Avodah Mailing List

Volume 22: Number 6

Tue, 12 Dec 2006

• 1. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Fwd: Kissing Places In A Sefer Torah (SBA)
• 3. Eidut (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 4. Yaakov's division of his family into two camps (Elchanan Schulgasser)
• 5. Re: Yaakov's division of his family into two camps (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 6. Re: [Areivim] Halachic Infertility, or, Abolishing Shivah Neki'im (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 8. Fwd: Reminder - Monday evening begin Prayer forRain (Aryeh Stein)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] URL: article about halachic infertility and proposed changes to hilchos nidah (Zev Sero)
• 10. Halachic Infertility, or, Abolishing Shivah Neki'im (Ilana Sober)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] Halachic Infertility, or, Abolishing Shivah Neki'im (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 13. Halachic justification for short sleeves (Moshe Feldman)

I didn't yet read RDE's post, nor this recent e-shiur from YHE (by R' Eli
Hadad). But I think the two are related
<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/rambam/07rambam.htm>.

On the web page (which I got as email), all I noticed was a chart which
indicates that a good king receives an overflow of imagination (really koach
hadimyon, I presume), and a good philosopher receives an overflow of
intellect, but a navi has gotten an overflow of both.

I just wanted to send this out before Shabbos, so that people (perhaps only
the single-email subscribers) can print up the web page and read it.

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

From: RallisW@aol.com
Does anyone know where the Lubavitch minhog of touching one's tzitzis  to
both the begining and end of an Aliyoh comes  from?
>>

Presumably you are referring to sweeping the Tallis over the 
section being layned - before and after the brochos.

AFAIK, this is not an excludive Lubavitch minhag, but done by all.

See Shaarei Efrayim (Shaar 4:3 - and also mentioned in 4:17 
giving a  reason for it)  saying that it is a 'minhag vasikin'.

However it seems to mention this only before the first brocho -
and not the last.

The Munkatcher Rav zt'l in his Nimukei OCh (s.139) strongly 
disapproves of this, vezeh leshono: 
"...aderaba gorem harbeh kilkul leST..." and 
"...kamo pe'amim biseforov hayekorim mevi minhagim she'einom 
rak minhag am haaretz me'iroy...bimechilas kevod Toroso...gormo 
lehachriv harbeh ST ulemoch'kon ad sh'hevion liy'dei psul, Hashem 
yatzileinu.."

SBA 

Halachically, is a victim of a crime supposed to go to a Beit Din and report the crime?  

Does it change things if he knows who performed the crime?

Does it change things if he doesn't have a witness to back him up vs. if he has a witness to back up his claims?

Is reporting the crime part of mitzvat Eidut?  If a witness to the crime does not come forward, is this a transgression of Mitzvat Eidut? of "Lo Ta'amod Al Dam"? or is he guilty of Lashon HaRa if he is the sole witness?

When we say that we need two witnesses, do the witnesses have to come together? Do they have to know about the existence of each other?

Shoshana L. Boublil

Does anyone know how Yaakov Avinu divided his family before his encounter
with Eisav? I looked around a bit but couldn't find anyone who addresses
this specific question (although there's an intriguing Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh
which explains that he armed one camp and left one unarmed, ibid.)

Some suggestions might be:
Rachel in one camp, Leah in the other, each with her respective shifchah.

Leah in one camp, the other wives in the other camp (balance of numbers)

Representatives from each maternal family in each camp (to preserve elements
of each family if one camp is wiped out.)

Etc.

Has anyone seen a p'shat?

Elchanan Schulgasser
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061210/adc0ae8b/attachment.html 

R' Elchanan Schulgasser:
Does anyone know how Yaakov Avinu divided his family before his encounter
with Eisav? I looked around a bit but couldn't find anyone who addresses
this specific question (although there's an intriguing Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh
which explains that he armed one camp and left one unarmed, ibid.) 
<snip>

To add to the question, it seems that when Eisav finally did arrive,
Ya'akov's whole family was there to greet him. What, then, was the point of
dividing them earlier?

KT,
MYG

On Mon, December 11, 2006 4:57 am, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote to Areivim:
: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798797.html

For a more serious discussion, see
<http://www.yoatzot.org/article/77> -- Halachic Infertility - Diagnosis
<http://www.yoatzot.org/article/63> -- Treatment

There are ways of shortening the time until a hefseiq taharah as well. But if
all else fails, there have been pesaqim lequlah -- at least before IVF. Now
that a couple can produce a baby without violating minhag yisrael, as IVF-H
involves simpler halachic issues (donation for the purpose of procreation)
than eliminating 7 neqiim, I do not know if those teshuvos are still applied.

But finding a doctor who wants to do away with minhag yisrael altogether is
just a Haaretzism, and an Areivim discussion if anywhere.

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

R' David Riceman wrote:
>
> How do you deal with all the places in Tanach where the prophet 
> intervenes in politics, or, for example, the Rambam's example in the 
> introduction to PHM where the prophet commands people to fight a 
> battle on Shabbat?
>
Intervening in politics i.e., making prophetic pronouncments that impact 
society or government is not being a political leader. Commanding people 
to fight on Shabbos is also not an example of leadership. I think there 
were only two prophets who could qualify as leaders Moshe and Shmuel. In 
fact they were both viewed as Prophet-Kings. The other prophets did not 
serve the same function. I have not seen any statement of the Rambam 
that he considers prophets to be leaders.

Regarding the  article from VBM by Rav Hadad who states that: " It seems 
that Maimonides wishes to use this comparison to demonstrate that a 
prophet is a combination of a philosopher and a political leader." He 
cites no evidence at all for this hypothesis and I am not aware of any 
sources that justify it.

Daniel Eidensohn 

[from Areivim]

>>>It's the old minnek in general (as so often...). The "ve-imru
omein" seems to have crept in from the end of gantz kaddish both to
Eloukai netzour and the end of benshen. It doesn't make sense unless
it's said to somebody else, does it?>>>

============================================
I'm pretty sure we've discussed this on Avodah before, but RSZA
explains that when we say "v'imru amen" in our silent shemonah esrai,
we are asking the malachim (who escort us everywhere we go) to answer
amen.

KT and GS,
Aryeh

> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798797.html

>  Within this situation is a failure of internal logic: It is
> unreasonable that a ruling that derives from a humra of Jewish women
> will produce a conflict with the first commandment in the Torah - to
> be fruitful and multiply.

Has this man never heard of "shev ve'al taaseh"?  Does he hear shofar
on RH which is on shabbat?

In any case, both women and men are obligated by the laws of nidah and
zivah, while only men are obligated by pru urvu, which means that the
woman would have to break a law, even if only a light derabanan, in
order for her husband to fulfil a mitzvah; this reduces the question
to the already-solved one of rediyat hapat, where the psak is that
"we do not tell one person to sin so that another person will benefit".
(The chumra of 7 nekiyim seems analogous to the issur of rediyat hapat,
which is not even a shevut; and the benefit to the second party in this
case is only an asei, rather than being saved from an issur karet.  So
it seems to me to be a kal vachomer.)

(And that's leaving aside the consideration that if the husband is so
concerned about the mitzvah he can fulfil it with another woman.) 


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

Moderators - this thread started on Areivim so I'm cc'ing both lists - feel
free to reject from Areivim.

The seven clean days requirement is based on a SAFEK D'ORAITA. We can no
longer distinguish niddah from zivah, because we have lost the mesorah of
which precise four shades of red and one of black render a woman niddah
d'oraita. This makes it impossible to pinpoint the halachic onset of
bleeding, which means we can no longer keeep an accurate niddah-zivah
calendar. Based on this safek d'oraita, a woman needs to count six clean
days whenever she experiences ANY bleeding, and seven clean days when she
bleeds for at least three days. This is the takanah of Rebbi baSadot. The
chumra of b'not yisra'el, cited by Rabbi Zeira, is actually a rather a small
extension of that decree - she counts an extra clean day even if she bleeds
only for one or two days, so that she consistently counts seven no matter
what.

Dr. Rosenak sounds unusually cautious in his attitude towards hormones. I
cannot tell you how many kallot I have met who have been using birth control
pills since adolescence for acne, painful periods, and who knows what else.
Physicians are usually quite willing to prescribe hormones for "lifestyle"
concerns, and I don't know why religious concerns should be any less
serious.

In any case, physicians have no more business paskening halacha (which
requires a level of knowledge and shikul daat that Dr. Rosenak seems unable
even to conceive of - "research" is insufficient) than rabbis do prescribing
hormones. I am glad he trembles at the risk of a stroke from hormones (IIUC,
this risk is statistically quite low, especially with proper advance
screening for risk factors). Does he also tremble at the risk of violating
an issur karet if a woman who halachically really is a zavah immerses
without the shivah neki'im?

The problem of halachic infertility should certainly not be minimized.
Fundamentally, it is a result of churban, galut, the lack of a sanhedrin,
etc. No - the halachic system is not perfect and even causes suffering. Dr.
Rosenak is correct that in this case, as in others, the problem is not that
G-d designed an imperfect system, but that the system has deteriorated. He
misidentifies the cause of the deterioration as "the rabbis." The cause of
the deterioration is churban and galut - the rabbis are those who saved the
system from total disintegration. Perhaps, rather than secretly breathing a
sigh of relief that we are no longer burdened with primitive practices like
animal sacrifice, we should take note of the broader implications of
churban.

Yh"r sheyibaneh beit hamikdash bimhera b'yamenu.

Note: Any woman who suspects she has halachic infertility should confirm
that she is, in fact, ovulating early. Ovulation tests are commercially
available. If this does turn out to be the problem, there are some halachic
interventions that should be tried before medical interventions such as
hormones.
1) Asking a she'elah on attempts at a hefsek as early as day four/five (see
#2) - making sure that the Rav is aware of the halachic infertility problem.
A hefsek does not have to be pure white!!! Some browns are in fact
permissible, especially b'shaat hadchak. Similarly, questions should be
asked about any other problematic stains or bedikot during shivah neki'im.
2) Asking a she'elah about reducing the minimum days before shivah neki'im
from five to four, even for Ashkenazim. In extreme situations, it may be
possible to devise strategies for further reduction if bleeding stops early
enough.

- Ilana

 

On Mon, December 11, 2006 4:57 am, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote to
Areivim:
: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798797.html

For a more serious discussion, see
<http://www.yoatzot.org/article/77> -- Halachic Infertility - Diagnosis
<http://www.yoatzot.org/article/63> -- Treatment

There are ways of shortening the time until a hefseiq taharah as well.
But if all else fails, there have been pesaqim lequlah -- at least
before IVF. Now that a couple can produce a baby without violating
minhag yisrael, as IVF-H involves simpler halachic issues (donation for
the purpose of procreation) than eliminating 7 neqiim, I do not know if
those teshuvos are still applied.

But finding a doctor who wants to do away with minhag yisrael altogether
is just a Haaretzism, and an Areivim discussion if anywhere.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi
==========================================
I thought the issue was the additional 5 days, not the 7 neqiim. IIRC
except for lo plug (I know that's a big except) there could be
circumstances where the logic of all the extra 5 days would not apply.

I'm also curious about your calculus of "simpler halachik issues", I
agree that the vast majority of contemporary poskim allow it in cases of
infertility. IIRC at least some say there is no kiyum of pru urvu
("just" shevet) and in theory they are "allowing" the infertility
argument to overcome haschatat zera and identification of parents'
concerns.

What if a woman's cycle were such that if we shortened the 5 to 4 she
could get pregnant. I'm guessing that using some of the possibilities
alluded to above, a posek might well say not to go ivf but rely on such
a kula (especially given the cost of IVF).

Of course my memory on these items may be patchy, lmaaseh , and
especially in print, my recollection is that these types of issues are
all covered under consult your LOR.

KT
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

R' David Riceman wrote:
> From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
>
>> Intervening in politics i.e., making prophetic pronouncments that 
>> impact society or government is not being a political leader.
>
> This distinction is too subtle for me.  Could you give a concrete 
> example of something the Rambam would think inappropriate for a 
> prophet and the Ramban would think appropriate?

My suggestion is that the Rambam views the prophet in the same way as we 
view a mashgiach - in relationship to to a rosh yeshiva or a magid in 
relationship to a rav. Someone who advises or suggest rather than having 
a position of leadership. Someone who is sensitive, wise and insightful  
- but doesn't have political or decision making power. In contrast a 
king or political leader is not necessary wise or sensitive but he makes 
the decisions and sees that they are implemented. While there are times 
when the prophet has a specific message or action that is required - but 
he is not a leader.  In contrast we today view our gedollim as being 
endowed with ruach hakodesh.

A specific example is that the Rambam does not allow the involvement of 
ruach hakodesh in the Sanhedrin while the Ramban does. The Divrei Chaim 
clearly states that each generations leaders are qualified by their 
ruach hakodesh. Prophecy or ruach hakodesh seems to be an essential 
characteristic for those who reject the Rambam's understanding of 
prophecy and ruach hakodesh.

Another distinguishing factor between the Rambam's concept and others is 
whether the prophet must be obeyed in everything he says or just what he 
says in G-d's name.

Chinuch(516): We are commanded to listen to all the prophets in all that 
they command us to do. They are to be obeyed even if they tell us to 
temporarily do something against one of the mitzvos of the Torah or even 
many of them - except for idol worship. Since he is a true prophet all 
his intentions are for the good and whatever he does it is to strenghten 
the religion and the belief in G?d. This is clearly stated in the Torah 
(Devarim 18:15) and is explained in the Sifre (175). The basis of this 
mitzva is that the ultimate level that a man can achieve is that of a 
prophecy. Furthermore for a human being in this world, prophecy is the 
highest level of knowledge of the truth possible. It is knowledge that 
is not open to dispute since it comes from the fountain of truth itself. 
Few people achieve the level of development that is required to reach 
prophecy. The ladder needed to reach it is immense with its feet on the 
earth and its top in the heavens. Who is the man with the proper fear of 
G?d who has the merit to ascend G?d's mountain and stand in His holy 
place? Only one of hundreds of thousands of men achieves this level and 
only in a generation that is deserving of it. Therefore the Torah 
commanded us that one who in fact achieves this ultimate level of human 
achievement and he is known to us as having the spiritual qualities and 
conduct of a true prophet ? he is to be obeyed in all that he commands. 
That is because he is the one who knows the way of truth and therefore 
he will guide us in it. We should not be so arrogant as to defy his 
words and to disagree with him because any dispute with him on any 
matter is a total error and can only be because of the lack of knowledge 
of the truth.

 The Minchas Chinuch (#516) asserts that the Rambam only requires 
obedience to a prophet when he says that Gd has commanded the action. In 
contrast the Chinuch seems to require that everything that a prophet 
says must be obeyed.

Daniel Eidensohn

Shu"t Bnei Banim III:26 par. 4 writes the following "limud zchus" on women
who wear short sleeves:
The Gemara Kesubos 72b writes that a woman who knits in public and shows her
elbows while doing so violates das yehudis.  The Gemara Gittin 90a refers to
a woman who knits in public and who is "fruma m'shnei tzdadeha," which Rashi
interprets as: one can see her armpits [MF: through the openings in her
sleeves].  He also cites the Teferes Shmuel on the Rosh Berachos 3:33, and
Divrei Chamudos there, and Yerushalmi [Gittin ch. 9 halacha 11] who make the
same point.  He then argues that the das yehudis is violated only if one can
see the armpits [through the openings in her sleeves], which occurs today
only when a woman wears a sleeveless dress.

I have a different limud zechus, based on the fact that showing elbows is
considered das yehudis.  Many years ago, I heard a shiur from Rav Mordechai
Willig (whom I believe was speaking in the name of RYBS) about shok b'isha
erva.  He noted that there is a machlokes achronim (Chazon Ish vs. Mishneh
Berurah) whether the shok goes to the knee or to the bottom of the foot.  He
said (IIRC based on a comparison to the location of shok in animals) that
there is a good argument that shok refers to the bottom of the foot, but
nevertheless, the gemara was not listing only places which are objectively
erva (in all societies), but even places which are "subjectively" erva-i.e.,
because people in the time of the gemara had the minhag to cover them, they
have the din of mekomos ha'muchusim.  However, in our time, when women do
not cover to the bottom of the leg, that part is not considered "subjective"
erva.  It would seem that the same reasoning should apply to elbows (esp. as
Bnei Banim notes that elbows are further from the makom erva than legs are).


I also note that Rashi Kesubos 72a explains "das yehudis" as "what women
were noheg even though it's not written."  It would therefore make sense
that das yehudis should be fluid and depend on the way women dress in any
particular locale.  I admit that theoretically, one could argue that once
something becomes das yehudis, it never loses that status, but from a
historical perspective, such an argument would be hard to make: it seems
that in the time of the Shulchan Aruch, single women covered their hair (as
is customary by Arab women today), yet that is not done today.   (The Magen
Avraham argues that the Torah merely requires that hair be braided, but that
does not deal with the fact that in practice, single "bnos yisrael" used to
cover their hair.)

I wrote the following at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n075.shtml#17:

) I believe that R Ovadia Yosef proves pretty convincingly that
) sheitels violated daas yehudis in the time of the gemara--the Aruch says
) that Kapaltin (the word used in the Yerushalmi instead of Kalsa, used by
the
) Bavli) means a wig in Latin (lashon Romi).  (My father told me that
) capilitium means little hair, or something like that.)  The Shiltei
) Hagiborim is shver (and I've read lots of the tshuvos--both pro and con
) dealing with the SHG).

) My chiddush on what ROY says is that because sheitels are in the realm of
) daas yehudis, society can decide to be meikel against the gemara's
) standards.  

Has anyone heard whether Rav Lichtenstein says about short sleeves?  (I
heard third-hand rumors, but would like to confirm them.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 6594 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061212/0a1775ca/attachment.bin 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 5, Issue 6
************************************

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..."