Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 40

Fri, 25 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: Pesel Micah (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 2. Is spam kosher? (Simon Montagu)
• 3. More extreme Kantianism from the Mussarniks (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: What would a Torah government look like (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 5. Re: What would a Torah government look like (Shmuel Weidberg)
• 6. Re: What would a Torah government look like (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 7. Re: assisted suicide (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 8. Re: assisted suicide (Shmuel Weidberg)
• 9. Re: Fasting on YK (Celejar)
• 10. Re: assisted suicide (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 11. Re: Diberah Torah (hlampel@koshernet.com)
• 12. Re: Tu B'Shvat "Don't Cut Your Nose to Spite Your (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: assisted suicide (JRich@Sibson.com)
• 14. Assisted Suicide (Richard Wolberg)
• 15. Re: assisted suicide (Zev Sero)

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:17:25 -0500
Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:39:49 -0500
> Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 07:25:16AM -0800, Mordechai Goldstein wrote:
> > : 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.
> > 
> > According to Medrash Rabba, this Mikhah was saved by Moshe Rabbeinu from
> > being used as a brick in Pitom or Raamseis, when the Mitzriyim started
> > using infants to replace bricks when the Jews didn't make quota.
> > 
> > He then stole the parchment containing the words "alei shur" which Moshe
> > put into the river to make Yoseif's aron rise to the service. (According
> > to another MR, this river was NOT the Ye'or. The Mitzriyim hid the aron
> > in another river, a tributary to the main Nile, to try to keep us from
> > leaving -- since we would never break our promise to Yoseif. Mazal,
> > a/k/a Serach bas Asher, told Moshe where he could find the aron.)
> > 
> > In the days of the Eigel, he took out the klaf and threw it into the
> > fire with the gold, which is how the eigel was na'asah on its own.
> > 
> > He was the same Mikhah as Pesel Mikhah in Shofetim.
> > 
> > So, it's not a "new thing", but rather a new instance of an old thing.
> > But I never heard of an actual pesel crossing the Yam Suf.

v'ha'ya zalmo shel Michah over imachem bayam -- Sh. Rabbah, beginning
of Ch. 24.  v'kaspo shel pessel Michah over bayam -- ibid. beginning of
Ch. 41.  The Bavli (San. 103b) contains an ambiguous passage, which
refers to the crossing of the Pessel according to one interpretation
offered by Rash.  The notes to the standard Medrash Rabbah cross
reference some other (presumably relevant) statements of Hazal.

> > Tir'u baTov!
> > -Micha

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

(No, not the canned meat)

Have any posekim addressed the question of whether sending unsolicited
bulk emails is asur? If so, would unsolicited email containing Talmud
Torah be an exception, or a mitzva habaa mitoch aveira?

From my inbox...

The Alter of Slabodka makes a similar point to REED's understanding of
the Maharal about nissim. But rather than talk about going up and down
among the four olamos, he writes about each person having their own
olam.

The footer on this PDF parashah mailing reads (transliteration mine):
> Lizekhus refu'ah sheleimah - Yitzchak Reuvein ben Chayah Feiga
> Chaya Isah Sarah bas Devorah - Chayah Yakhte Elqa bar Chanah Rachel -
> Reizl Esther bas Frumit - Basyah bas Tzivyah (Tzviyah?)

> To receive this publication via email, send an email to
> subscribe@growthandgreatness.com

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

THE ALTER on THE PARSHA
Shmuessen of Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, Zt"l, the Alter of Slabodka
Adapted from Sefer Ohr HaTzafun

[Original Pasuq deleted due to limitations processing Hebrew. -mi]


"I am Hashem your G-d that took you out of Mitzrayim." (Shemos 20:2)

Hashem tells us in the first of the Aseres Hadibros that He is the G-d
that 'took us out of Egypt.'  The posuk implies that the episode of
Yitziyas Mitzrayim plays an important role in our understanding of our
Creator. What is it about the events surrounding our redemption from
Egypt that define Hashem's role in His world?

Chazal tell us that every individual can declare "the world was
created for my sake." At its simplest, our sages mean that every
person deserves to have a whole world created just for him. 
Additionally, every person's world is tailor-made; his surroundings
and events are all planned and directed with exact hashgacha pratis.
Our deliverance from Egypt teaches us to take this idea further. Not
only is the whole world fit to be created for each individual, but in
actuality an entire universe was created for every person. And
Yitziyas Mitzrayim is the event that demonstrates this truth.

Throughout the experience of Yitziyas Mitzrayim we encounter an
interesting phenomenon. Every plague leveled against the Egyptians had
no effect on the Jewish nation dwelling among them.  When Egypt was
smitten with the plague of Dam, all Egyptian water became blood. The
water supply of the Jews, however, was not affected. Egyptians would
try to circumvent their plight by drinking from the same source, or
even the same bowl as a Jew, but to no avail. The 'water' would be
blood for the Egyptian, while for the Jew it remained water.

When Egypt was paralyzed with darkness, our ancestors took the
opportunity to discover the riches of their Egyptian neighbors. They
would enter an Egyptian home and search for valuables, while the
house's owner stood still, powerlessly mired in darkness. As the
Egyptian stood frozen in a blackened room, the Jew could see and move
about in that very same room.

The rest of the plagues followed the same model. While our captors
bore the brunt of each scourge, their captives were not affected at
all. As we crossed the Yam Suf, what was dry land for our ancestors
was simultaneously a raging sea to our enemies. This concept seems
puzzling. How could a Jew and Egyptian experience the same reality
differently? How is it possible for a single actuality to be
experienced in more than one way? Was the room dark or light; was it a
bowl of blood or water?

The miracles of Yitziyas Mitzrayim point to one fact: Hashem creates a
separate universe for every human being. Hashem is constantly creating
and recreating every man's unique world, animating and adjusting it
for each person's needs. The Egyptian was in darkness because Hashem
made darkness in his world, while the Jew had light because Hashem
made light in his. The constant regeneration of each person's world is
the tool Hashem used to achieve this duality. The Jews weren't
affected by the plagues because the forces unleashed on Egypt simply
did not exist for them.

Most of the time Hashem makes all of Creation seamlessly integrated;
what He creates for one, He duplicates for another. This lends itself
to the illusion that there is one static world, with all of us placed
into it. But Hashem tells us, 'I am your G-d that took you out of
Mitzrayim.' Through Yitziyas Mitzrayim He showed us His role in
creation, as a G-d that creates a world individually for each being. 
Sometimes we may excuse our lack of striving for perfection in Avodas
Hashem by saying, "I'm just a regular guy, my actions don't count that
much." We think that there are others greater than us who perform the
loftier, more important tasks. If we would truly inculcate this lesson
that our nation learned from Yitziyas Mitzrayim we would be aroused to
reach for perfection. It would be almost impossible for us to sin.
Every person is the central figure of the world created just for him.
Every particle, force, and being in his world is constantly being
regenerated exclusively for his Avodas Hashem.  When the sun rises in
the morning, man can confidently declare "That sun is rising just for
me."

At night he can know that every star in the entire cosmos is shining
just for him. A person's actions, good or bad, determine the rise and
fall of all of his world. Armed with this truth, man can climb
ever-upward, seizing every instant, inspired by the role he plays as
captain of his universe.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:15:51 +0200
"Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Lulei demistafina, I would say that midinei adam there is no chiyuv
> > misah for certain crimes, when there is no Sanhedrin. Part of the
> > point of hasroas eidim is that the person gives away his life. If
> > there is no Sanhedrin there is no true giving of permission to be
> > judged for death. It could be that even if Moshiach came tomorrow,
> > such people could not be given misah. However, that might not apply to
> > talmidei chachamim who don't require hasraah.
> 
> I've read in a few places that even after the churban, in Bavel and
> Spain and other places, we kept doing executions in exceptional cases,
> lest people brazenly sin, knowing that the law cannot do anything.

Dan Rabinowitz [0] recently pointed me to Simcha Assaf's "Ha'onshin
Aharei Hasimas Ha'talmud", an excellent collection of sources on the
topic of the title, including capital punishment.  Incidentally,
googling for it turns up a couple of Avodah volumes in the
first ten results [1].

> Mikha'el Makovi

[0] seforim.blogspot.com
[1] http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n420.shtml
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n421.shtml

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

On Jan 25, 2008 4:40 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:

> Upon screaming they answer that according to halacha a promise to do
> some action is not enforcable and no kinyan was done.

It has long bothered me that commercial transactions that are required
for everyday life are theoretically unenforceable.

But that is only in theory. For example somebody who commits himself
to a transaction and doesn't go through with it, Is required to submit
to the curse of Mi Shepara. And it is the rare person who would
undergo so such an ordeal, both because of the embarrassment and
because of his fear of the results of the curse.

Likewise, R' Moshe has a teshuva about requiring a heter iska for a
non-observant jew, and he says that one should write into the contract
that if he claims that he lost the money fairly he should have to
swear to that fact while holding a sefer torah in the middle of shul
in front of the congregation. He says that it is unlikely that even
the biggest apikores would do that to get out of paying what he's due.

In a similar vein. I know somebody who deals in currency exchange and
gives quotes over the phone with a verbal contract that is
unenforceable, and he says that he hasn't had more than one or two
people renege on their verbal contracts.

Regards,
Shmuel

R' Eli Turkel:
> To my mind one of the greatest challenges to a Torah government would
> be modern day commerce
> 
> A simple example  one makes an electronic reservation by computer for
> a hotel room or
> plane flight and holds it with a credit card. When one arrives they
> refuse to honor their commitment.
> Upon screaming they answer that according to halacha a promise to do
> some action is not
> enforcable and no kinyan was done. Even if one paid in advance money
> is not a kinyan.
> 7 tovei hair doesnt help since one cannot declare a sale without a
> kinyan or with a money
> kinyan. At best chazal declared some actions like a handshake a kinyan
> in some circumstances
> but a computer transaction has none of that. With the increased use of
> computers and faxes
> very little commerce is done in the presence of the two parties. Banks
> transfer money between
> themselves on an automatic basis without any human intervention. How
> can there be
> gemirat daat when no human even knows it is happening.

For arguments sake, let's say you are correct - is that any different than
if you go to a hotel in a secular state? That fine print says that they are
not responsible if the room is not available (although they can charge you
if you do not show) and they will still, in all likelihood, do their best to
accommodate you so as not to lose a customer. I see no reason why this would
not apply in a Halachicly based society.

KT,
MYG

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Gershon Seif <gershonseif@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My wife (who is a lobbyist for Agudah) was in Madison, WI yesterday to join a long list of people/organizations who came to voice their objection to a proposed bill to allow physician assisted suicide.
> 
> Some of the people who spoke in favor of the bill tried to show how Shimshon would have been in favor of assisted suicide. 
> 
> Can you all help me out here with some mareh m'komos about Shimshon and suicide? I know it's discussed (maybe even a mefurishe Gemara) but I don't recall where.
> 
> What are the basic chilukim between Shimshon's situation and a person suffering from a teminal illness, that would allow him to do what he did, and yet forbid assisted suicide? 
> 
> My first hunch is that by Shimshon it was only a grama. And it might even be a safek, whereas what the assisted suicide wants to allow would be a vadai and quite direct.

I don't recall anything about Shimshon at the moment, but an excellent
collection of references to suicide in Talmudic / Medrashic as well as
Halachic sources is Haham Ovadya's responsum on the subject.  It
contains much discussion of Shaul, but I didn't notice, in my quick
scan, any references to Shimshon.

[0] Yabiya Omer V2, YD 24

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

R' Joel Rich wrote:

> Me- why?In fact couldn't one argue that the prayer to the creator is more
> effective and thus more of a life shortner?

I think the problem with suicide is that your life belongs to Hashem.
Only he has the right to give and take it away. So if he listens to
your tefillos, you were within your rights, as was He.

Regards,
Shmuel

[RMB: I choose not to trim, as I consider everything here to be relevant
to understanding my response.  If you disagree, so be it.  I'm cc'ing
you and RCL anyway.]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:15:22 -0000
"Chana Luntz" <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

> > On Wed, January 23, 2008 8:27 am, chana@kolsassoon.org.uk wrote:
> > :                                         That means that, cooking on
> > : shabbas for the person who is already sufficiently sick is 
> > completely,
> > : al pi halacha, mutar.  Going to get the food from the neighbour
> > : therefore is a chumra, and we do not (at least according to RSZA)
> > : impose a chumra in the case where it will cause tzar.
> > 
> > Assuming, as you do, hutra. What if dechuyah?
> 
> Not necessarily me, but RSZA.  I agree it is more difficult to explain
> RSZA if you say that it is dechuya.  After all, here there is a
> neighbour with food.  To the choleh it does not matter whether the food
> comes from the neighbour or you cook it in terms of doing what is best
> for their illness.  If it is dechuya, how could you let the mere tzar of
> the neighbour compete with an issur d'orisa of bishul?  I think you can
> still get there, but it does mean a more expansive understanding of
> dechuye than one might otherwise have thought.  It means on has to say,
> if one is going to say, as RSZA says, that the tzar of the neighbour
> allows you to then cook for the choleh, that the issur is sufficiently
> pushed off the cook that (even if the cook is the same person as the
> neighbour whose food might be used) the existence of available food from
> elsewhere is not enough to re-establish the issur.
> 
>  I thought that 
> > was the whole nafqa mina of that machloqes. (I also thought 
> > that lema'aseh we're chosheshim that shabbos is only dechuyah.)
> 
> Of course if you do not use this expansive definition of dechuye, or you
> reject this understanding, then it has even less applicability to the
> husband and fasting wife.

RSZA himself begins one of the footnotes cited in my original post [0]
by explicitly stating that his ruling holds even according the the
opinion of d'huya.  It's not a question "let[ting] the mere tzar of the
neighbour compete with an issur d'orisa of bishul"; RSZA explains
simply that there's no issur being done since the m'lachah is
mutteres.  He also gives other arguments for his conclusion being true
according to everyone.

> > SheTir'u baTov!
> > -micha
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chana

[0] Sh'miras Shabbos K'hilchasah Ch. 32 n166

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

R'n TK:
In the case of a person suffering from a terminal illness, the person who
opts for suicide is not just choosing one of two alternative deaths, he is
actually hastening his death.???
=================================================?
R' Joel Rich: Me - Yet we know in certain circumstances one can pray for one
or another's death - why isn't this called hastening?


I recall seeing in Generation to Generation by R' Dr. Twerski that his
father refused medical treatment that might have prolonged his life a bit.
Where would that come in the equation? (The obvious difference is that it's
Shev V'al Taaseh.)

KT,
MYG

 Re: Diberah Torah (Zvi Lampel)

R' Micha Berger wrote:

"Rabbi Aqiva darshened lexically, looking for
keywords, pulling mounds
of halakhos out of the tagin on the letters. R'
Yishmael objected,
saying the Torah uses natural language, and therefore
words like "es"
need not signify any ribui.

"The rishonim take his words and turn it into a
shorthand to mean
entirely different things. That's beyond just new
connotation, it's a
new topic. ... But don't confuse two uses
of the same phrase to give earlier authority to the
later idea, or to
misunderstand either.

"When the notion of non-literalism was attributed to
Chazal's use of
the phrase and R' Yishma'els side of the machloqes, I
spoke up. That's
anachronistic conflation of two uses of an idiom."

(End of excerpt of MIcha Berger)

But the Rambam, for instance, said that this is the
meaning of what Chazal said. For example, Moreh
Nevuchim (1:26):

CHAPTER XXVI 
You, no doubt, know their saying, which encompasses
all the various kinds of interpretation connected to
this area. namely what they said:"The Torah speaks
according to the language of man.? This implies that
expressions that can easily be comprehended and
understood by all at first thought, are necessarily
associated to the Alm-ghty, yis-aleh. Hence the
description of G-d by attributes implying
corporeality, in order to express His existence:
because the multitude of people do not easily
conceive existence unless in connection with a body,
and that which is not a body nor connected with a
body has for them no existence.

I therefore conclude that [the rishonim understood
that] the essential meaning of the Chazal is a broad
one that includes the one used by the rishonim. Rabbi
Yishmael was just applying one of its implications.

Zvi Lampel

Michael Makovi wrote:

> I think the Torah is talking more about a siege, where we are in
> control, and we would chop the trees just to spite them. In other
> words, it won't hurt the invader (us) to siege them *without* chopping
> the trees. We are in control anyway.

Not exactly.  We need to chop down trees to build siege engines.  The
question is which trees to cut.  If it were on our own land, there would
be no question - we would cut the trees of least economic value, which
usually means the non-fruit-bearing ones.  They exist for timber, and
that's what we'd use them for, leaving the fruit trees to bear crops.
But we are not on our own land.  That is to say, the individual soldier
who was sent out with an axe has his farm and his orchard back in EY,
and the trees here are never likely to be his.  So what does he care
which tree to cut?  The natural thing would be to take the closest ones,
or just to pick some at random.  So the Torah tells us no, don't waste
the economic resource just because it isn't yours.  At the end of the
war it will be *somebody's*, so take care of it as if it were yours,
and chop down only what you would do on your own land.

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

R' Joel Rich wrote:

> Me- why?In fact couldn't one argue that the prayer to the creator is more> effective and thus more of a life shortner?

I think the problem with suicide is that your life belongs to Hashem.Only he has the right to give and take it away. So if he listens toyour tefillos, you were within your rights, as was He.

Regards,Shmuel_____________________________perhaps, or perhaps one could say that he's within his rights not to take medicine and if hashem let's him die because of it, then he was within his rights and no harm no foul.KTJoel 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.

Someone wrote:	Me- why? In fact couldn't one argue that the prayer to  
the
creator is more effective and thus more of a life shortner?
	
That may be true, but the Creator has a right to do whatever He deems  
perfect... It reminds me of the person who says he prayed to God for  
something and was not answered. That isn't accurate. God DID answer  
and the answer was "No."
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080125/d46bc112/attachment.html 

JRich@Sibson.com wrote:


>> I think the problem with suicide is that your life belongs to Hashem.
>> Only he has the right to give and take it away. So if he listens to
>> your tefillos, you were within your rights, as was He.

> perhaps, or perhaps one could say that he's within his rights not to
> take medicine and if hashem let's him die because of it, then he was
> within his rights and no harm no foul.

Well, yes.  Does anyone say otherwise?

That it's permitted to pray for the end to come is clear in the gemara.
Not just for oneself but for someone else.

Is there anyone who paskens that one must take medicine to extend
beyond its natural term a life one doesn't want to live?  Surely the
only question we're discussing here is that of active measures to
*shorten* life by human hands.


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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 40
**************************************

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..."