Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 5

Sun, 06 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: [Areivim] Is it ..Galus (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Kashrut of Cloning (Liron Kopinsky)
• 3. Re: Sometimes Chutzpah is Praiseworthy (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Sometimes Chutzpah is Praiseworthy (Chana Luntz)
• 5. Tefillin retzuos black on both sides? (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Re: Kashrut of Cloning (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] Is it ..Galus (Michael Makovi)
• 9. Re: pregnant women fasting on YK (Moshe Shulman)
• 10. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Michael Makovi)
• 11. Mitzvah to ensure safety of Am Yisrael? (Michael Makovi)
• 12. Re: Tefillin retzuos black on both sides? (David Riceman)

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
_____________________________________________________________
Or maybe (sometimes I'm tempted to say worst of all -with me as the
direct object) they were guilty of not doing what iirc R' Asher Weiss
often refers to as the "ratzon hatorah"

KT
Joel Rich
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.

http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?id=13575-fda-declares-cloning

A few questions to think about:
1) Are cloned animals kosher at all?

2) If kosher, are they still considered meat?
2b) does it matter if they were "born" from a test tube or by implanting
them into a uterus?

3) If they aren't kosher, will Chalav Yisroel become an absolute Chiyuv in
America again?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080104/cc8e73de/attachment.html 

I wrote:
>  Ain chachma, v'ain tavona v'ain aitza l'neged Hashem and 
> therefore kol makom sheyesh bo chillul Hashem, ain cholkin 
> kavod l'rav (See Sanhedrin 82a, Eruvin 63a,  Shavuos 30b and 
> Brochos 19b for details and the application of this principle). 

And RJR replied:
> ================================================================
> I always understood this to mean one could pasken in front of 
> one's rebbi without his permission in certain emergency 
> circumstances ,I'm not sure it would apply to pointing out 
> something to one's rebbi (unless one felt this would get 
> quicker action?)\ 

Why Not?

The essence of the issue is that while kavod haRav is an important
concept, kavod of HKBH is more important.  And if an averah is going to
be committed, the kavod of HKBH will be slighted, and one must therefore
do what is necessary to stop this, even if it involves violating kavod
haRav.  The language of the gemora (see Eruvin 63a) is that is it
permitted "lefrushe m'isura". Yes that was a case where somebody else
was about to violate shabbas by tying up his donkey to a tree on shabbas
and Ravina shouted to him to stop in front of his rav and then
threatened to excomunicate him - Ravina then asked if this was wrong and
was told ain chachma - kol makom sheyesh bo chilul Hashem ain cholkin
kavod l'Rav.  Similarly in Shevuos 30b, the issue is a Rav testifying in
a case which is beneath his dignity, and while he is allowed not to do
this for dinnei mamonos, aval bisura ain chochma etc.  The point being
that the risk to the kavod of Hashem in a case of issur is sufficient to
mean that the kavod of the Rav must be set aside.

I can't see why this does not apply in the case of Miriam.  If you grant
that she was right, and that what Amram was doing in seperating from his
wife was worse than Pharoah, then surely on the lefrushe m'isura
principle, she had to speak up, despite him being the gadol hador.  In
fact this case is not unanalogous to the one in Sanhedrin 82a, which is
where Pinchas speaks up in front of Moshe Rabbanu to deal with Zimri
etc.  Yes it is slightly different, in that it is not just a matter of
poskening wrongly or failing to posken, but of actually acting wrongly,
but if anything that seems like a kol v'chomer.  If Amram was not just
poskening wrongly, or failing to posken, but was actually doing an
issur, and causing the people to thereby do an issur, how much greater a
chillul HaShem can there be?  And the proof of the pudding would seem to
be, that by not being together with his wife, he was holding up the
geula, because as soon as he got back together with her, hey presto,
Moshe Rabbanu.  

So it seems to me reasonably pashut that despite this being a  violation
of kavod av, and kavod rav, and kavod gadol hador, it was a praiseworthy
act for Miriam, because it was as she identified a chillul HaShem.  And
therefore she was correct to rebuke him, and hence that the pasuk was
indeed praising her by referring to her as Puah.

>KT Joel Rich 

Shavuah tov

Chana

I just wrote:

> I can't see why this does not apply in the case of Miriam.  If you grant
> that she was right, and that what Amram was doing in seperating from his
> wife was worse than Pharoah, then surely on the lefrushe m'isura
> principle, she had to speak up, despite him being the gadol hador.  In
> fact this case is not unanalogous to the one in Sanhedrin 82a, which is
> where Pinchas speaks up in front of Moshe Rabbanu to deal with Zimri etc.
> Yes it is slightly different, in that it is not just a matter of poskening
> wrongly or failing to posken, but of actually acting wrongly, but if
> anything that seems like a kol v'chomer.  If Amram was not just poskening
> wrongly, or failing to posken, but was actually doing an issur, and
> causing the people to thereby do an issur, how much greater a chillul
> HaShem can there be?  And the proof of the pudding would seem to be, that
> by not being together with his wife, he was holding up the geula, because
> as soon as he got back together with her, hey presto, Moshe Rabbanu.
> 
> So it seems to me reasonably pashut that despite this being a  violation
> of kavod av, and kavod rav, and kavod gadol hador, it was a praiseworthy
> act for Miriam, because it was as she identified a chillul HaShem.  And
> therefore she was correct to rebuke him, and hence that the pasuk was
> indeed praising her by referring to her as Puah.


BTW you realise of course that this case can be seen as the flip side of the
loshen hora incident with Moshe Rabbanu.  Here as there, the gadol hador had
separated from his wife.  Here as there, Miriam stands up and criticises.
But in the one case she gets praised and rewarded, and in the other she gets
criticised and punished.  It seems to me that the key difference is that
here she was right, and there she was wrong.  And that is why the first
thing that HKBH does in that case is demonstrate to her how wrong she was,
and how if you think it through she was not in fact defending His honour,
but diminishing it.  Once the chillul HaShem aspect disappears, the
justification for the chutzpah disappears, and therefore the prohibition
returns full force.

Shavuah tov

Chana

My son's bar mitzva is approaching so I had to order tefillin for him.
In the process I heard of a new chumra, the retzuos should be black on
both sides. Does anyone have a source for this? Is this really a new
chumra or is this an established minhag? I personally never heard or
saw retzuos like that until now.

 
http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?id=13575-fda-declares-cloning

A few questions to think about:
1) Are cloned animals kosher at all? 

2) If kosher, are they still considered meat?
2b) does it matter if they were "born" from a test tube or by implanting
them into a uterus?

3) If they aren't kosher, will Chalav Yisroel become an absolute Chiyuv
in America again? 
 ====================================================
 
These questions have been touched on in a number of shiurim on YUTORAH,
much more in depth w/r/t related questions with  humans.  My general
take is the jury is out, the mekorot are sparse, and the final decisions
will be more  lev shel torah ones.  BTW I'd add what is the status of
their natural descendants.
 
KT
Joel Rich
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080106/7d4212fa/attachment.htm 

 



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,
YG 
==========================================
It would seem to me that the fact that chazal "darshened" from the torah
that we could be mkabeil geirim after the churban even without a karban
would support the thesis of a positive requirement (else we would just
not have accepted any more)
KT
Joel Rich 
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080106/282ecb74/attachment.html 

On Jan 4, 2008 9:52 PM, Rich, Joel <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> _____________________________________________________________
> Or maybe (sometimes I'm tempted to say worst of all -with me as the
> direct object) they were guilty of not doing what iirc R' Asher Weiss
> often refers to as the "ratzon hatorah"
>
> KT
> Joel Rich

Indeed. It cannot be a mere d'rabanan, nor can it merely be refusing
to follow Ezra. It must be "ratzon haTorah", i.e. an overarching
demand of the Torah that underlies the entire Torah.

For if we say that we are led to the Land to do the mitzvot davka
there, and if we say that we are to be a holy nation and kingdom of
priests davka in the land, then it is almost meaningless to ask which
mitzvah we violated. Either we violated a meta-mitzvah (i.e. "to be
holy" encompasses the whole Torah, and so too yishuv erertz Yisrael;
neither can be enumerated as part of the 613 according to Rambam,
because they are too important to be individual mitzvot), or we
violated a very specific mitzvah (Ramban to Sefer haMitzvot), but not
just any mitzvah, but one that is indispensable to the rest (eg., the
prohibition of idolatry is technically no more a mitzvah than to keep
kosher or wave a lulav, but abandoning idolatry is clearly a very
different issue; Chazal never said kashrut or lulav is equal to all
the mitzvot of the Torah, whereas Chazal said davka this in regards to
idolatry and yishuv eretz yisrael. More, Chazal said that one who
lives in chutz is like one who worships idols! Clearly, to abandon
Hashem and to abandon haAretz are akin; apparently, because all of the
mitzvot depend equally on belief in Hashem and in living in Eretz
Yisrael.)

Mikha'el Makovi

>From: Ben Waxman <ben1456@smile.net.il>
> >  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?

As to whether pregnant women fasting on  YK, I have never heard any 
leniency on that. My wife had one of our children 11 Tishrei, so I 
would have known. :) As to the other fasts, on the minor ones they do 
not fast, and I heard from my Rebbe, the Bobover Rov  ZT'L that my 
wife was not allowed to fast 9 Av. (I have yet to find any community 
that is a lenient with regards to fasting. This heter applied to 
nursing women also.)

As to not being in the Shut, I suppose one needs to see the recent 
works like Nata Gavriel, which quotes views from present poskim. I 
would doubt there was a blanket heter, but there may be some very 
lenient views that apply in specific cases.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@judaismsanswer.com 718-436-7705
Judaism's Answer:  http://www.judaismsanswer.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080106/b1bff67d/attachment.htm 

> 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

Well, one could say that a gentile is not obligated to be Jewish in
order to earn Hashem's favor. Therefore, why not refuse to accept
gerim, or at least be lax about it, and trust that Hashem doesn't
really care whether or not their Jewish? (I'm not trying to be
sarcastic; this seems to me to be a valid shita.)

Therefore, I'd say that Hashem doesn't care whether a given gentile
becomes Jewish or not, but once that gentile decides, and shows
himself to be sincere, we must accept him immediately. There's also no
requirement for someone to belong to a certain club or buy a certain
product, but once someone asks for admission or purchase, wouldn't it
be rude to make him wait for no good reason?

I've never learned that Mechilta, so I cannot comment. Without seeing
it inside however, I'd guess that maybe it is not halacha because we
don't know who Amalek is anyway, so why bother codifying it? It could
very well be that prohibition is valid in and of itself. After all,
the Shulchan Aruch never codifies anything about the Temple, and not
because we don't wish for the Temple bimheira b'yameinu!

Mikha'el Makovi

Was in Areivim, "Is it ...Galut", became a discussion on whether we
should make aliyah (or stay in chutz, or do any particular deed for
that matter) as a measure to save am yisrael, or whether it is
exclusively Hashem's duty to ensure our survival

>> There is no mitzvah of assuring the survival of klal Yisrael.
>> ...
>> The survival of klal Yisrael is not, in that sense, our job.
>> Our job it to do the mitzvos to the best of our ability. HKB"H
>> made a promise to us that klal Yisrael will survive. ... It is
>> His job to make sure that promise is kept.  When we look at
>> what we need to be doing, we need to be thinking in terms of
>> what the Torah requires of us, not adding in cheshbonos about
>> things we can't possibly expect to understand, and which are,
>> strictly speaking, none of our business.


> I would like to agree, and have written similar things myself on several
> occasions. But we are quite possibly wrong.
>
> Let's note the change from the original avoidance/prohibition of writing
> down Torah Sheb'al Peh to the current allowance of it. At the time, they
> could have said something like, "Things look pretty bad. But that's Hashem's
> problem, not ours. Our job is to continue doing what our parents taught us
> to do." But they do not do that. Rather, they picked up the ball which
> HaShem seemed to have dropped, and they ran with it in His stead, kavyachol.
>
> And so perhaps we too, need to consider such cheshbonos in our decisions.
>
> Akiva Miller


The Torah She'be'al'pe example is very instructive. It seems to me that eit
la'asot lashem (ELL) itself implies that we must act to ensure our own
survival, for ELL implies that something catastrophic will happen to Am
Yisrael (we know it is catastrophic because what else can justify destroying
part of the Torah?), and we have a chiyuv to do something about it.

And the Ohr Sameah's warnings in Meshech Chochmah that a holocaust was
coming, certainly seems like an action taken to ensure our survival. Rabbi
Meir Simcha certainly did not leave it to Hashem. More prosaicly, we see the
general chiyuv to do chinuch, as I said.

Also, Rambam writes that we would have survived the Roman era had we learned
warfare instead of astrology and magic and such. I'm not sure if Rambam is
commonly accepted here, because (1) Obviously many disagree with him on the
assertion that magic is bologna, and (2) I don't know how he exactly he fits
our causeless hatred in here; maybe Rambam's intent is that our sins caused
the galut, including causeless hatred of course, but (his chiddush) also a
lazy reliance on foolish quasi-idolatry at the expense of hishtadlut. But
many surely disagree with him that our failure to learn war and/or take
practical wordly action was a factor; instead they'll say that ahavah and/or
prayer would have succeeded where astrology failed.

It is clear that Rambam's intent is that had we occupied ourselves with
practical realistic action rather than foolish astrological lunch meat, we
would have survived. At least Rambam, if no one else, seems to hold a chiyuv
to ensure our survival; otherwise, why learn warfare? Just sit and study,
and let Hashem fight our wars.

Mikha'el Makovi

Marty Bluke wrote:
> My son's bar mitzva is approaching so I had to order tefillin for him.
> In the process I heard of a new chumra, the retzuos should be black on
> both sides. Does anyone have a source for this? Is this really a new
> chumra or is this an established minhag? I personally never heard or
> saw retzuos like that until now.
>
>   
See H. Tefillin 3:14, though I've never encountered this in practice.

Incidentally, I had hoped to finish researching the tefillin on Hol 
HaMoed posts over Shabbas, but I got distracted.  Soon, DV.

David Riceman


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 5
*************************************

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..."