Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 31

Tue, 22 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: Roast lamb (from areivim) (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Roast lamb (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Re: FW: The Gaon/Medicine (David Riceman)
• 4. Pesel Micah (Mordechai Goldstein)
• 5. Oshiro laShem ki gaw'o gaw'aw.... (Richard Wolberg)
• 6. Re: FW: The Gaon/Medicine (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 7. Gaon/Medicine (Allen Gerstl)
• 8. Re: Fasting on YK (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 9. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Micha Berger)
• 10. "Zeh Keli v'anveihu Elokei avi va'arom'menhu" (Richard Wolberg)
• 11. Tu B'Shvat "Don't Cut Your Nose to Spite Your Face" (No Tachanun Today) (Richard Wolberg)
• 12. Re: [Areivim] "Blei Gissen" should we believe in this? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Roast lamb (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 14. Re: Roast lamb (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 15. Re: Roast lamb (Micha Berger)
• 16. Court system models (Silverman, Philip B)

T613K@aol.com wrote:
Re: Hevel's korbanot

> Was he allowed to kill animals?

I don't see any prohibition in the chumash.  And Hashem very clearly
showed His approval, so it would be very difficult to say that it was
a mitzvah haba'ah ba'avera, or an avera that Hashem silently forgave
without even indicating that Hevel shouldn't do it again.  From
pashtut haktuvim it is clear that it was muttar umitzvah.

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

 From Rb TK

 >From what I hear, goat meat is very tough.  Any of you honchos out  there
ever eaten it

I've had goat. It is no tougher than any other animal that is allowed 
to roam freely. If you keep a goat penned up, it will be tender.

Ben

Rich, Joel wrote:
> This topic kvar dashu bey rabim as the ramban bferush says not to go
> doctors.
Where does he say this? My recollection is that he says that during the 
period of bayis rishon they didn't go to doctors, but nowadays going to 
doctors is normative, in fact it's a mitzvah (see B'Hukosai 26:11 ed. 
Chavel pp. 185-186 and especially Toras HaAdam ed. Chavel p.43).

David Riceman

Can someone tell me, the Pesel Micah, that went over by Krias Yam Suf,
is this the same Pesel Micah in Shoftim?  In Shoftim it seems like a 
new thing.

Kol Tuv

MG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080121/7c0f39c5/attachment-0001.htm 

>
> "Oshiroh laShem ki gaw'o gaw'aw..."  "I will sing unto the Lord for  
> He is highly exalted..."  The numerical value of these two words  
> (9+9) total 18, alluding to our praising God daily with (the  
> original) 18 b'rochos in the "amidah." (Rabbeinu Menachem)
> Also, gaw'o gaw'aw (highly exalted) is Chai, life, in its purest form.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080121/a27d5568/attachment-0001.html 

> Rich, Joel wrote:
> > This topic kvar dashu bey rabim as the ramban bferush says not to go
> > doctors.

I think this needs a source, as he, himself, was a doctor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachmanides

KT,
MYG

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:39:47 -0500
R'"Rich, Joel" 
Wrote: Subject: [Avodah]  Gaon/Medicine

>Here's the lightly edited response I got from R' HS's talmid on the above 
>It wasn't his father it was his mother who didn't want him to be adoctor.This topic kvar dashu bey rabim as>the ramban bferush says not to go [to] doctors. It's a machlokes haposkim but most say that nowadays it's>notshayach, but yes the gra got upset at his brother when he found out that he went to a doctor. 

May I also suggest that given the state of medical knowledge (i.e. ignorance) at the time and the famous people who died at the hands of their doctors through what we now consider their bizarre treatments that its no wonder that the GRA was upset.

KT
Eliyahu

[cc'ing Avodah; let me know if you want the discussion taken off list]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:03:49 -0000 "Chana Luntz"
<chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

> RYG writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:10:04 +0200
> > "Ilana Sober" <ilanasober@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > [context is an unwell woman fasting on YK]
> > 
> > > AFAIK, if no one else is available, the husband should also 
> > stay home 
> > > and take care of his wife and/or kids if that will enable 
> > the wife to 
> > > fast.
> ...
> 
> > These positions are attributed to RSZA, and see notes 166 and 
> > 189. [My translation from the Hebrew edition.]
> > 
> > The principle is that I am not obligated to suffer in order 
> > to prevent hilul Shabbos on behalf of a holeh she'yesh bo 
> > sakkanah; one could therefor argue that a husband who really 
> > minded missing YK prayers would not be obligated to miss them 
> > in order to save his wife from the necessity of eating.  Of 
> > course, the language (RSZA's?) contains the wording "za'ar 
> > gadol" and "mi'dina", and RnIS's comment that the husband 
> > "should also stay home" may still be true.
> 
> It seems to me that there is a major difference between the case
> discussed by RSZA and the case here of a woman fasting on YK.  In the
> case discussed by RSZA, the sick person is already in the matzav of
> being a choleh sheyesh bo sakana, for which the standard rule is that
> shabbas is docheh.  The only question is, if in fact one can, by
> resorting to a neighbour, avoid the chillul shabbas that would otherwise
> be automatic, at the cost of the neighbour enduring tzar.
> 
> But in the case RIS is bringing, the woman, at the start of Yom Kippur,
> cannot be said to be in the situation of a choleh sheyesh bo sakana.
> And, it would seem, if she does not run around after her children, she
> will not find herself in that state.  So if the man stays home from shul
> and instead does that running around after the children, he is
> preventing the woman from ever getting into the position of a choleh she
> yesh bo sakana, which would then force her to eat.  Only if he does not
> stay home, and she runs around after the children, will she put herself
> into the state in which she is then required to eat.  So is not this
> case if anything more like the case of al tamod al dam re'echa?  If the
> husband does not step in (or hire help, or whatever) he is letting his
> wife slip into a situation of being a choleh she yesh bo sakana (with,
> inter alia, the consequence that she will have to eat on yom kippur).
> It seems to me that mere tzar in this latter case would not be enough to
> allow the husband to patur himself from preventing such an occurrence -
> in a similar way that if she was at risk of being put in the matzav of a
> choleh she yesh bo sakana by a river or a rodef or whatever, mere tzar
> on behalf of the neighbour or husband would not be enough to patur him
> or them from acting.

An interesting distinction, but I stand by what I wrote; I don't see
why we should differentiate between one already in danger and one who
will soon be in danger.  In both cases there is a threat to life that
must be countered either by hilul shabbos, or by my sacrifice.  I don't
really see why the latter falls under the rubric of lo sa'a'mod any
more than does the former.

> > I also do not know if this view is accepted by other Poskim.

[responding to myself]

I notice that RSZA himself cites a dissenting view in n166.

> > 
> > > - Ilana
> > 
> > Yitzhak
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Chana

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:13:27PM -0700, Daniel Israel wrote:
: >That's why I used relative terms. Asking a friend to say tehillim 
: >for a sick person is clearly mutar. Praying to a demigod is not. At 
: >what point does one make the transition to being like a friend and
: >permissable to being like a demigod.

: That is not a good example.  The friend has bechira.  An malach 
: does not, and neither does a niftar.  A "demigod" is either a 
: malach that someone is misidentifying or a non-existant entity, but 
: in either case it is being treated as if it has a bechira that it 
: does not.

I'm stating that there is a spectrum. One end is clearly assur, the
other, not only mutar but commonplace. Now the question is where one
draws the line.

If I were more clear, I think you would have replied that the point
on the line is that between someone with bechirah (eg my friend) and
someone without (eg a mal'akh).

I'm not sure how well that works. First, there is a question whether
meisim have bechirah. If they are lemaalah min hazeman, is bechirah even
a possibility?

Second, according to the Rambam, mal'akhim lack the possibility of
bechirah. According to the Or Sameiach, they have the potential for
bechirah, but as they inhabit olam ha'emes, there are simply no decisions
for them to make; the right choice is always self-evidence.

Qabbalistic sources do ascribe bechirah to mal'akhim. RYGB once suggested
that perhaps this fits the OS -- when outside olam ha'emes on mission,
they lack that clarity.

See also RGS's survey of sources about sinning mal'achim. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n015.shtml#02>. As well as the
thread "Makhnisei Rachamim Apologetics" <http://tinyurl.com/jzvqy>.

But your criterion (only if the one being petitioned has bechira) would
mean that hamon am who say "Borkhuni leshalom" and "Machnisei Rachamim"
either ascribe bechirah to mal'akhim or don't agree with your position.

(My own difficulty with both tefilos is the need to be so clear on these
issues in order to avoid an issur chamur that is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor.
It scares me.)


Personally, I would make the question of the 5th ikkar to be more about
whether one is asking for assistance getting Hashem's help, or whether one
is asking for assistance /instead/ of it. That a middleman is defined as
someone you aproach instead of approaching G-d directly, not in addition.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

When the Israelites saw that they had been rescued from Pharaoh's army  
at the sea, they sang out with gratitude: "zeh Keli v'anveihu Elokei  
avi va'arom'menhu" This is my God and I will glorify Him; the God of  
my father and I will exalt Him.

There are several questions that come up here. What is the difference  
between "...and I will glorify Him" and "...and I will exalt Him."  It  
seems like a repetition. Onkelos, Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Ramban all agree  
that since "v'anveihu" has as its root "naveh" which is a home  
(dwelling place), its primary interpretation is "And I will build Him  
a Sanctuary" [I will glorify Him]. It expresses Israel's longing to  
build a Temple for God's Presence.
Also, although not apparent in translation, the verse uses two  
different names of God. The first half of the verse uses the name  
Keil, while the second half uses Elokim. Rav Kook explained the Song  
refers to two types of love for God. The first is an innate love and  
appreciation for God as our Creator and Provider. The word Kel is in  
the singular, reflecting an appreciation for God as the only true  
power and the ultimate reality of the universe. A second, higher form  
of love for God is acquired through thoughtful contemplation of God's  
rule of the universe. This love corresponds to the name Elokim - in  
the plural - referring to the myriad causes and forces that God  
utilizes to govern the universe.

I see it as the first half of the verse "Keil" (singular) referring to  
God as the personal God (how each one of us perceive God). The second  
half "Elokei" (plural) refers to how our parents perceived God. Each  
generation must find God for itself.

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080122/6016d0fa/attachment.htm 

"When you besiege a city for many days to wage war against it to seize  
it, do not destroy its trees by swinging an axe against them, for from  
it you will eat, and you shall not cut it down; for is the tree of the  
field a man that it should be besieged before you?" (Devarim 20:19)
In the midst of a chapter dealing with warfare, which by definition is  
destructive, the Torah demands that the Jew remains conscious of the  
need to maintain his regard for the general welfare and cleave to his  
love of goodness and peace. If we try to remain good even at times  
that call forth our basest instincts, we will try not to waste even a  
mustard seed, and resultingly will be able to perfect our characters  
steadily. (Chinuch). 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080122/ba6dc2a2/attachment.html 

On Sat, January 19, 2008 11:46 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Question: If hirhurei Tefillah were THEh dynamic then what is the
: difference between a muchzak who has had 3 successful amulets and one
: that has NOT had a successful amulet?

We treat matbei'os tefillah with real seriousness. You don't (or at
least shouldn't) simply accept any prayer or change of nusach into the
siddur. It would seem that when davening, one really wants something
with the wisdom of Anshei Keneses haGdolah or Chazal behind it.

Now we have a rank amateur implicitly telling someone how to daven for
their refu'ah. Wouldn't you want someone with a track record of
knowing how to coin effective matbei'os, tefillos that have all the
right implications, etc...?

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

<Also see Rav Kook's Midbar Shur (also in Eng trans.) on the topic of offerings in the future - I believe he says that only the mincha will be brought, in keeping with what we say after the Amidah.>

     I'm sure Rav Kook said "v'sham na'aseh l'fanecha es korb'nos chovoseinu t'midim k'sidram umusafim k'hilchasam," which is then spelled out to be the korbanos as mentioned in the Torah.

EMT

 
_____________________________________________________________
Click to discover the secret to promoting your business and make millions.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m53yWVBUeEpn8H8CEqgbekcvmHGMhEr2ocU5VghFNYaKOd8/

R. Rich Wolpoe writes:  

<Roasting in a pot is not halachically roasting at all in Yorei Dei'ah even w/o any added water. [the meat will ooze its juices soon enough].

Therefore I cannot fathom why it would be assur at all [even as a minhag or humra] on the Seder Night!  Such "zli k'edierah" is 100% not acceptable for Korban Pesach so what is the cheshash on Seder night?>

     See Mishna B'rura 476:1, who answers your question. It's because of maris ayin, to prevent confusing it with legitimately broiled meat. 

     Obviously, those who made the takanah went to great lengths to prevent any chance of the eating of kodashim bachutz or the appearance thereof.

EMT
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on business schools, $150K/ year potential.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3l7gJh43f7JCQ9pZAxS5RnDRKgdZp4X4nFL6c4GypkmxYlgm/

On Tue, January 22, 2008 9:30 am, REMT wrote:
:      Obviously, those who made the takanah went to great lengths to
: prevent any chance of the eating of kodashim bachutz or the
: appearance thereof.

Taqanah?

I thought this was an issue of battling minhagim -- Ashkenazim avoid
confusion by not having roasted meat, Sepharadim commemorate the
qorban by making a point of serving roasted meat.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

Liron Kopinsky writes:
 
> It just occured to me this week that the US 
> court system is almost exactly
> Yitro's advice. The more high-profile 
> (and big) a court case is, the higher
> it gets pushed in the courts until it 
> could reach the supreme court.

 

I have heard that part of the US government structure was inspired by
Tanach:

 

"... they relied upon their own experience at writing state
constitutions, their knowledge of governments past, and upon divine
inspiration. They forged new principles of government. And they invented
a Separation of Powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial
branches -- which was inspired by the scripture in Isaiah (33:22): "For
the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King;
He will save us."

 

However, I've only found this observation in non-Jewish sources. Can
anyone identify a rabbi who also points this out? (I understand that
it's possible that this rabbi might simply be quoting the same source I
did.)

 

Philip 

 



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080122/dee31302/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 31
**************************************

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..."