Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 057

Saturday, July 23 2005

• maaris ayin
• re: Pareve cultured meat????
• Re: R' Tradyon's daughter [should be: R' Chanina b. Tradyon's daughter]
• Re: Darkhei Emori? Or worse?
• sinat chinam
• The Yeshiva Bochur Who Did Not Learn Well
• Kishuf
• Re: Pareve cultured meat????
• Re: Pareve cultured meat????
• Der Alter [Der Alter] 7/21/2005 06:53:20 PM
• AleiShur
• Wireless Access
• Der Alter [Der Alter] Wireless Access, Ehrlichkeit
• Re: [hirhurim] [Hirhurim - Musings] Studying From Old Tests
• Re: sinat "chinam"
• Re: [YGB] Daf Halachah - Shabbos 73b
• Darkhei Emori? Or worse?
• Harry Potter
• Astrology
• Re: Rav Lichtenstein's halachic analysis of whether soldiers may refuse orders
• Re: Reality of the Universe
• Re: Order of Creation
• amoraim disagreeing with tanaim
• RE: Rav Lichtenstein's halachic analysis of whether soldiers may refuse orders
• Re: Balaam

>> Is anyone aware of any discussion of the kashrut of this sort of
>> "meat"? Would kol haYotsei min haTame tamei apply here? Would this meat
>> truly be fleishig?

Micha responded
> It would at least have to be treated as fleishig for mar'is ayin
> reasons.

Maaris Ayin is very subjective. When margarine first appeared many people
discussed using it at a Fleishig meal and being confused with butter.
Today that discussion seems to have disappeared. Margarine is so prevelant
that the assumption is "butter" with meat must be margarine.

-- 
Eli Turkel

What is the process by which the cells removed from the animal multiply?
I would imagine that there is none of the material min hachai in the
reproduced ones, and if there is, it is certainly infinitesimal.
I would think that the "reproduction" is a chemical, not a biological,
process, and therefore there should be no problems of yotzei min hachai
or min hatamei.

EMT

T613K@aol.com wrote:

In  Avodah V15 #53 dated 7/18/2005  RDE writes:
> Contrary to the speaker - Rashi notes that she took special care
> to walk in the manner that they had commented.

The word in the Gemara is "dikdaka" which can be translated as you say,
"she took particular care of her step" and that is not different from
what the speaker said, it is actually the /same/ as what the speaker
said ("she paid attention to her steps"). She didn't /change/ her way of
walking but paid attention to her own walk. Formerly her graceful walk
was unconscious; now sh e made a point of walking in the same graceful
way, but on purpose.

Dikdika is a rather stronger expression than becoming "aware" or
"conscious". It indicates action - it's not that she just continued to
walk this way, knowing and presumably enjoying, the attention she was
receiving, but rather she deliberately took care not to change her walk
/in order/ to get this attention.

 - Kayza

Another comment on my original posting stated:
> the minhag of loosening knots on the choson is that there should be
> no "pressure" on him when he goes to the chuppa. ..... a chasidishe
> minhag.... which I personally would refrain from calling "crazy".

And is a belief that loosening knots can have an affect on the choson and 
cause relieving of pressure on him any less of a superstition, darkhei Emori 
or worse than the belief that it will smooth knots in the marriage?   Any 
less "crazy"

k"t,
David

(by error this was sent to areivim)
>However, very often there are quite legitimate disagreements between
>different groups /within/ the Orthodox spectrum, and members of a group
>that has come in for criticism are quick to hurl charges of "sinas chinam"
>against the critics. Yet quite often it isn't "chinam" at all and what
>is more important, it isn't "sinah"!

i guess now i have 2 problems--- what is chinam and also what is
sinah.
but this argument has to be allowed both ways eg if edah x considers
edah y krum. you are saying that 1] if x defines y's behaviour as *non
orthodox*, than sinah is permitted or required. if x just *disagrees*
with y's derech any criticism is ok cuz that's not sinah. so either way
it is always allowed to attack the Other, as it's either a mitzva or
just ok [since the Other is wrong]

you must then allow equally edah y to attack edah x , because the
argument should follow in reverse. practically though that is not how
we see frum jews behave . rather the see their own derech as Infallible,
and the Other as outside the Pale. and i know you will respond
that it is not true in reverse----- that edah y's krumkeit does not
validate its criticism of those to the Correct side....

At 03:55 PM 07/21/2005, [Micha] wrote:
>Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:39:22 -0400
>From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>Subject: Re: The Yeshiva Bochur Who Did Not Learn Well
>
>On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 01:52:41PM -0400, Yitzchok Levine quotes this
>story from Tenu'as haMussar:
>:           Another story characteristic of R. Zundel (of Salant) gained
>:           wide currency....  You saw that the wife of the house was not
>:           at home. So who should clear the table for you? Would it not
>:           have been proper for you to put the knife and salt back where
>:           they belong, and the bread, too, so that all would be ready
>:           for the next meal ?"
>
>I'm really thrown. Why would have been more appropriate for the bachur to
>have created work is the woman of the house would have been home?

Am I correct that you meant to write, "I'm really thrown. Why would IT have 
been more appropriate for the bochur to have created work IF the woman of 
the house would have been home?"

It has nothing to do with creating work, if I understand the story. Had
Reb Zundel's wife been home, then she would have taken care of clearing
the table as she usually did. The fact that she was not meant that Reb
Zundel had to do this. I think that Reb Zundel felt that if it were a
choice between himself and the bochur, then the bochur should have at
least offered to clean up.

One has to keep in mind that this incident took place in the 19th Century.
During this time, the roles of men and women were rather narrowly defined.
Men in general did not participate in home choirs. The vast majority
did not know how to cook, etc. Indeed, there are men today who grew
up before the war in Europe who have no idea how to do anything in
the kitchen. (Of course, there are men born in the US within the past
50 years who do not want to know how to do anything in the kitchen.
However, this is another story. >:-})

Y. Levine 

Zev Sero:
> without seeing the Chinuch inside my first thought is that this is
> a second approach, an alternative to the first one, and incompatible
> with it.

Zev,

Please check the chinuch inside. I do not believe the chinuch is offering
two conflicting views in one breath. That would be a big stretch.

As for your question of how to determine what's called "good" combining
and what's called "bad" combining (=kishuf) I really don't know. I
have similar questions about this chinuch - That same piece refers to
grafting (and IIRC shaatnez) to be related to kishuf since it disturbs
the order of creation. The chinuch says that there is the Torah concept,
introduced in parshas Breishis of "L'minaihu". (BTW, RSRH has a beautiful
arichus on that word in Breishis) So my question is, if according to the
chinuch as long as it's beneficial, it's not a problem, then if grafting
produces delicious fruit, or shaatnez produces strong and warm fabric,
what would be wrong?

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 06:19:52AM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote:
: Is there a minimum shiur for ever min hachai?

Isn't there a minimum shiur for mamashus? Does anything microscopic
have mamashus WRT any mitzvah?

I don't think there are even chatzi shiur issues.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 07:36:17PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: What is the process by which the cells removed from the animal multiply?
: I would imagine that there is none of the material min hachai in the
: reproduced ones, and if there is, it is certainly infinitesimal.

There are two methodologies.

In the first, they remove the nuclius of an egg cell and replace it with
skin cells (typically from the animal's ear). They apply a miniscule
shock, and that expands the cells into several cells.

Another technic involves stem cells from an early stage animal embryo.

In both cases, you're combining microscopic peices: the egg or stem
cell on one side and the skin cells on the other.

As I wrote above, I believe that microscopic qualifies as "infinitesimal".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
micha@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

"Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> It would at least have to be treated as fleishig for mar'is ayin
> reasons.

Why wouldn't it have the same din as the meat-substitutes we have today,
e.g. seitan, textured soy protein, quorn, etc.? While the product is new
to the market, one could bring the packet to the table, but increasingly
I have seen pareve meat- and milk-substitutes being brought to the table
without a packet, on the grounds that people are now familiar enough
with them that they no longer need to be reminded.

Essentially, this vat-grown meat should have the same din as a fungus:
pareve, and shehakol.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

 From the Der Alter Googlegroup:
consider perhaps the concept of self-acceptance as a "wider and more
satisfying concept" than self esteem....and perhaps more jewish as well.

"self esteem" has the inherent difficulty of tying the individual's
sense of self to his/her accomplishments, skills, etc.... this can be
problematic... it is fine when you're doing well, succeeding, etc. but
what happens when you mess up time after time.. do you then become
"no good"?... which leads to the question... .

... the alternative concept of "self-acceptance" eliminates this
"rating" of self and advocates that one can and advisably ought to
recognize that one has value because every person is created in the
image of G-d and is always worthwhile. A human being is too complex
to "rate" as an entity... if, instead, we stick to rating our deeds,
accomplishments, but not ourselves, we can succeed or fail at things,
but always understand that win, or lose, we always have value as children
of G-d and can always strive to improve and do better. .

--
Posted by Der Alter to Der Alter at 7/21/2005 06:53:20 PM

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 "Gershon Seif" <gershonseif@yahoo.com> posted
> The Rambam in the
> hakdama l'peirush hamishna, when he talks about paskening lfi rov, states
> that we need to do this because it's human nature that when people derive
> halachos based on their own reasoning, they will dig their heels in and
> defend their position. Nobody is going to budge so we have to vote. The
> Rambam is including the dor of Yehoshua bin Nun in that statement, right? So
> what happened to the klal of RYS, that they were above that??? I would love
> to hear a teirutz!

I don't understand the Rambam as saying that it is natural for the anshei
haShas to be stubborn in their opinions. On the contrary, elsewhere he
teaches the commendibility of being modeh al haEmmess when proven wrong,
as Bes Hillel did several times to Shammai. Here he is simply saying that
it is human nature for different minds to arrive at different conclusions,
and to offer proofs to support them.

Sort of like we do on Avodah.

Zvi Lampel

(Cross-posting with "Der Alter" Mussar Blog]

We were discussing the permissibility of using a wireless network in a
building you happen to be visiting - in the absence of a dina d'malchusa
l'issura. The halachic side of things seems to be that in states in
which there is no such dina d'malchusa it should be permissible.

However, Reb Micha posted:
> But I agree with R' B------ Sr that it's definitely not ehrlach, even
> if you say it's mutar.

I am not so sure about that - this is a classic case of zeh neheneh v'zeh
chaser, or, to flip it, kofin al midas Sdom. It is the virtual parallel
of Reuven using Shimon's shtender in the Beis Medrash. Dohs heist nisht
ehrlach oich?

YGB

(Cross-posting with "Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group"]
We were discussing the permissibility of using a wireless network in a building
 you happen to be visiting - in the absence of a dina d'malchusa l'issura. The 
halachic side of things seems to be that in states in which there is no such di
na d'malchusa it should be permissible.
However, Reb Micha posted:

     But I agree with R' B------ Sr that it's definitely not ehrlach,
     even if you say it's mutar.

I am not so sure about that - this is a classic case of zeh neheneh v'zeh chase
r, or, to flip it, kofin al midas Sdom. It is the virtual parallel of Reuven us
ing Shimon's shtender in the Beis Medrash. Dohs heist nisht ehrlach oich?
YGB

   --
   Posted by YGB to [1]Der Alter at 7/21/2005 07:09:00 PM

Daniel Israel <israel@email.arizona.edu> wrote:
> Gil Student wrote:
>> A year or two ago, on a private e-mail list, I stated that I did
>> not think there is anything wrong with collecting old tests that
>> a teacher has given and studying from them, even if the teacher is
>> known to regive old tests. Others, however, considered it unethical.

> I would just note that in my experience many Professors, at least,
> are aware of this practice and often sanction it. In my department the
> graduate qualifying exams for the last several years are on file in the
> department office and can be checked out. In such a case I would think
> that it wouldn't even be a midos chasidus not to make use of such aids.

The ethics of any such situation seem clear to me. If an instructor is
aware of it and supports it... oar at least does not protest it, there is
nothing wrong with it. If, OTOH, it is against the rules and one does it
stealthily, it is extremely unethical. A grey area would be if there is no
stated policy and the instructor's views on the matter are unknown. The
best way to find out is to ask the instructor before you do it. He will
tell you. If that is not possible, I would stay away from such Hirhurim -
Musings on ethical grounds. Better to err on the side of ethical caution.

HM

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Sinah is earned by people or groups who consciously and deliberately
> rebel against G-d and against the Torah. That would apply to groups
> and organizations outside the Orthodox spectrum.

> However, very often there are quite legitimate disagreements between
> different groups /within/ the Orthodox spectrum, and members of a group
> that has come in for criticism are quick to hurl charges of "sinas chinam"
> against the critics. Yet quite often it isn't "chinam" at all and what
> is more important, it isn't "sinah"!

For the record, I used the term. Let me expalin the context in which I
meant it.

There is a certain disdain that adherents of some Hashkafos in Judaism
have for those of other Hashkafos. This often leads to a total lack of
understanding those other Hashkafos misreading them as near Apikursus
or at least so skewed from "Torah Trueness" as to deem it worthy of
ridiculce or derision. I have heard the disaparaging remarks all too
often from both sides of the relgio-political divide. And it frankly
disgusts me whenever I hear it. There is no reason for an MO to denigrate
any Charedi simply for what his Hashkafa represents and there is no
reason for any Charedi to denigrate any MO because of what his Hashkafa
represents. There are instances where representatives of both Hashkafos
will see the other as ...so wrong... that they will express hatred for
those of opposing Hashkafos.

That is the Sinas Chinam I was refering to.... baseless hatred... or
at least hatred based on false perceptions or information about the
other. Unfortnuately there is a lot of that going around. The refusal
by a typical Charedi Lakewood guy to date RHS's daughter, may not in and
of itself be Sinas Chinam, but it sure smells like it. And such thinking
exacerbates and perpetuates the problem.

HM

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 R' Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> posted
> I therefore surmise that
> gezeiros were in reaction to actual violations, rather than chazal's risk
> analysis. This reduces my question to asking qashas (qushyos) on a maaseh.

> But it would work a lot better if someone actually says this. Anyone
> heard of such an idea?

Yes. The Maharatz Chayos in his M'vo HaTalmud (English: Students Guide
Through The Talmud, p. 72).

Zvi Lampel

From: "D&E-H Bannett" <>
> The mesader kiddushin was the RY of his yeshiva high school. After my
> grandson made a siyyum on masekhet Kiddushin and the ketuba paperwork
> was completed, he was instructed by the RY to untie his necktie and his
> shoelaces before going to the chuppa.
> This "minhag", unfamiliar to me, appears to be, at the least, a
> superstition that is darkhei Emori. Perhaps worse. To me, the belief
> that untying knots can have an influence on the success of a marriage,
> result in less knotty problems and enhance the smoothness of married life,
> to put it delicately, borders on avodah zara.
...
> Does the kalla also have to remove knots or does this magical act work
> only for males?
> Where do they get these crazy customs?

It seems to be the local minhag as well.

BTW the Taamei Haminhogim [p. 406] only says this re the kallah
[no mention of choson] and gives the reason as 'leheichin hayichud'
[whatever that means].

Minhag Yisroel Torah [vol 4, p. 154] gives the reason 'dechayshinin
lek'shofim shelo yuchlu lehizdakek zeh lozeh' [from sefer Nishmas Chaim
by Reb Menashe ben Yisroel and sefer Hametaamim. He adds ayin Targum
Yonoson, [Ki Tsetzei 24:6].

I advise to look it up in the Mikraos Gedolos Hamaor edition and see
"Peirush Yonoson" [anyone know who the mechaber is?].

It may help us understand this minhag.

SBA 

Some have discussed on areivim/avodah the "issue" of  Harry Potter 
having kishuf.

The possible issur in reading HP that comes to my mind stems from the 
shulchan aruch in orach chaim 307, where "sifrei milchamos" are deemed 
inappropriate.

Opinions anyone? Does this apply to HP? Heterim? What is the nature of 
the issur?

Mike

>>Obviously chazal in shabbos were serious when they said that's it's
possible to do it.

There is machlokess between R. Chanina who says "Yaish mazal l'Yisrael" and
R. Yochanon who says, "Ain mazal l'yisrael". On the other hand many
Amora'im do discuss the reality of Astrological forces even on a Jew.
In Sifsei Chaim by R. Chaim Friedlander in his discussion on this issue,
he makes it clear that those Rishonim and Achronim that discuss the idea of 
"Ain mazal
l"Yisrael" (Ritva, Rashba, Ramban, Ran, Tiferess Yisrael and Yesh Omrim 
brought
by the Ran) and only the Yesh Omrim says that mazal does not affect Jews.
All others agree that mazal effects all aspects of a Jews life, but there 
are certain
ways to bypass mazal. On one end of the scale is the shita that
says keeping Torah and Mitzvos puts a person in a position to overide mazal 
and
the other end of the  spectrum says that only deveikus can overide mazal. In
the middle of the spectrum are the views that tefillah and tzidkus can 
overide mazal,
and of course the example that you gave of Rashi's shita.
But none of these say that once someone has achieved any of these levels 
that
mazal simply doesn't exist for them anymore, but rather in certain 
circumstances mazal
can be bypassed if these conditions are met.

It is only an anonymous opinion in the Ran that says that Astrology doesn't
affect Jews. And the Gemaras that discuss Astrology make it clear that it 
does affect Jews.
R. Yosef b. Gikitalia and other Rishonim and Achronim have
written sefer that teach about Astrology and the Ibn Ezra wrote a few 
sefarim
on the subject. (Reishis Chochma, Sefer Hata'amim, Sefer Ha'Aitzos, Sefer
Ha'Or, and Messahallah's Book of Astrological Question and Messahallah's 
Book
on Eclipses of the Sun and Moon (the last two are translated from the 
original
Arabic)

brent kaufman 

> Even if we agree that it is the arbiters
> of halakha who define the level of danger and of utility that permits
> eating on Yom Kippur, only physicians know how to determine the extent to
> which a certain meal is needed for a said patient.

This is where, IMO, RAL's analysis fails.  As he says, it is not up to
the doctor to decide what medical facts justify breaking the fast; the
doctor's authority extends only to establishing the medical facts, so
that the rav can then pasken.  Suppose a doctor says that, given this
patient's condition, if he does not eat he runs a 10% risk of dying,
but that surely, if he fasts, the mitzvah will protect him, so he should
fast anyway.  Would we accept this doctor's advice?  Of course not.  The
halacha is that we may only pay attention to the medical facts, and even
though the zechut of a mitzvah may indeed give the patient protection,
not only may we not rely on it, we may not even take it into account at
all.  So we would tell this doctor that we didn't ask him for his opinion
on the spiritual value of fasting, we asked him only for a pure medical
opinion, and since he agrees that from a pure medical point of view the
patient's life is in danger if he fasts, then the *halacha* is that he
should eat.

In the case of territorial concessions, the explicit and undisputed
halacha is that we must take into account only the strategic situation,
and we must consult military experts only for their professional
military opinion.  The question we must pose to them is: assuming that
the enemy *will* try to attack us, will the withdrawal make the defense
of the rest of the country easier or harder?  Any private political or
religious opinions these experts may have are as irrelevant as the
private religious opinions of a doctor.

So when a military expert says that, from a pure strategic point of
view, the withdrawal places Israel in more danger, rather than less,
the halacha says that that's the end of the matter.  If he adds that
although this is true, the chance that a withdrawal may eventually
lead to peace, i.e. to the enemy *not* attacking, makes the risk
worth it, he has gone beyond his competence, and we are *obligated
by halacha* to ignore this portion of his opinion.

Similarly, if the expert says that from a military point of view the
country would be easier to defend without this piece of land, that in
the enemy's hand it would give him no strategic advantage, while in
our hands it merely soaks up resources that can be better used
elsewhere, *but* that since (according to the Ramban) mitzvat kibush
ha'aretz applies nowadays, and overrides pikuach nefesh, therefore
we ought to keep it, then once again he has gone beyond his competence,
and that portion of his opinion must be ignored.  (He may be right, of
course, as to the halacha, but it's not up to him to decide.  He was
consulted for the facts relevant to the question of pikuach nefesh, not
for a psak din.) 

Now, as I understand it, it is the unanimous opinion of *all* currently
practising military experts (i.e. not retired experts who are now in
politics) that, from a strict strategic point of view, Sharon's plan
will make Israel harder to defend, and that, assuming the enemy does
attack, the withdrawal will turn out to be a very bad idea.  There is,
as far as I know, not a single military expert who differs from this
conclusion.  Therefore RAL's requirement, that in order to justify
disobeying orders we must not merely doubt whether the plan will save
lives, but we must be *certain* that it will not, and on the contrary
will endanger lives, seems to be satisfied.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 R' Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> posted:> On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:21:46AM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> : Researching how other mefarshim (such as the Shla and Maharal)
> : understand the Rambam, I have found that they all explain the Rambam as
> : RMB does...

> : In addition, I have now discovered a passage in Sefer Ikarrim (IV:3)
> : (whose author is also following the Rambam)...

> Where does RYA [Rabbeynu Yosef Albo] say he's following the Rambam on this?

In the chapter I cited (IV:3):"Zehu derech haRambam z"l b'y'diass Hashem Yisborach...v'ain kavvannass haRav z"l lomar...aval  biur ha-inyan kach hu: she'k'mo she-shaim hametsius yomay alav yisborab v'alaynu b'shituf gamur..." etc., where he goes on to the above quote.

Zvi Lampel

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 R' "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net> posted:
> From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
>> "besides both shitot cited above seem to assume that the earth existed
>> before the sun which does not correspond to modern theories."

>> More accurately, they maintain that the earth and the sun as well as
>> the rest of the heavens were created simultaneously,

> Isn't there a machloketh between Beith Shammai and Beith Hillel about this?

Yes, regarding whether the earth or the heavens were created first. The
pronoun "they" in my sentence was referring to the "both shitot" under
discussion in that post: Rashi and Rambam.

[Email #2. -mi]

Make that Malbim and Rambam.

Zvi Lampel

>>Subject: amoraim disagreeing with tanaim

>: The Gra held that those terms ("Hachi k'amar" and "chasorei mechsora")
>: weren't saying that the Tanna actually said something else or that there
>: is an intrinsic lacking in the text but rather that the Amora was in
>: fact disagreeing with the Tanna and rewriting the Tanna's statement to
>: conform with the current understanding of the new opinion.

> Maqor? Extraordinary claims need greater proof.

I reread that piece about the GRA in the Encyclopedia l'Toldos Gedolei
Yisrael and saw that the author says this is found in the Hakdama to Pe'as 
HaShulchan by R. Yisrael m'Shklov a talmid of the GRA.

brent kaufman

IMHO a large part of this issue revolves around the relative powers of
the melech (and whether these devolve to other leaders) and the Sanhedrin
(and do these devolve to other rabbinic leaders). Which of course leads
to one of my questions that no one dies from - why in Tanach don't we see
these relative functions clearly delineated in practice? Unfortunately
our "recent" (2000 years?) history did not give many occasions for this
to be a practical issue.

KT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 7/20/2005 1:41:02 P.M. EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> The vowels are part of Torah Sheb'Al Peh, which the non-Jews had no access
> to. They did have access to Torah Sheb'ksav, i.e., the consonants, and 
> manages as  best as they could with them.

Is this a personal theory [not a bad one] or from a source?

So, how did Yitzchok become Issac or Shlomo - Solomon

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


[ 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         ]