Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 074

Wednesday, June 21 2006

• Antoninus
• flexibility in Halakha
• Re: flexibility in Halakha
• Re: no nun in ashrei
• no nun in ashrei
• Re: Shevet's Nusach Hatfila
• face painting
• Re: face painting
• Re: face painting
• Shevet's Nusach Hatfila
• Tatoo for alerting to potential anaphylactic shock [death] by an allergen
• Random thoughts on tatoos
• Re: face painting
• Re: Tatoo for alerting to potential anaphylactic shock [death] by an allergen
• Re: Tattoo for alerting to potential anaphylactic shock [death] by an allergen
• Re: Tattoo for alerting to potential anaphylactic shock [death] by an allergen
• Re: Tattoo for alerting to potential anaphylactic shock [death] by an allergen
• Re: random thoughts on tattoos
• RE: Ikrei haEmunah (was Tzimtzum KePeshuto)
• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto

> Scholars differ as to whether the Antoninus referred to in the gemara
> is indeed Marcus Aurelius or some other prominent Roman.

Is there any evidence that Marcus Aurelius was ever in Israel?

-- 
Eli Turkel

In reading off the derech the author pushes for flexibilty in halacha
when dealing with adolescents.
Would any rav really allow halachic violations of a teenager (eg smoking
on shabbat, masturbation etc) because of its affect on the future of
the child and his reaction to being forced to observe?

I remember being criticized by charedi relatives for allowing my son to
sleep late on a leave from the army (kids can sleep 24+ hours on leave
from the army)

kol tuv
-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 07:42:31PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: In reading off the derech the author pushes for flexibilty in halacha
: when dealing with adolescents.
: Would any rav really allow halachic violations of a teenager...

Are you sure it's not simply a case of "tov sheyihyu shogegim"?

Not that we allow it, but that there's a time when tokhachah that will
just make the violation worse should not be given.

-mi

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 10:27:21AM -0700, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
: http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/ see post of the 15th

In ther places, the word "chassid" is translated in the LXX (the
Septuagint) as "hosios". So, while the translation "Missippi Fred"
quotes has "holy", for hosios, it's more likely the intended word was
"chassid", not "qadosh". In which case, the verse would be:
	ne'eman Hashem bekhol derakhav, vechasid bekhol ma'asav

This alleged verse fails for two reasons:

1- It only differs by the pasuq for tzadi by one word. Much more
repetitious than anything in the capitl. It's neither an exact repetition
like "Nedarai LaH' ashaleim" in Hallel, nor Tehillim's usual keifel
lashon -- a repeat of almost the same idea shaded differently in different
wording. It would be a rarity for the book's style.

2- The pesuqim of the capitl overlap in topic from the end of one pasuq
to the beginning of the next. E.g.
    va'varkha shimekha le'olam va'ed. Bekhol yom avarkhekha...
    ukhvod hadar malkhuso. Malkhusekha...
    ve'ata nosein lahem es okhlam be'ito. Posi'ach es yadekha...
    etc...
Chazal's idea that the nun verse (if there were one) would speak of
nefilah as a lead-in to "Someikh Hashem lekhol hanofelim" is compelling
structurally.

Last, the LXX was well known. And some sects considered it pretty
authoritative -- the Notzrim still do. Qumran isn't necessarily a
separate data point, unless someone can show that in general they were
not consistant with the LXX.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
micha@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nachman of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/ see post of the 15th
[i.e., see <http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2006/06/no-nun-in-ashrei.html>
-mi]

See Shut Hasam Sofer [OH 16] where he suggests that all Nus'haos are 
equivalent and that the Arizal in his Nusah improved and highlighted the 
kavanos in Nusah S'farad because he was S'faradi. Had the Arizal been 
Ashkezani (or had there been someone of his stature among the the 
Ashkenazim) he would have done the same for the Ashkenaz Siddur.

Jacob Farkas

in regards a children's birthday activity of face painting/'tattoos',
the school principal said it is a beferush passuk in the tora a
forbidden activity.

pardon my ignorance, i never heard of the issur of ktovet kaaka applied
to child temporary paint/tattoos. does any one have any knowledge on
this topic? am i wrong on this one, or is she?

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 02:24:36PM -0700, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
: pardon my ignorance, i never heard of the issur of ktovet kaaka applied
: to child temporary paint/tattoos. does any one have any knowledge on
: this topic? am i wrong on this one, or is she?

Having a henna before the chasunah is an old hanhagah, if not an outright
minhag. Henna lasts far longer than waterpaint or a rub-on tattoo.

I don't see how it can be befeirush a pasuq. At worst, Ashekanzim could
be more machmir about things that last more than a week. But I never heard
of such a din either.

-mi

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 02:24:36PM -0700, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
>> pardon my ignorance, i never heard of the issur of ktovet kaaka applied
>> to child temporary paint/tattoos...

> Having a henna before the chasunah is an old hanhagah, if not an
> outright minhag. Henna lasts far longer than waterpaint or a rub-on
> tattoo.
...

Also, as far as I know, the purpose plays a role. Beautification isn't as
forbidden a purpose as is evoude zore, is it? The question is discussed
in connexion with permanent make-up.

ELPhM

At 04:55 PM 06/20/2006, David Riceman wrote:
>And, of course, the Hatham Sofer asks why Cohanim and Leviim don't use
>their own nusah.

The Chasam Sofer also writes that Nusach Ashkenaz was handed down 
from generation to generation from the time of the Second Bais Hamikdash.

Yitzchok Levine 

See the Minchat Chinuch 253:1 quoting a Tosfot in Gittin 20b d"h
biktovet ka'aka that writing without making perforations is at most an
issur d'rabbanan. See also Patshegen ha'Ketav 18. So IMHO if there's the
possibility of death by anaphylactic shock due to the allergen and since
there's no malkot if the tatoo is done by a gentile without any assistance
on the part of the Jew, an indelible ink could be used (no tatooing
[making tiny holes for the ink to penetrate] and marked by the gentile.

Incidentally as of July 1, 2004, preoperative surgical site marking
using indelible ink is mandatory in U.S. hospitals ("Sign your site").
So this is now a common halachic problem.

KT
Josh

[We're drifting from a discussion of the din to posing other metzi'us
solutions. -mi]

RJF:
> Hospital workers are generally cautious about what they do to the
> patients, as malpractice is big bucks. I doubt they would be so careless
> as to ignore someone's history outright. Should we assume that health
> care providers are so negligent as to ignore the guy's record, why not
> assume that they will ignore the tattoo?

In an emergency (e.g., an accident), health care workers may not have
access to records. Does this person have a Medicalert bracelet? They
are intended for precisely this purpose and pose no halachic problems.
imagine that a Jew wanting this type of tatoo would first have to
establish that a Medicalert bracelet would not provide sufficient
protection.

Also, could the same purpose be accomplished, albeit less conveniently,
by writing with a henna type dye (or is that what he's allergic to -
I guess he's not allergic to tatoo dye) and renewing as necessary?

 - Ilana

> On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 02:24:36PM -0700, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
>: pardon my ignorance, i never heard of the issur of ktovet kaaka applied
>: to child temporary paint/tattoos. does any one have any knowledge on
>: this topic? am i wrong on this one, or is she?

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Having a henna before the chasunah is an old hanhagah, if not an outright
> minhag. Henna lasts far longer than waterpaint or a rub-on tattoo.

> I don't see how it can be befeirush a pasuq. At worst, Ashekanzim could
> be more machmir about things that last more than a week. But I never heard
> of such a din either.

Gemara in Makkos 21a. "...Assur lo l'adam sheyitein eifer maqleh al
gabbei makkaso mipnei sheniris kikhsoves qa'aqa..." Rashi explains
that the prohibition is specific to Eifer Maqleh, because it stays for
a while, as opposed to other substances that are weaker in nature. Rav
Ashi disagrees because his intention is wound-related, and Tosfos [makkos
21a sv Rav Ashi] says "V'khein Halakha". Shulhan Arukh YD 180:3 paskens
like Tosfos in Makkos, that it is Muttar to place ash on a wound.

Tosfos in Gitin 20b [sv Bikhsoves Qa'aqa] writes that this is an Issur
d'rabanan. Minhas Hinukh Mitzvah 253:1, concludes like Tosfos that writing
on skin without injection is rabbinically prohibited, provided that the
writing is done in a fashion that does not (easily? -jf) erase.

Shulhan Arukh YD 180:4 paskens that if an owner tattoos a slave so he
should be unable to escape, he is Pattur. The RMA adds that nevertheless
it is forbidden to do so l'khatkhilah. Biur HaGRA [YD 180:4 sk 4] cites
Tosfos in Gitin 20b as the source for the RMA, and mentions that the
hetter of Eifer Maqleh, based on Rav Ashi, is specific to there being
a wound in place, where the wound indicates the purpose of placing the
ash. Should there be no wound, then we assume Tosfos position that there
is an Issur D'rabanan.

Jacob Farkas

In a message dated 6/21/2006 2:23:17am EDT,  backon@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
> Incidentally as of July 1, 2004, preoperative surgical site marking
> using indelible ink is mandatory in U.S. hospitals ("Sign your site").
> So this is now a common halachic problem.

"Indelible" ink is not really indelible. It won't wash off but it
will eventually wear off. I do not understand why there would be
any halachic problem with this at all. If you grab a magic marker to
write a telephone number on your hand have you committed an aveirah?!
I know that Jews have (or used to have) a "thing" about not writing on
people even for fun -- I mean like kids drawing flowers on themselves
with markers -- but is it really a problem?

As for the case of the guy who put tatoos in his elbows near IV entry
points -- I myself think perhaps a small, unostentatious mark would
be enough to serve his purpose, not the large garish tatoos the guy
actually used -- and I can see a reason to say it would be halachically
acceptable. For him, "indelible" ink that wears off eventually would
not serve his purpose. He didn't get tatooed because he was facing a
single surgical procedure but because he was facing a lifetime of fear
of what could happen if at any time in the future he were ever found
unconscious (say, after a car accident) and the medics automatically put
in an IV line using iodine to disinfect the area (IIRC he was allergic
to iodine, don't have that post in front of me).

--Toby  Katz
=============

R' Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
> See the Minchat Chinuch 253:1 quoting a Tosfot in Gittin 20b d"h
> biktovet ka'aka that writing without making perforations is at most an
> issur d'rabbanan. See also Patshegen ha'Ketav 18. So IMHO if there's the
> possibility of death by anaphylactic shock due to the allergen and since
> there's no malkot if the tatoo is done by a gentile without any assistance
> on the part of the Jew, an indelible ink could be used (no tatooing
> [making tiny holes for the ink to penetrate] and marked by the gentile.

> Incidentally as of July 1, 2004, preoperative surgical site marking
> using indelible ink is mandatory in U.S. hospitals ("Sign your site").
> So this is now a common halachic problem.

Shulkhan Arukh YD 180:3 paskens that it is permitted to put Eifer maqleh 
on a wound, and the Nosei Keilim cite the reason mentioned in the Gemara 
[Makkos 21a in the name of Rav Ashi], that in this case, the purpose is 
self-explanatory, and so no Issur D'rabanan of Nir'ah Kikhsoves Qa'aqa 
applies. Whether Tosfos in Gittin agrees with that conclusion is up for 
discussion, but Tosfos in Makkos does, as does the Rosh, as does the SA 
mentioned earlier.

"Sign your site" IMHO should be no different than Eifer Maqleh as its
purpose is very obvious. If so, it should not pose a problem, even for
Jewish doctors. Should the process include tearing of the skin, as in
actual Qa'aqa, then Dr. Backon's recommendation of having a non-jewish
doctor perform the process may be preferable, as there are Shitos that
differentiate between tattooing and being tattooed, the former being a
lav, the latter an issur, if even that much [provided that the tattooed
did not assist in the process.]

Jacob Farkas

At 09:30 AM 6/21/2006 -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
>Shulkhan Arukh YD 180:3 paskens that it is permitted to put Eifer maqleh
>on a wound, and the Nosei Keilim cite the reason mentioned in the Gemara
>[Makkos 21a in the name of Rav Ashi], that in this case, the purpose is
>self-explanatory, and so no Issur D'rabanan of Nir'ah Kikhsoves Qa'aqa
>applies....
>"Sign your site" IMHO should be no different than Eifer Maqleh as its
>purpose is very obvious. If so, it should not pose a problem, even for
>Jewish doctors. Should the process include tearing of the skin, as in
>actual Qa'aqa, then Dr. Backon's recommendation of having a non-jewish
>doctor perform the process may be preferable...

Upon going over all the s'ifim in the Minchat Chinuch 253, it seems that
that there were Rishonim [the Beit Yosef in Tur YD 180 quotes a Rabbenu
Yerucham, and even the RIF] who paskened like R. Shimon in the gemara
[that the issur of ketovet ka'aka is only if the shem of avoda zara is
tatooed]. Knowing what goes on in hospitals (Off-line I posted a classic
horror story that happened to a colleague in his first year residency
in anesthesiology) and since we pasken that in sha'at ha'dchak we can
use a da'at yachid (and here it's more than one Rishon) [see: Shach
in Hanhagot Hora'oht b'Issur v'Heter after Siman 242 in Yoreh Deah;
Pitchei Tshuva EH 159 s"k 7] I can't see any problem using indelible ink
(without making the tiny holes and perforations).

KT
Josh 

R' Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
> Upon going over all the s'ifim in the Minchat Chinuch 253, it seems that
> that there were Rishonim [the Beit Yosef in Tur YD 180 quotes a Rabbenu 
> Yerucham, and even the RIF] who paskened like R. Shimon in the gemara
> [that the issur of ketovet ka'aka is only if the shem of avoda zara is
> tatooed]. Knowing what goes on in hospitals (Off-line I posted a classic
> horror story that happened to a colleague in his first year residency in
> anesthesiology) and since we pasken that in sha'at ha'dchak we can use a
> da'at yachid (and here it's more than one Rishon) [see: Shach in Hanhagot
> Hora'oht b'Issur v'Heter after Siman 242 in Yoreh Deah; Pitchei Tshuva EH
> 159 s"k 7] I can't see any problem using indelible ink (without making the
> tiny holes and perforations).

I concur with your conclusion.

It seems that you don't even need to rely on Da'as Yahid, as even those
authorities who are most strict, will agree in a medical scenario. If
anything, Tosfos in Gitin *may* be the only Da'as Yahid who considers
it an Issur [D'rabanan] in a medical scenario, and I am not entirely
convinced of that interpretation of Tosfos.

Jacob Farkas

Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com> wrote:
> WADR, this story has the makings of an urban myth. Hospital workers are
> generally cautious about what they do to the patients, as malpractice
> is big bucks. I doubt they would be so careless as to ignore someone's
> history outright. Should we assume that health care providers are so
> negligent as to ignore the guy's record, why not assume that they will
> ignore the tattoo?

On further inquiry, I received this reply:
    It's not a FOAF, it's someone I actually know. He's actually one of
    my roommates, and is a very good friend. He had the tattoos put on a
    few months ago, and the incident with the friend getting there just
    in time was about a year ago.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On June 19, 2006, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> I am not familiar with a sefer called 'Meseches Atzilus'. I know of a
> sefer Lemudei Atzilus What is it?

It's a braisa that is meyuchas to several different people who lived
during the times of Dovid haMelech. (RDR doubts this yichus and I have no
way of proving it either which way) There was a man named Yerucham who
had several sons who were talmiedey chahcamim. There names are recorded
in Diverei haYamim 1:8. Apparently, they are the ba'alei memra. There
seems to have been a mix-up though because our current copy of Maseches
Atzilus records the name of the father as Yoseph, not Yerucham. There
is an incredible pirush on this tiny sefer called Ginzey Miromim by
R' Yitchak Isaac Chaver. This is the copy I possess. If you live in
New York, you can probably pick up a copy at Eichlers or for sure at
Beigelheisen (16th and 43rd). I hope this was helpful.

Simcha Coffer

On June 19, 2006, David Riceman wrote:
> There's a similar thought in the midrash about the angels not wanting Moshe
> to get the Torah.  Moshe asked them what they wanted with laws about theft
> and adultery.  The midrash doesn't answer explicitly, but the implicit
> answer is that Torah instantiates itself differently in our world and the
> world of the angels.

This is an aside but RDR broaches a topic which has always bothered me. As
RDR so eloquently describes, the Torah instantiates itself both in the
world of angels and in our world. Thus, my kasha on this Medrash is,
what is Moshe's response to the malachim? True the malachim don't have
the laws of theft but we down here don't relate to the laws of theft
as they instantiate themselves l'ma'ala. The Malachim could have very
simply responded, Yes, we do have the laws of theft however not the
way you understand them. Who says that we (the Malachim) should let you
(Moshe representing mankind) take the Torah down there? Who says your
instantiation is any more qualitative then our own? I guess my kasha is,
why didn't the angels put up a bigger fight?

> That's what I mean by an instantiation.  What's a ground?... In other
> words, it was no longer instantiated in Avraham Avinu's later life.

> Here's a mashal hedyot.  Long ago my friends had a premature daughter.  A
> hundred years before that she would not have survived, but they kept her in
> a glass cage for a few months and now she's indistinguishable from someone
> born at term.  The glass cage was a ground of her existence, but it's not
> instantiated in her current life.

> I wrote:
>> Tzimtzum is the
>> ground for permitting differentiated existence. RSC seems to claim that
>> it has an instantiation at each level of existence.

Now that you've described the difference between a ground and an
instantiation, I am puzzled as to why you imagine that I believe
tzitzum is instantiated on all levels. In fact, I don't even know what an
"instantiation of Tzimtzum" would mean. Tzimtzum is a he'eder of OES which
creates a vacuum to allow for the existence of all worlds. IOW, nothing
would exist without tzimtzum but once the process was completed and a
chalal was created, you now have a vacuum into which all of differentiated
existence can fit. BTY, your mashal from a glass cage is not good as you
yourself allude to shortly from the Ramchal. R' Chaim Volozhiner explains
that unlike a carpenter who builds something and then walks away from it,
Hashem's word is constantly being mihaveh the Beria. Part of that Word
was the command of Tzimtzum. If He were to retract this Word, everything
would collapse into its prior state of non-existence so I suppose in a
sense there is a third category between a ground and an instantiation
as pertains to Hashem; we can call it a 'perpetual ground'.

> Now this doesn't precisely parallel my examples, since if tzimtzum ever got
> undone everything contingent would disappear (see the commentary on Petah
> #16 in KLH Pithei Hochmah).  I was referring to the negative sense that
> there is no instantiation of tsimtsum in each world.

But there is a perpetual ground which in a sense is the same as
an instantiation. "L'olam Hashem divarcha nitzav ba'shamayim" says
Dovid. This means the d'var Hashem is actually still there and is
actually still infusing the world or anything else it is responsible
for generating such as the process of Tzimtzum with havaya. This is akin
to an instantiation. If Hashem would retract His word, the world would
once again be overrun with the OES thus eliminating the chalal and the
possibility of differentiated existence.

...
> What I left inplicit is the observation that later kabbalists were willing
> to elaborate on deeper ideas than earlier kabbalists.  Why was the Ari the
> first to discuss tzimtzum at length? If it has an instantiation at each
> level, as RSC claims, there's no reason for the Zohar not to discuss a lower
> instantiation of tzimtzum at length.  If, however, it is the ground for
> primordial existence, and not instantiated lower down, that would explain
> why it doesn't appear explicitly in the Zohar.

Why? Tikkunei Zohar is largely about primordial existence. Why isn't it
mentioned there? And why not in Parshas Bereishis in the Zohar? Primordial
existence certainly seems important enough for a sefer totally devoted
to the secrets of Maaseh Bereishis and Maaseh Merkava to discuss.

Simcha Coffer 

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


[ 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         ]