Avodah Mailing List

Volume 21: Number 14

Mon, 27 Nov 2006

• 1. Re: Throwing a Drop (Akiva Blum)
• 2. Re: Ma'aseh eretz Mitzrayim (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Throwing a Drop (Akiva Blum)
• 4. Meshech Ch & Ben Pekuah more info (Meir Rabi)
• 5. Re: Throwing a Drop (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Throwing a Drop (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Lo tasur (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Holiness of (Eretz) Israel (Yisrael Medad)
• 9. Re: Noach and Lashon T'horah (saul mashbaum)
• 10. Re: establishing mamzerut (Arie Folger)
• 11. Eilu v'Eilu and Machlokes l'Shem Shamayim (adkrinsky@netzero.net)

   >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?<<
   >
 RnTK:
   >>>>>>
   >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.
   > 
Yoma 33b.
Please note that the avodah for yom kippur was directly in front of 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.

The peroches: The mishna states, Shkalim 8:5, that 2 new ones were made every year.

Bigdei kehuna: The gemorah states, Pesochim 65b, that soiled bigdei kehuna are possul.

Akiva Blum

 
 
>>  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.
 
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?!" -- as this was such NOT typical 
 behavior for him, plus, he was no youngster when all this was going on.   
(He had to wait to read Rashi to find out that, indeed, "what came over him" was 
 supernaturally induced and not an aspect of his bechira.  At least I think  
it's a Rashi.)

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061125/c83d7c23/attachment.html

   >R' Akiva Blum writes:
   >>>Bigdei kehuna: The  gemorah states, Pesochim 65b, that soiled bigdei kehuna 
   >are  possul.<<
   >
   >.
RnTK:
   >>>>>
   >My next question then is:  didn't they therefore need new begadim  every day?!

Why? They generally didn't get blood on their clothes.

   >And what about the clothes of the kohen gadol -- very expensive clothes  it 
   >seems to me -- did they make new ones every day?!  

Ditto.

 
   >But then what about the paroches?  They couldn't well have taken it  down and 
   >washed it every day.

Contact of the paroches with blood wasn't part of the daily avoda. Only YK, par heelem dovor shel tzibbur and par kohen moshiach.

 >(R' Arie Folger wrote that it was cleaned  twice a 
   >year.)

Cleaned twice a year? A source please?

WRT the original question, it could be that it isn't listed amongst avodos koshos because it was such a rare occurance, as opposed to chafina, malika and kamitza which took place regularly.

But is it physically possible to throw a drop of blood 20 amos?

Akiva Blum

Thank you all for your interest and observations.

 

Reb Micha raises very interesting points. I wish I knew enough to comment.

On the question of the BP being deemed to be shechted; this is not so. As
the first Mishnah of B"HaMekasheh explains only those parts of the animal
that are attached to it are included in the Shechitah. If the spleen is
detached (a non-treyfa injury) and left within the animal during shechitah,
the spleen may not be eaten, it has not been shechted. However, the same is
not true of the baby within the cow. That Ubbar is kosher and may be eaten
even if it is detached from its mother and even if it has been chopped into
mince, i.e. it has no simanim and is un-shechtable. There is another proof
for this but not for now.

On the comment of Reb Arie; The M"Chochma brings "proof" from the ShaAr
HaMelech who maintains that milk of a BP is Pareve, but he is clearly
defining the MEAT he offered as being BP meat. The terminology of ben and
bat Pekuah is discussed in the halacha and is not compelling. How old the BP
animals are is not relevant beyond the point of them having walked or stood
whereupon they require Shechitah (in most cases) bcs of Maris Ayin.

 

meir

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061127/b1e2375f/attachment.htm

On Sunday, 26. November 2006 14:24, avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
> 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.

Veyatza el hamizbeach asher lifnei HaShem (see Talmud Yoma on this -- consult 
a Torah Temimah) -- this teaches u sthat the golden spice altar was further 
towards the entrance of the sanctuary.

> 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.

One source, which the Talmud brands "an exageration" says that 300 kohanim 
would carry it when it was cleaned, IIRC twice yearly. The twice yearly part 
is no exageration.


Arie Folger

 
 
R' Akiva Blum writes:
>>Bigdei kehuna: The  gemorah states, Pesochim 65b, that soiled bigdei kehuna 
are  possul.<<

.
>>>>
My next question then is:  didn't they therefore need new begadim  every day?!

And what about the clothes of the kohen gadol -- very expensive clothes  it 
seems to me -- did they make new ones every day?!  
 
Or if they cleaned them, then they were no longer passul?  But then  -- how 
did they clean them?
 
If you bleach dyed wool it loses its color, if you don't bleach it, how  do 
you get blood stains out without losing the color?  Nowadays we have  amazing 
laundry products that actually can get out bloodstains without removing  dye 
but what did they do back then?
 
One possibility: if they soaked the clothes in cold water right away,  before 
the blood dried, they could maybe have gotten the blood out without  damaging 
the clothes.  Is that what they did? 
 
But then what about the paroches?  They couldn't well have taken it  down and 
washed it every day. (R' Arie Folger wrote that it was cleaned  twice a 
year.) But was it also pasul if stained?  I guess not.




--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061126/be361519/attachment.html

R' Joel Rich asked:
> Was there ever a post-sanhedrin period where this
> position would have a nafka-mina (i.e. 1 universally
> recognized authority)?

R' Micha Berger answered:
> If I agreed with your understanding of the Chinukh, how
> about Ravina veRav Ashi and the geonim?

In what way would "Ravina veRav Ashi and the geonim" constitute ONE 
authority?

And if RMB would amend that answer to simply "Ravina veRav Ashi", 
i.e., Talmud Bavli, then I'd ask, "Aren't there cases where we pasken 
like the Yerushalmi against the Bavli?" (not that I can think of any 
offhand, but I'm pretty sure I've heard of the phenomenon)

Akiva Miller

Regarding the two issues of 1- The Jewishness of the Medinah (whether Jews
having sovereignty makes the state Jewish) and 2- Qedushas ha'aretz

I would suggest a new book, Nachlat Yaakov, 2 Vols., 930 pgs. which, among
other topics, devotes, for example, 100 pages to the inyan of the three
oaths.

And to the point of the topic currently under discussion, the Gemera of Moed
Katan, 26A, reads that kri'ah should be done for "the cities of Judea, the
Mikdash and Yerushalyim" from which one can infer that these are three
separate matters in that each one merits the ceremony for something
intrinsic of each, i.e., although they are equally treated by kri'ah, there
are three distinct reasons why so or, on the other hand, while one might
think that they are at different levels, the decision is that they are
indeed equal after all.

There is an addition by Rabbi Chelbo there who adds a stipulation "in their
destruction" and the question is what is the definition of such status?  Is
it no Jews living there?  Is it physical destruction?  Or is it "kol she'yad
ha'ummot sholetet alav" - if sovereignty or its equivalent is in the nads of
the non-Jew?  For example, Jericho or Shchem today in that the ruling
authority has been recognized as an institution termed the Palestine
National Authority?  The Satmar Rav, R' Yoelisch z"l, considered a secular
Jewish government as worse ("elah adraba garua achshav b'otah
memshalah...d'galut ha'erev-rav kasha yoter m'galut ha'ummot" - Divrei Yoel,
O"H, 30:6).

The author, Rav Yaakov Zisberg, concludes that those cities administered by
the PNA do not require kri'ah unless an actual state is established by the
PNA.

-- 
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/20061126/f57e1376/attachment-0001.htm

I wrote:
To this we may add the process of the para adumah; in order to effect this tahara, the Kohen himself had to become tamei.I think that the haskafic implications of the fact that the Kohen had to defile himself in a minor way in order to effect a major purification of many people is obvious. 


RMBluke:

>>
This is actually a common fallacy that most people believe but is not true. Although the pasuk says "umazeh mei hanida yechabes begadav" seemingly saying that the Kohen who sprinkles becomes Tamei, Rashi there quotes the Gemara in Nidda that the Kohen who is Mazeh is actually tahor and only the nosey (the one who carries it) becomes tamei. In other words, the Kohen who performs the Tahara process on the person who is tamei does NOT himself become tamei. 
>>

RMBluke is correct: the person who sprinkles the mei chatat does not himself become tamei. My above observation that to effect tahara someone must himself become tamei is correctly connected to the one who *burns* the para adumah and prepares the ashes, not the one who sprinkles the water; note that I wrote "in order to effect this tahara, the Kohen himself had to become tamei" without specifying *which* Kohen. With this clarification, my statement stands.

Regarding the nosey who becomes tamei, as indicated in the gamara which appears in Yoma 14a as well as Nidda 9a, it is of interest that the Rambam in Para Adumah 15:1 stipulates that this applies only to one who carries the mei chatat *unnecessarily*, not for the purpose of hazaa; a nosey mei chatat in the course of the tahara process is not tamei. See the Kesef Mishna there who says that the Rambam derives this from the Tosefta, and mentions that the Rambam also so writes in Peirush HaMishnayot to Keilim 1:2. 

Saul Mashbaum

RMB wrote:
> 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?

First of all, yasher koach for introducing Bayesian statistics in laymen's 
terms. Theoretically, you are right that one might be able to accept DNA 
against 'igun and yet save mamzerim. That is precisely one of my points. The 
anonymous speaker whom I, along with so many other participants of the said 
conference, criticize, considered the problem DNA testing brings along at 
least as great as the benefit.

Of course, that speaker's argument my not be about the accuracy of DNA testing 
in each of the above cases, but about the likelihood of DNA testing being 
used in certain kinds of cases. Biological mamzerim are probably more common 
than 'agunot that can only be freed through the acceptance of DNA testing. 
Hence, said speaker worries more about the more common potential problem.

At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised if solid paternity testing based on DNA 
is, while much less reliable than a match against the person's own tissue, 
still sufficiently accurate to be hard to ignore in a case of alledged 
mamzerut.

Kind regards,

Arie Folger

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061127/8a544a2e/attachment.ksh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061127/8a544a2e/attachment.htm

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 4, Issue 14
*************************************

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..."