Avodah Mailing List

Volume 21: Number 13

Sun, 26 Nov 2006

• 1. Re: Astounding Meshech Chochma, Parev Meat? (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 2. Re: Lo tasur (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Astounding Meshech Chochma, Parev Meat? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Greater sanctity of Jerusalem than other cities in Israel (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Holiness of Israel (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: establishing mamzerut (Micha Berger)
• 7. Noach's Mazal Tov (Gershon Dubin)
• 8. Re: Noach's Mazal Tov (Zvi Lampel)
• 9. Re: establishing mamzerut (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: Astounding Meshech Chochma, Parev Meat? (Arie Folger)
• 11. Astrology (Yisrael Medad)
• 12. Re: Ma'aseh eretz Mitzrayim (T613K@aol.com)
• 13. Re: Noach's Mazal Tov (Danny Schoemann)
• 14. Re: Throwing a Drop (T613K@aol.com)
• 15. Re: Ma'aseh eretz Mitzrayim (Zev Sero)

Rabbi Meir writes:  

<A friend showed me a Sefer, Kosnos Or, which on the title page is 
named MeOrey Eish, by Elozor Av BD of KK Zablodova [also author of 
Shut Panim Me'iros - could someone please tell me more about him]: 
who suggests that from the Mishnah Chullin 113; those things that 
have Tum'as Neveilo i.e. including birds, are within the prohibition 
of BBeChalav. He argues that BPekuah can not be Neveilo and may 
therefore be cooked with milk. He says this is written explicitly in 
the Sefer Mem Aleph [who is that?] and is possibly agreed to by all.>

     It may be my amaratzus, but I don't understand: the reason ben 
p'kuah cannot become n'veila is because it is sh'chuta by virtue of 
the sh'chita of the mother.  Had that sh'chita been a sh'chita 
p'sula, which rendered the mother n'veila, and the ben p'kuah then 
died without a proper sh'chita, would it not be n'veila?

EMT

 

 

 

 

On Sun, November 19, 2006 9:14 am, Rich, Joel wrote:
: The Sefer Hachinuch (495) extends the mitzvah from Sanhedrin to "to
: listen and act in all times to the command of the judge; that is the
: greatest wise man....."
:
: It appears the use of the singular is consistent with those that hold
: the purpose of the mitzvah is to ensure a "1 torah" system.
:
: Question: Was there ever a post-sanhedrin period where this position
: would have a nafka-mina (i.e. 1 universally recognized authority)? Or am
: I being too literal in my understanding?

If I agreed with your understanding of the Chinukh, how about Ravina veRav
Ashi and the geonim?

On Mon, November 20, 2006 9:06 pm, Mike Wiesenberg wrote:
:  Too literal. The very next paragraph he says
:   "And one who is over this aseh, and does not listen to the
: gedolim(plural)...."

I think our problem is that we're thinking in contemporary terms of "gadol
hador" and thus "the rav", is take to be someone defined as the generation's
greatest. Which then, as RMW points out, leads to a conflict in number.

However, lehalakhah, the only one short of the Sanhedrin that you /have/ to
listen to is your own rabbeim and the dayan one personally approaches. Each
person has his the "greatest wise men" of those he relies, and thus across the
globe there are many of them.

But be'ikkar, I do not read the Chinukh as mandating belief in following a
gadol hador or "the gedolim".

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, November 23, 2006 4:12 am, Rabbi Meir wrote:
: Has anyone noticed the Meshech Chochma [opening P VaYera] discussing the
: angels eating bassar BeChaLav under AA supervision?
:: He appears to consider that meat of a Ben Pekuah is not flieshig.

In a few years we may be discussing BbC and cloned meat. Organs and meat could
be cloned off shechted animals. Or, for that matter, is shechting a necessary
element for unborn meat to be pareve?

Apologies for possibly hijacking the thread.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, November 20, 2006 9:54 pm, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
:      The Mishna in the first perek of Keilim lists the next level of
: k'dusha above arim hamukafos as "lifnim min hachoma," indicating that
: there is no intermediate level for the suburbs of Y-m. Furthermore,
: the din of samuch v'nireh is certainly not a function of the sanctity
: of Y-m, since it applies to all walled cities.

The question wasn't if it was a function of Y-m in particular, but if it made
Rachaviah different than Tel Aviv. And the question is yes.

I am surprised to learn that Rechaviah is no holier than the suburbs of
Yericho rather than being more qadosh than Yericho itself. Thank you for the
chinukh and the reference.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, November 21, 2006 10:15 am, Kohn, R Shalom wrote:
:> Not so Poshut. See Rambam Bais HaBechira 6:14-16 and the Ra'avad there. It
:> is at least a Machlokes Rishonim, and I'd like to see a source for a clear
:> P'sak B'zman Hazeh.
:
: Although I'm not sure how relevant any of this is to the question of whether
: Israel is a Jewish country, which seemed to be the issue under discussion, the
: Rambam cited by R. MYG sets forth his view that the kedusha of yerushalayim
: and the mikdash was by the kedusha rishona, because it was done by Hashem, and
: the Ra'avad disagrees...

There are two issues:

1- The Jewishness of the Medinah. This involves question of whether Jews
having sovereignty makes the state Jewish. More specifically, what criteria
must a government meet in order to qualify as "Jewish". Must it be a melekh
mibeis David, a court navi, the kehunah and Sanhedrin running the country or
else it has no religious value? The Rambam, Hil Chanukah 1:1, seems to
indicate that even a tzeduqi Hasmonian rule is something with religious
siginificance to celebrate.

2- Qedushas ha'aretz. This is where it's appropriate to discuss qedushah
rishonah qidshah lesha'atah veqidshah le'asid lavo.

  The Rambam is clear that the kedusha done by Ezra was
: via chazaka and where Ezra's settlements occurred, the kedusha she-niya
: continues, hence the obligation for teruma and ma'aser....

Actually, the Rambam only says this about qedushas haaretz (Beis haBechirah
6:16). Yerusalayim is mi

It's also interesting to compare R' Chaim's well-known understanding of the
Rambam with Meshekh Chokhmah on Devarim 1:8. As the MC notes, the Sifri seems
to imply a machloqes tana'im. See MmD Devarim, pg 1
<http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/devarim.pdf>.


These are two very interesting but very different topics.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, November 21, 2006 7:52 am, der Baseler Rav (RAF) wrote:
: In mamzerut, we consider unlikely events sufficient to void the mamzerut, such
: as when a woman last cohabited with her husband 352 days earlier, nishtaheh
: hazera'.

I think it would help me if you rephrased in terms of confidence levels
lehatir, so that I don't have to weave through double negatives between
quantifying certainty and uncertainty and quantifying issur or heter.

To rephrase RAF's statement in those terms: WRT mamzeirus, we can use a
confidence level well below .5 lehatir. In addition, we don't want to find
mamzeirim. WRT mamzeirus, herefore, why ever test anyone? The one way we can
raise the confidence level lehatir, ie testing the husband, the evidence can
backfire and lower our confidence lehatir.

Going from the lechat-chilah of "why test" to the bedi'eved of "now that we
have a test, do we use it"?

...
: The speaker I criticize (along with most participants at the said conference)
: claimed that the reason for rejecting DNA evidence was that, even though it
: is correct in establishing rov, the error rate is greater than 1/1000. This
: statistic is obviously wrong by a large margin (atual error rate is easy to
: find on the net, it is estimated in the so many in a million or even in a
: billion range, depending on method used).

Is this true for all kinds of DNA test?

The probability of a DNA test falsely identifying a match when there is one is
not necessarily the same as the probability of the test not identifying a true
match. Also, the accuracy of matching someone's DNA to another sample of their
DNA is not the same as matching child to parent. (And similarly the
probability of non-matching.)

IOW, when we speak of DNA testing accuracy, there are at least 4 different
accuracy rates:
1- Accuracy when a sample matches a known sample from the same person
2- Accuracy when a sample does not match a known sample from the same person
3- Accuracy when a sample is shown to be from a child of the provider of
another sample
4- Accuracy when a sample is shown not to be from a child of the provider of
another sample

In the case of the agunah, a non-match has no significance, since the niftar
being someone else doesn't rule out the husband being dead and the body
elsewhere.

In the case of mamzeirus, given IVF as a possibility, a non-match has no
significance, since the child could have been conceived through IVF by donor.
Similarly, finding a parternity match with someone other than the husband is
irrelevent (as is ruling him out).

(Of course, aliba deR' Hutner and the Satmar Rav, IVF by donor can produce
mamzeirim. And I'm also ignoring the complication of the child possibly coming
from the husband's identical twin.)

So besach hakol we're in reality talking about only two different sorts of
evidence:
1- A match between the agunah's husband and the niftar (#1, above); and
2- a paternity match between the husband and the child (#3).

I presume that #3 is far lower in accuracy, since it's more complicated to
find that 50% of the DNA match than to find that 100% do. So, for mamzeirim
there would be more of a chance of a false match. And, we need a lower
confidence level lehatir, ie a lower error rate on a false match, potential
mamzeirim anyway.

So, why would accepting the evidence for agunos necessitate accepting DNA
testing for mamzeirim?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

 From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>

<<Incidentally, since "Noach begat Shem, Cham and Yafess" when he 
 was 500 years old, does that mean they were triplets?>>

No.

<<Or does it mean he then started to have sons at 500 years old, but two
of them 
were really born when Noach was older?>>

Yes.  Rashi Bereishis 10:21

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From : Gershon Dubin[mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]Sent : 11/24/2006 
>
> From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>

<<Incidentally, since "Noach begat Shem, Cham and Yafess" when he 
was 500 years old, does that mean they were triplets?>>

RGD:
No.

<<Or does it mean he then started to have sons at 500 years old, but two
of them were really born when Noach was older?>>

RGD:
Yes. Rashi Bereishis 10:21

Y'yasher kochachah!

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061124/71352142/attachment.html

RTK wrote:
> 2. ?You keep talking about IVF as a way of having the baby be a
> ?non-mamzer, i.e., one way the baby would have DNA from a man to whom his
> mother ?was not married. ?But there is a simpler way, which is has been
> around a ?lot longer and is still much more commonly used, when the woman
> is fertile and ?her husband is not, and that is artificial insemination
> with donor sperm.

Actually, I originally included IUF as well. In subsequent holoikh yeileikh 
IVF was used as shorthand for all artificial insemination.

Regarding your question whether everyone agrees that a child conceived through 
donor-IVF/IUF is not a mamzer, the answer is no. Some hold that the child is 
kosher and a child of the sperm donor (RMF, IIRC), others hold that there is 
no father, as paternity is established through normal marital relations 
(these are the posqim that prohibit husband-IVF/IUF as well), while a third 
group holds that the child is a mamzer. Some want to make the whole thing 
partially dependant on who the doctor is who puts the sperm in the test tube 
(actuall, petri dish IIRC) and consequently prefer a woman, so that she 
cannot influence paternity.

The social father does not impart his kohen status to the child. Whether a 
biological IVF child would receive his kohen status from his father is 
dependent on the opinions above.

BTW, teh reason why some posqim recognize paternity through IVF and yet deny 
mamzership of donor-IVF babies is that a mamzer comes about through the 
transgression (intentional or not) of a karet prohibition except be'ilat 
niddah. Since in teh case of IVF/IUF there was no sexual intercourse, these 
posqim reason that there can be no mamzerut.

Gute Vokh (actually, you-guys-in-the-USA can't read it yet, but I should still 
wish you gute Shabbos),

Arie Folger

Reb Meir Rabi posted about the astounding Meshekh 'Hokhmah positing that meat 
of a ben paqu'ah is parve. Then, he or some other poster asked whether the 
Meshekh 'Hokhmah was talking about teh mlilk of a ben paqu'ah. In that case, 
it shall be obvious to all that we are talking about a BAT paqu'ah that has 
walked around and become an adult, mothered a child and continues to give 
milk.

Just my US$0.02,

Arie Folger

 Anyone want to comment?

Apparently it's emetic

A.C. Grayling's analogy of astrology with theology is in principle a
forceful one (*LRB*, 2 November <http://v28/n21/letters.html>). He uses it
to suggest that religion, like astrology, consists of 'pre-scientific,
rudimentary metaphysics' which reflect 'ancient ignorances'. But in some
ways it is also unjust. In ancient Israel astrology was an offence, and was
rejected as a source of knowledge, as were all other kinds of divination,
magic generally, and consultation of the dead. Ancient Israelites believed
(according to Genesis) that the sun, moon and stars were merely 'lights'.
Israel's pre-scientific perceptions deserve some credit for their long-range
anticipation of what Grayling has lately concluded 'on the basis of rational
investigation'.

*Jim Stewart*
University of Dundee
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n23/letters.html

-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061125/066a2649/attachment-0001.htm

 
 
In a message dated 11/25/2006 11:49:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
zev@sero.name writes:

>>He only became embarrassed when those enquiries  proved
insufficient, and it seemed that finding the woman would require  a
larger-scale effort which would make him the subject of general  gossip.
This is the behaviour of someone who is guilty of a social  indiscretion
rather than a serious offense.<<


-- 
Zev  Sero         


.
>>>>>
We will agree to disagree.  The same behavior that to you indicates  only 
slight embarrassment, to me indicates great embarrassment.
 

--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061125/d7235edc/attachment.html

> Incidentally, since "Noach begat Shem, Cham and Yafess" when he was 500 years old, does that mean they were triplets?

No. Noach 11:10 - Shem was 100 years old when he begot Arpakshar 2
years after the flood.
Thus Noach was 502 when he was born.

- Danny

 
 
R' Akiva Blum writes:


>>The gemorah Yoma 58b says that the cohen who sprinkles the  blood of par 
cohen moshiach and of par ho'edo stands on the eastern side of  the mizbeach 
hazohov, which is situated slighly west of centre of the heichal.  This means the 
cohen stood at about 20 amos away from the peroches.
The  gemorah 57a states according to R' Elozor ben R' Yossi, the blood of par 
 heelem dovor shel tzibbur should touch the peroches as he whitnessed it in  
Rome. This means that he would successfully throw drops of blood 20  amos!

Why is this not listed as one of the avodos koshos  shebamikdash?<<






.
>>>>>
1. What is your source that the mizbeach hazahav was so far away from the  
paroches?  I'm not arguing, just asking.  My mental picture is that  the 
mizbeach hazahav was close to the paroches.
 
2. Another subject, only tangentially related to what you asked, but  
something I've always wondered:  did they clean the paroches (and the  bigdei kehuna) 
periodically, and if so, how?   I have trouble  picturing beautiful, elegant 
clothing and curtains being esthetically pleasing  once they have blood stains 
all over them.

--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061125/f5b4e820/attachment.htm

T613K@aol.com wrote:
>  >>  A subset of the first opinion is
>  > that if they just sleep together once they are married.>> [--old TK}
> 
> RZS writes:
>  >>I don't think this is tenable, because it would seem to eliminate
> the position of kedesha.  The pasuk says "lo tihyeh kedesha bivnot
> yisrael", which implies that there is no such prohibition for BN.
> And Yehudah seems to have had no more than mild embarrassment at
> admitting to having been with one, so long as that admission was
> limited to his partner, and to discreet enquiries of people in the
> immediate vicinity.<<
>  
> .
>  >>>>
> My impression is that the opinion that sleeping together once makes BN 
> "married" is distinctly a minority opinion.  In any case, sleeping with 
> many men -- even if you say the woman is "marrying" each of these men -- 
> is classified as promiscuity and thus would probably be forbidden to a 
> Noahide woman.

Where does this prohibition come from?  Again, "lo tihyeh kedesha
*bivnot yisrael*".


> As for your contention that Yehuda seemed only "mildly" embarrassed, my 
> reading of the same pesukim is that he was VERY embarrassed and must 
> often have asked himself, "What on /earth/ came over me?!"

He had no problem telling his partner what he had done, or having his
partner go about in his name making discreet enquiries of the people
in the immediate vicinity, even though they must have understood what
this meant.  He only became embarrassed when those enquiries proved
insufficient, and it seemed that finding the woman would require a
larger-scale effort which would make him the subject of general gossip.
This is the behaviour of someone who is guilty of a social indiscretion
rather than a serious offense.


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


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 4, Issue 13
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."