Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 4

Sun, 06 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: Fasting on YK (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: pregnant women fasting on YK (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Fasting on YK (Michael Elzufon)
• 4. "Mi-di..." is a Kal VaChomar formula (hlampel@koshernet.com)
• 5. Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur (Meir Shinnar)
• 6. Re: Fasting on YK (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Fasting on YK (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur (Daniel Israel)
• 9. Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Michael Makovi)
• 10. Accent on the Right Syllable in Krias Shema (Michael ORR)
• 11. How many Batei haMikdash? (Michael Makovi)
• 12. Re: [Areivim] Is it ..Galus (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 13. Re: Accent on the Right Syllable in Krias Shema (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)

>
>Rav Daniel Israel wrote:
>
>Without minimizing the importance of any of the issues you raise, I
>think there is another factor is strongly affecting the medical
>advice that is being given.  . . .
>but mostly, IMHO, driven by malpractice costs.  If I were an
>obstetrician, I would tell my patients not to fast, regardless of
>the metzius, simply because if there is any evidence of any level
>of risk, and something bad happened during the fast, I might get
>sued.

I think that this factor is truer in the US than in Israel. AFAIK 
doctors here are not subject to constant law suits, certainly not 
nearly at the level of their American colleagues.

KT

Ben

>  Rav Eli Turkel wrote:
>
>R. Nebenzahl is very mekil basically on the grounds given by
>Meir Sheinar. Others (i have heard it from R. Zilberstein) are machmir
>on the grounds that pregnant women have fasted on YK for many years
>and we have no record in shutim of any problems.

1) I read that Rav Yaacov Fisher gave a blanket heter for women in 
their 3rd trimester not to fast.
2) Your second point, that there is no record in shutim, I find very 
strange. Does a posek have to wait until the problem makes its way to 
a shut before reopening the question?

KT

Ben 

From: Richard Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net>

I recall a true story about an elderly gentleman who was told by his  
physician that due to medical complications, he was not to fast on  
Y.K.  The man told his wife that he wasn't listening to his doctor and  
would fast. The wife, quite concerned and upset, understandably so,  
contacted (through a third person) one of the g'dolei hador. The Rav  
called this man and explained to him that if his doctor informed him  
he was not to fast, then he must definitely not fast Y.K.  The man,  
quite stubborn, told the Rav that he had fasted for over 50 years and  
couldn't abide by his physician's order. The Rav gave one of the most  
brilliant responses I ever heard. He told the man: "You are an  
idolator." The man, stunned, asked the Rav: "What do you mean?" The  
Rav responded: "You're worshipping Y.K., not God."

[[MJE]] R. Zeev Leff tells that story from his years in Miami.  While he
gave that answer, he would not claim to be one of the g'dolei hador.

"Mi-di [kach...kach]" is a Kal VaChomar formula

I have learned something new in Bava Metsia 23b. We
see the rishonim (Tosefos, Rashba, others)
take it for granted that the talmudic formula
?mi-d?-that--[therefore] this? is not a simple
equation, but a kal va?chomer!

Gemara BM 23b regarding how a person can prove a lost
item is his:

From the fact that [identifying] the weight of an
object serves as identification [to prove ownership],
[one must conclude that identifying] dimensions or
quantities is also valid identifying proof.

Tosefos: This implies that identifying dimensions is
stronger [than identifying weight].

Rashba: How did the Gemara use a kal va?chomer to
answer...?

(Incidentally, Rashba does not have the girsa
"nammi," "also.")


Zvi Lampel

WRT some responses:
1) RDR suggests subgroup studies could be done.  i am not an
obstetrician, and this is not my area of expertise. However, I am not
aware of such studies.  Furthermore,  I don't think any institutional
review board would allow any such randomized study. Population reviews
could be done with subgroup analysis, the question is how much
accurate data is available.

The problem with historical analysis is that unless the specific
complication is temporally closey related to the fasting - such as
delivery within the next week, it may be very difficult to adequately
control historical data - as one is essentially looking at the
complication rate of the Jewish (or at least nominally observant
Jewish population) versus others - and this becomes confounded by all
the other differences besides fasting.  The studies I have seen focus
on increased delivery rate in the week post Yom Kippur.

Animal studies can be done, and some have been done - but the precise
relevance can always be debated.

2) RET says that some rabbanim argue that this problem is not
mentioned in the shut literature - and therefore can't be a halachic
issue.  As initially stated in areivim, current medical thinking (in
general - not specifically in this area) would place far greater
credence in the analysis of large sets of clinical experience, than in
the experience of any single practitioner - and the lack of the
realization that this was a problem does not reflect on the skill,
concern, or knowledge of the individual practitioners involved.
This would clearly apply here.
 Whether the level of risk  rises to halachically significant level
may be argued - but the argument from silence is, from a medical
perspective, not a serious one.

3) RDMI suggests that current medical practice, and especially
obstetricians, are risk averse - and their level of risk assessment
may not be halacha'.  As per my initial post, one of the halachic
issues that needs to be determined is precise determination of what
levels of risk are halachically acceptable.  However, being risk
averse is one way of saying that one is machmir on pikuach nefesh,
which has resonance in halachic terms.  Furthermore, to the extent
that halacha, in the case of pregnancy, has agreed that physicians may
detemine whether a particular case is risky - means that being machmir
on fasting also  requires changing classical halachic norms - as the
norm of the average pregnant woman fasting and the norm of listening
to physicians about the risk are in conflict...(you can't go back home
again)  - and the question is which norm one is more willing to
change..

Meir Shinnar

Just a reminder, that the discussion started with the leniency taken
in some communities WRT women fasting the minor fast days -- not YK or
9 beAv. It began on or shortly after 10 beTeves.

There, I don't think it's arguable that this is some new leniency, not
is it specific to Chassidos -- Litvisher women tended to take the
other days pretty lightly as well.

We got from there to the possibility that perhaps the leniency evolved
in error, from women who spent so many of their fasts either pregnant
or nursing.

But the notion of a blanket heter for pregnant women not to fast for
10 beTeves seems very plausible to me.

As for extending this to YK... It smacks much of our Torah and science
discussions -- RMS already raised nishtaneh hateva. (He proposed one
meaning, but we needn't agree on the meaning to acknowledge the
validity of applying NhT here.)

Perhaps relevant... Once upon a time, people didn't count on 3 square
meals a day. Fasting was therefore closer to the norm, and truly
caused depression rather than the pain many of us experience. I don't
know about other people, but for me, fasting on YK is a distraction
from teshivah, tefillah, distress over higher issues.

It could very well be that for simple sociological reasons, missing a
day of food hits a pregnant woman harder today than it did a century
ago.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

David Riceman wrote:
> Meir Shinnar wrote:
>   
>> Most obstetricians today would presumably (I am not an obstetrician)
>> argue that fasting poses some risks for all women.  As above, there is
>> statistical data on fasting increasing the delivery rate - as well as
>> mechanistic information to make this plausible.
>>   
>>     
> There are ways of testing whether the risk increases for everyone (e.g. 
> can one measure something correlated with miscarriages which actually 
> increases for everyone in a study) or for an unidentifiable 
> subpopulation.  Has anyone actually done this? If what you say is true, 
> of course, there would be ethical problems in performing such a study.
>   
On reflection I'm not sure I believe what I wrote (maybe the thing you 
measured affects health only in an unidentifiable subpopulation).  If, 
in fact, it is impossible to distinguish clinically between "a 
heightened level of risk for everyone" and "seriously increased risk for 
an unidentifiable subpopulation" would they nonetheless be halachically 
distinct?

David Riceman

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 09:40:08 -0700 Meir Shinnar 
<chidekel@gmail.com> wrote:
>3) RDMI suggests that current medical practice, and especially
>obstetricians, are risk averse - and their level of risk assessment
>may not be halacha'.  As per my initial post, one of the halachic
>issues that needs to be determined is precise determination of what
>levels of risk are halachically acceptable.  However, being risk
>averse is one way of saying that one is machmir on pikuach nefesh,
>which has resonance in halachic terms.  Furthermore, to the extent
>that halacha, in the case of pregnancy, has agreed that physicians 
>may detemine whether a particular case is risky - means that being 
>machmir on fasting also  requires changing classical halachic 
norms - 
>as the norm of the average pregnant woman fasting and the norm of 
>listening to physicians about the risk are in conflict...(you 
can't go 
>back home again)  - and the question is which norm one is more 
willing 
>to change..

I don't agree that "risk averse" is the same thing as "machmir on 
pikuach nefesh," at least as I was using it.  I am suggesting that 
doctors are giving advice in part based on how much it opens them 
up for lawsuits, rather than on best medical judgement.  IOW, one 
important criteria for deciding how to respond to a question is a 
factor that has nothing to do with medicine.  Machmir on pikuach 
nefesh means that we are choshesh for less likely dangers, but the 
decision as to how dangerous a particular risk is still needs to be 
made on the basis of best available medical information.

As far as the question of changing halachic norms, I would assume 
(although I haven't looked in the sources, so I may be wrong) that 
the reason we follow that doctors advice is because the halacha 
assumes something about how doctors advise.  If my suggestion is 
correct, then what has changed is not the metzius of the risk, but 
the nature of doctors advice.  In this case, the halachic norm you 
are referring to is no longer applicable.

I would compare it to asking a non-Jewish expert about a ta'am in a 
mixture of kosher and non-kosher food: if for some reason we found 
out that today's non-Jews don't answer this type of question 
reliably, then we would presumably change our reliance on them.

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

From Areivim "L conversion case"

>R MYG wrote:
>This might be for Avodah (so please answer there) but I don't >think that
there is any Chiyuv to be Mekabel Geirim, anyway.
>I'm not replying on Avodah since I do not as yet have the >particulars. Rav
Riskin's topic at his Shabbat Hagadol shiur last >year dealt with the chiyuv
not only to be mekabel gerim, but to >actively encourage gerut.
>Alas, I did not take notes. However, Ohr Torah usually produces >a CD of
the shiur the following year, so, hopefully I can report >back sometime in
Adar II with sources.
>
>David I. Cohen

To actively encourage gerut sounds strange; I'd be fascinated then to hear
what Rabbi Riskin says.

Regardless, there certainly seems basis to say there is a chiyuv to be
mekabel gerim; the Gemara in Yevamot says we don't push them away too much;
I'm not sure, but it seems reasonable that the reason is because once
someone shows an honest and eager desire to join Am Yisrael, we are required
to welcome them with open arms.

However, Rabbi Yehuda Henkin in Equality Lost, page 89, writes:

"Except for the case of a Gentile who repeatedly demonstrates his sincere
desire to convert 11...beit din is under no obligation to convert anyone.12"

11 - "Tosafot, Yevamot 109b, s.v. Ra'ah tachat ra'ah."
12 - "Beit din's obligation to convert commences only after a decision is
reached to accept the candidate; see Bnei Banim, ibid [vol 2]., p. 141."

The body of his text implies there is a chiyuv to be m'kabel; "EXCEPT for
the case" of someone who shows a sincere desire, there is no chiyuv to be
m'kabel, meaning there is a chiyuv to be m'kabel on someone who shows
sincere desire. But according to footnote 12, the chiyuv commences only when
the beit din decides to accept the candidate; if someone shows sincere
desire but the beit din does not accept him (for whatever reason), then
there is no chiyuv to be m'kabel despite his sincere desire.

A possible resolution would be the answer to the question, does a beit din
have the ability to reject a completely worthy candidate? If the answer is
no (i.e. if the beit din has a chiyuv to accept a worthy candidate), then in
effect, there is a chiyuv to be m'kabel, because there is a chiyuv to decide
to accept a worthy would-be-ger, and once that decision is made, there is
a chiyuv to convert him, and these two chiyuvim combine to make a chiyuv to
convert a worthy candidate.

Does anyone have Rabbi Henkin's teshuvot Bnei Banim on hand? My rabbi
probably does (my rabbi's rabbi is Rabbi Henkin himself), but I won't see
him until yom rishon.

Mikha'el Makovi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080104/4566f287/attachment.htm 

 
  OC 61 deals with the requirement for proper pronunciation of krias shema, but unless I am missing something there appears to be an absence of any discussion of the need to put the accent on the proper syllable (as indicated by the masoretic text).  In some cases, accents can change the meaning significantly, for example:
   
  -"veahavTA" (you shall love Hashem) versus "veaHAVta" (you loved Hashem);
   
  -"veshinanTAM" levanecha (you shall teach your sons) versus "veshiNANtam" (you taught your sons) 
   
  -"vedibarTA" bam (you shall speak in them) versus "vediBARta" bam (you spoke in them).
   
  OC 61:23 sounds like it might deal with accents, (?not to make weak sounds strong or strong sounds weak?) but the commentators that I have seen say it refers to making sure to pronounce letters with or without a dagesh where it makes a difference (based on its source in Rambam).   It seems that the whole of siman 61 dealing with pronunciation issues does not deal with the issue of accents.  This omission seems strange, since accents are (a) clearly part of the masoretic text, and (b) significantly affect the meaning in some cases.   
   
  Can anyone provide an authoritative source for the obligation to put the accent on the proper syllable? 
   
  Kol tuv,
   
  Michael Orr, Toronto
  michaelorr@rogers.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080103/a4aa15ab/attachment.html 

On Areivim, R' Moshe Feldman wrote:
Our gedolim have
taken the position, based on gemaras, that once we have returned from
the second galus, we have a promise from Hashem that klal yisrael in
EY will survive.  Therefore, we can be certain that there is no risk
at all of the Jewish people in EY surviving. <<

On Avodah R' Doron Beckerman wrote:
This is not clear cut. We have no guarantee that this is the true Kibbutz
Galuyos which is immune to destruction. RSRH writes in a number of places
that any human attempt at a mass return of Klal Yisrael to its Land was,
similar to the Bar Kokhba revolt, potentially disastrous. And he held that
even a mass return of Jews to EY was no guarantee against losing this
Yishuv.

------


proper or improper (RSRH), it seems evident that there is no guarantee
that this is the THE true second kibbutz galuyot.

But my question, which is a rather un-Orthodox (capital O) question,
but one which I've never been able to get an answer to:

From where do we know that there will be three temples? We are taught
that Chizkiyahu could have been Mashiach with the First Temple, and
had we returned with Ezra, geula would have come then - with the
Second Temple. And given the despair at the destruction of the Second,
it seems unlikely that there was a tradition that there would be three
temples, for then everyone no one would have been troubled at the
destruction of either temple; there'd be no theological difficulties
whatsoever if there had been a tradition that there'd be three. Thus,
it seems evident that geula could have come with the Second Temple,
and not necessarily with the Third. So how do we know it will come
with the Third and not the Fourth? Certainly, geula will come, but how
did Chazal know it would come with the Third Temple? There is
obviously no tradition to this effect, so how do we know it?

If one says Daniel, then the objection is, since when do we know what
Daniel says?

Mikha'el Makovi

In the Areivim thread "Is it ..Galus", TorahMike wrote:
> Hyou can possibly compare us to those who violated the
> words of the Navi Ezra. Ezra is not around telling US
> to move to Israel! It's the difference between violating
> and not violating divrei navi. RMF( among the many
> poskim), who paskens there is no such chiyuv, is not
> telling everyone to be over divrei navi. 

I'm glad he used the phrase "divrei navi", because it made me think of an interesting question that I don't know if I ever heard before.

This thread had included comments and quotes of poskim regarding whether or not Aliyah is a chiyuv, mitzvah or reshus, d'Oraisa or d'rabanan. But now I'm curious: What was its status in Ezra's time?

Of course, for millenia Chazal have taught us to mourn the fact that so few Jews heeded Ezra's call to return to Eretz Yisrael. But my curiosity is now piqued: Exactly what were they guilty of? Was it a chiyuv d'Oraisa that they ignored? A mitzvah d'rabanan? Or maybe they simply opted out of following one of the great Religious Zionists of all time?

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Boost your business with a small business loan. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3no7ZLrbVBMRCYEJc1oLuBWIaRsE3kBD9817fyt5csLC1lP8/

Michael ORR wrote:
>  
>   OC 61 deals with the requirement for proper pronunciation of krias
> shema, but unless I am missing something there appears to be an
> absence of any discussion of the need to put the accent on the proper
> syllable (as indicated by the masoretic text).

>   Can anyone provide an authoritative source for the obligation to
> put the accent on the proper syllable? 

61:24 requires saying KSh with the ta'amim as they are written in the
Torah.  The ta'amim are the accents.



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

If we believe that Yahadus is emes and that yakiru v'yeid'u kol yoshvei 
teivel that emes, how can we /not/ have a chiyuv to be mekaabel geirim!?

I think the omission from Halacha of the Mechilta forbidding Kabbolas 
Geirim from Amalek is rooted in this logical conclusion.

KT,
YGB

Michael Makovi wrote:
> From Areivim "L conversion case"
>  
> >R MYG wrote:
> >This might be for Avodah (so please answer there) but I don't >think 
> that there is any Chiyuv to be Mekabel Geirim, anyway.
> >I'm not replying on Avodah since I do not as yet have the 
> >particulars. Rav Riskin's topic at his Shabbat Hagadol shiur last 
> >year dealt with the chiyuv not only to be mekabel gerim, but to 
> >actively encourage gerut.
> >Alas, I did not take notes. However, Ohr Torah usually produces >a CD 
> of the shiur the following year, so, hopefully I can report >back 
> sometime in Adar II with sources.
> >
> >David I. Cohen
>
> To actively encourage gerut sounds strange; I'd be fascinated then to 
> hear what Rabbi Riskin says.
>
> Regardless, there certainly seems basis to say there is a chiyuv to be 
> mekabel gerim; the Gemara in Yevamot says we don't push them away too 
> much; I'm not sure, but it seems reasonable that the reason is because 
> once someone shows an honest and eager desire to join Am Yisrael, we 
> are required to welcome them with open arms.
>  
> However, Rabbi Yehuda Henkin in Equality Lost, page 89, writes:
>  
> "Except for the case of a Gentile who repeatedly demonstrates his 
> sincere desire to convert 11...beit din is under no obligation to 
> convert anyone.12"
>  
> 11 - "Tosafot, Yevamot 109b, s.v. Ra'ah tachat ra'ah."
> 12 - "Beit din's obligation to convert commences only after a decision 
> is reached to accept the candidate; see Bnei Banim, ibid [vol 2]., p. 
> 141."
>  
> The body of his text implies there is a chiyuv to be m'kabel; "EXCEPT 
> for the case" of someone who shows a sincere desire, there is no 
> chiyuv to be m'kabel, meaning there is a chiyuv to be m'kabel on 
> someone who shows sincere desire. But according to footnote 12, the 
> chiyuv commences only when the beit din decides to accept the 
> candidate; if someone shows sincere desire but the beit din does not 
> accept him (for whatever reason), then there is no chiyuv to be 
> m'kabel despite his sincere desire.
>  
> A possible resolution would be the answer to the question, does a beit 
> din have the ability to reject a completely worthy candidate? If the 
> answer is no (i.e. if the beit din has a chiyuv to accept a worthy 
> candidate), then in effect, there is a chiyuv to be m'kabel, because 
> there is a chiyuv to decide to accept a worthy would-be-ger, and once 
> that decision is made, there is a chiyuv to convert him, and these two 
> chiyuvim combine to make a chiyuv to convert a worthy candidate.
>  
> Does anyone have Rabbi Henkin's teshuvot Bnei Banim on hand? My rabbi 
> probably does (my rabbi's rabbi is Rabbi Henkin himself), but I won't 
> see him until yom rishon.
>
> Mikha'el Makovi
>
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080104/6667c6ec/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 4
*************************************

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..."