzeidah LaDerekh by Menahem Ben
Aharon Ben Zerah.

It was printed in Perera (Ferrara) in 5314 (1554). It's somewhere between
212 and 297 pages.

A friend is looking for it for a Rabbi of his. This Rabbi last saw
the book about 40 years ago in Panama. Since then he has been unable to
locate it. This 1st edition supposedly is not just halakhot but an added
section of scientific and medical explanations for the missvot. This
section does not appear in subsequent editions.

Do you know anything about this?

The friend and the Rabbi both understand that it would probably be to
difficult to obtain the original so they want even a copy of it.

Do you think you can help?

Thank you,
Joseph Mosseri
joseph.mosseri@verizon.net
 fax 718-627-2193

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


[ 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         ]