Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 266

Wed, 23 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: kohen in war / pinchas & kehuna (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: kohen in war / pinchas & kehuna (Michael Poppers)
• 3. vsalachta (Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org)
• 4. police misdeeds and trial evidence (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 5. Re: police misdeeds and trial evidence (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: police misdeeds and trial evidence (Zev Sero)
• 7. pinchas & kehuna (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: Ethical questions (Michael Poppers)
• 9. Re: money and halakhah (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 10. Re: [Areivim] TuM v TIDE (Celejar)
• 11. Re: TIDE and Austritt (T613K@aol.com)
• 12. Re: TIDE and Austritt (Richard Wolpoe)
• 13. Av Harachamim this coming Shabbat & Minhag hagra (Richard Wolpoe)
• 14. Re: What can't God do? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 15. Re: Tefillin on Ch"M (Richard Wolpoe)
• 16. Re: money and halakhah (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: kohen in war / pinchas & kehuna (David Riceman)
• 18. Re: Kohanim in Cars in Cemeteries (Joshua Meisner)
• 19. Re: TIDE and Austritt (T613K@aol.com)
• 20. Re: TIDE and Austritt (T613K@aol.com)
• 21. Re: TIDE and Austritt (T613K@aol.com)
• 22. Re: vsalachta (Arie Folger)
• 23. what G-d can't do (Eli Turkel)
• 24. Re: police misdeeds and trial evidence (hankman)

Micha Berger wrote:
> Pinechas (even without
> mixing Eliyahu in) was still alive 300 years later serving as Kohein
> Gadol in Mishkan Shilo during the story of the Pilegesh beGiv'ah.

How do you get this dating? See Rashi [Sefer] Shoftim 17:1 s.v. "Vayhi
ish ehad meihar efraim".

David Riceman

In Avodah Digest V25#265, RDR responded to RET:
>> Note that Pinchas was not a kohen when he killed zimri.

> This is a machlokes.  See Zevahim 102a (citing Seder Olam), Rashi ad.
> loc. s.v. "ben bnah".

and R'Micha responded:
> If he was not originally included (see RDR's recent post, or my survey of
> "berisi shalom" from last week)...

How does considering Pin'chas a (to quote from that sugya in Maseches
Z'vachim) "mashuach milchamah" (which presumably occurred *after* he
killed Zimri, given the comment of RaShY mentioned by RDR) constitute
any contradiction to RET's "note" (which comes from the same sugya --
see 101b)? True, one could be a kohen [hedyot] w/out being a kohen
gadol/"mashuach milchamah" -- for a possible resolution, see RCBrovender's
comments (quoting RaMBaM Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:1) towards the end of
http://www.yhol.org.il/parsha/5760/pinchas60.htm .

RET had asked:
> why Pinchas was not
> included in the original establishment of the kohanim just as his
> grandfather, father and uncles were

You mean why, aside from it being a g'zeiras hakasuv (as noted, e.g.,
in http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5760/pinchas60/aliya.htm [first-aliyah
section])?

R'Micha also replied:
> Perhaps he was simply too young.

As per http://www.revach.net/article.php?id=490, an answer given by the
MaHaRaL.  For further thoughts/other answers, see
http://www.neryaakov.org/torah.php?action=show_article&;id=137&page=2 ,
http://www.torahsearch.com/page.cfm/1538 , and
http://www.torah.org.il/learning/perceptions/5758/pinchas.html .

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager

can anyone point me to the reason that in the vayechal  parsha, the shem 
hashem is YKVK throughout,  except in the pasuk that moshe asks yelech na 
ADNAI bekirbeinu. any reason for the switch?

RZS, in a back-handed slap at the exclusionary rule, says:
"But the exclusionary rule is something that was invented by USA judges in
the early 20th century, and would seem to have no more place in halacha
than it does in any other legal system."

Why is the exclusion of probative evidence because it was obtained
illegally any worse than excluding probative evidence because it is
being proffered by a woman?

Joseph Kaplan

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear - my question was on R' Eli Turkel's
> unwritten premise that BD _does_ accept evidence aside from Shnaim Eidim.

I don't know what the practice is, but in theory BD has a lot of 
leeway.  See HM 15:5 and the Aruch HaShulhan's additional comments in 15:4.

David Riceman

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:

> I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear - my question was on R' Eli Turkel's
> unwritten premise that BD _does_ accept evidence aside from Shnaim Eidim.

And my answer is that it's pretty clear that forensic evidence is
admissible, but only to impeach witnesses.

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

RET had asked:
> why Pinchas was not included in the original establishment of the
kohanim just as his grandfather, father and uncles were <

You mean why, aside from it being a g'zeiras hakasuv (as noted, e.g.,
in http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5760/pinchas60/aliya.htm [first-aliyah
section])?

R'Micha also replied:
> Perhaps he was simply too young.

Note that Aharon was 123 years old when he died and this occurred
shortly afterwards.
So if Pinchas was less than 30 there was more than 100 years between
grandfather and grandson (not impossible)

-- 
Eli Turkel

In Avodah Digest V25#263, R'Micha transcribed from a shiur of RAR-R:
> The decision was that halachically, one must passively allow those 50
> or so die rather than actively murder 10.

Would this be similar to the "runaway train" case (described on many
Webpages, e.g. http://www.ritacarter.co.uk/page11.htm), in which a
runaway train is likely (ironically, because of the absence of a dead
man's switch) to kill a number of people if not stopped and in which
you can take one and only one action: throw a switch that definitely
will save those people but instead kill one other person? Thanks.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:04:33 -0400 "Richard Wolpoe"
<rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Marty Bluke <marty.bluke@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This issue of paper (fiat) money comes up in Hilchos Ribis. The gemara
>> in Eizehu Neshech has an issur of lending and returning commodities.
>> The poskim discuss whether banknotes or considered money or
>> commodities. All of the modern day seforim on Ribis ( the most famous
>> probably being the Bris Yehuda) quote the teshuvos Chasam Sofer that
>> paper money is considered money and therefore there is no problem of
>> sa'ah bsa'ah. In fact, they say that even those poskim who disagreed
>> in the 19th century, would agree today because there is no "real"
>> money today at all. The Chazon Ish in Hilchos Ribis agress with this
>> as does the Aruch Hashulchan (I just saw it a week ago and now can't
>> find it, if anyone can give me the exact reference in the Aruch
>> Hashulchan I would greatly appreciate it).

> When I first posted this tangent, I was anticipating a serious Halachic
> discussion!  Can you furnish more details as to the location of the sources?
>   E.g. where is the Chasam Sofer, the CI etc.

All citations are from my notes; I have not verified most of them.

Hasam Sofer:  Resp. YD 134 (cited in Pis'hei Teshuvah HM 95:1, and see
Likutei He'aros to this responsum), EH 126, HM 153 and 187

See also:  Resp. Oneg Yom Tov 102, Resp. Har Zvi YD 244, Erech Shai HM
203, Dinei Mammonos (Bazri) Vol. I p. 30, Resp. Sha'arei Ezra 2:126,
Resp. Heshiv Moshe 55, Bris Yehudah Ch. 18 n. 10, Resp. Beis Shlomo HM
70, Aruch Ha'Shulhan HM 66:9 (and 95:1), Nahal Yitzhak 66:10, Resp.
Z'kan Aharon 1:98, Resp. Maharsham 2:100 (and 2:34), Resp. Imrei Yosher
2:185 (and 2:147, and his Minhas Pittim YD 305:3), Hachmas Shlomo HM
beginning of 292 and end of 74, Resp. Ha'elef L'cha Shlomo HM 6, Siddur
Derech Ha'Haim Pidyon Ha'Ben 8 (but see the editors note to the Bnei
Brak 5747 edition, arguing the passage is an editor's interpolation, and
was not written by R. Ya'akov M'Lisa), Nishmas Haim 117, Resp. Hesed
L'Avraham Vol. I YD 95.

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

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:09:02 EDT T613K@aol.com wrote [on Areivim,
transferred here as per moderator request, with her permission]:
...
> It is not reasonable to expect American laws to  correspond point for point 
> with halacha, nor is it necessary.  Goyim are  not mechuyav to keep halacha.  
> One of their seven mitzvos is to set up  their own system of courts and laws. 
...

While Rambam (Shoftim 9:14) and Ramban (Breishis 34:13) agree that they
are obligated to establish a judicial system, it is not at all clear
that the commandment of Dinim includes an obligation to legislate, as
opposed to merely enforcing the seven Noahide laws.  See, e.g., the
list of sources in the Frankel Sefer Ha'Mafteah (ibid. s.v. la'dun
b'shesh mizvos ailu - im danin al pi dinei yisrael o al pi nimuseihem).

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

From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
> In Holy Name Hospital in Teaneck, the nuns often do things like shave
> the people in a coma. Should we deny both the patient and the nuns this
> act of Hessed lest someone construe them as "legitimate?"

As a strong proponent of austritt, I can say once again that you don't
seem to quite understand what austritt entails. Neither I nor any
Orthodox rabbi, not even Rabbiner Hirsch himself, would object to a
Reform rabbi shaving a person in a coma.

--Toby  Katz
=============

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:17 PM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
> As a strong proponent of austritt, I can say once again that you don't seem
> to quite understand what austritt entails.  Neither I nor any Orthodox
> rabbi, not even Rabbiner Hirsch himself, would object to a Reform rabbi
> shaving a person in a coma.

   1. So if a Reform Rabbi serves as chaplain in Hospital X you are
   syaing unequivocably that it is NOT a recognition of his legitimacy?
   2. And if so, How come Rabbi Salomon Breuer couldn't even TALK about
   Rabbi Nobel's petirah [given that Rabbi Nobel himself was Orthodox!]?
   3. How do you construe the lecture on Tehilim at the JCC on the
   Palisades? Is the inclusion of Non_ Rabbis a fatal flaw in Austritt?
   4. How about the issue of Chanifa brought up before?....

Case in point. I was a gabbai in a RW Yeshiva. The Baalei Batim were
privlieged to be honoured with pesichos on Yamim Nora'im but NOT the
bachurim, But I was also told NOT to honour any Ba'al Habayyis who
had leather shoes on YK. Ribbono Shel Olam! The group being honoured
included numerous [not jsut 1 or 2] members who had leather shoes on
YK albeit those in particular were excluded - but those same people had
NOT been excluded during the previous RH.

OTOH the ENTIRE set of yeshiva Bachrurim did NOT have leather on their
feet on YK Shoudlnt' THEY have come first? Isn't this Chanifa to honour
as a class a set of people who are not uniformly in uniform on the
holiest day of the year in ostensibly the holiest beis midrash in town?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

 From the[Cong. Beth Aaron]  bagabbaim archives:

    The shul's minhag is to say Av Harachamim on Shabbat Mevorchim
    Av. This is different from what is printed in the Ezras Torah luach;
    it is the minhag HaGrah.

    Kalman Staiman

Why doesn't Ezras Torah follow the GRA on this?

For that matter why does this shul follow the GRA only on very selected
points? For exmaple we do NOT read megillos from a klaf? So why follwo
the GRA re: AvHaracamim? Mah Nafshach.

I have an answer but I am not sure iI can post it.
  <http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014>
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:59 AM, David Riceman <driceman@att.net> wrote:
> I'm trying to collect sources in Hazal (as opposed to Tanach or rishonim)
> about what God can't or won't do.  Examples include:

> "ain HKBH mekapeah schar kol briyah"
> "hamispalel lesheavar harei zo tefillas shav"

> Any suggestions?

Reported by someone on this list that HKBH cannot cause a galus to the
current Yishuv.

But for all the promises HBKH made to Ya'akov there was always the proviso
"shema yigrom Hacheit" I don't know any reason why that would not always
apply.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> See <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/tefillinChM.pdf> for the rest, including
> the topic of "os" on ch"m, tefillin beShabbos, etc...

> At the mesibah, which I happily attended, I teased RZL about it going into the
> next edition of The Dynamics of Dispute.

Some pointers:
Dr. Jacob [Ya'akov] Katz wrote a chapter on this on his work on Halcacha
and Kabbalah Also see the Ikkar Tosfos YT at the end of Moe'd Katan for
an involved argument for not wearing Tefillin on ChhM.

Let's jsut say this, AFAIK Ashkenzim DID wear Tefillin on ChhM from
the time of the Rosh thru the time of the Rema w/o signifcant devation.
AIUI, the rupture from this minhag Avos happened in the 18th Century.

The issue of Bracha was/is far more complex.
You see in shuls like Breuer's the Shatz says Bracha on Teillin OUT LOUD.
But as per Rema the bracha IS said, but only silently. {other poskim say
to not say it at all] but if you mimetically followed th Shatz you might
assume NOT to say was the minhag Ashkenaz. But this is not necesarily
so because the Minhag to say it silently would be hard to mimic, so the
mimetic impact would be minimzed in this mode.

Tangentially: it is possible that Hashem Sefasia was said by Shatz
silently and people did not hear it and therefore did not know it and
assume it was never said.

I guess getting back to Tefilin on ChhM MAYBE, just MAYBE people who
DID were Tefilin did so in an unusually inconspicuous way and this led
to confusion, just as silence did.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 07:28:19PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: All citations are from my notes; I have not verified most of them.

The AhS, for example, had to be speaking of metal-backed currency, not
fiat currency. I don't know everyone you quote, but we could eliminate
the majority of the list.

A shetar which says "the owner has a sheqel of silver sitting in Fort
Knox" is more like giving the actual sheqel of silver (to speak of kesef
in the literal sense, but gold would be no different) than giving a
piece of paper that had value because people decided you can exchange
it for value.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Sorry; I pressed send (to RMP) before writing my reply.  Here goes:

Michael Poppers wrote:

> How does considering Pin'chas a (to quote from that sugya in Maseches 
> Z'vachim) "mashuach milchamah" (which presumably occurred *after* he 
> killed Zimri, given the comment of RaShY mentioned by RDR) constitute 
> any contradiction to RET's "note" (which comes from the same sugya -- 
> see 101b)?

My apologies; I was thinking of the variant of the braitta appearing
in Seder Olam Rabba (ed. Ratner, chapter 7, p. 18) in which the braitta
makes clear that an opinion exists that this was true on the day of the
consecration of the Mishkan. See Ratner's note 41 there.

David Riceman

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:08 PM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <
kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

> I vaguely recall hearing a long time ago, that cars are not mekabel tumah,
> because they are not keilim, because they are too large. Despite being
> movable, it still counts as a binyan. I think the shiur was 40 seah. Or so
> my memory says.

K'li ha-ba'ah b'midah (aka k'li he-asui l'nachas) is only a din by wood,
hide, or cloth, as is learned out from a hekesh to a sack (which is
intended to be movable even when full) in Vayikra 11:32 - see Chagiga
26b and Rambam Hil. Keilim 3:2 and 3:3.

RJDBleich in his article on airplanes that I previously mentioned
(Tradition 36:4) mentions several other reasons why this heter would
not apply to a vehicle, including that it has wheels (so is movable) and
that it is used for seating (as excepted by Tos' Shabbos 44b DH Mucheni).

Joshua Meisner

>   From: "Richard Wolpoe"  <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
> In Holy Name Hospital in  Teaneck, the nuns often do things like shave the
>> people in a coma.  Should we deny both the patient and the nuns this act of
>> Hessed lest  someone construe them as "legitimate?" <<
>  --

>   Neither I nor  any Orthodox
> rabbi, not even Rabbiner Hirsch himself, would object to a  Reform rabbi
> shaving a person in a coma. [--old  TK]

> 1. So if a Reform Rabbi serves as chaplain in Hospital X you are saying
> unequivocally that it is NOT a recognition of his legitimacy?

Do the nuns shave comatose patients in their role as nurses or in their
role as chaplains?

If a Reform rabbi or a Reform Jew were a doctor or a nurse, I would not
see a problem with using their services.

If shaving a patient is part of some Catholic rite, like baptism, then
I certainly would /not/ want the nun to do that.

If a Reform rabbis serves as a chaplain in a hospital, that certainly
DOES confer legitimacy in a way that is completely different from a
Reform Jew serving as a doctor in the hospital.

As a patient I would not welcome a visit from a Reform chaplain.

But I have no control over what a hospital does. But if it was an
Orthodox-run hospital, I would certainly object strenuously to their
hiring R/C chaplains. As to an Orthodox rabbi serving as a chaplain in
a non-Jewish hospital where the other chaplains are R and C rabbis --
or serving as a chaplain in the American army, ditto -- that is a very
gray area. Many would not permit it, others would.

As for granting legitimacy to Catholic nuns, it is no concern of mine
whether Protestants or other Christian sects consider a Catholic nun
or priest "legitimate." To me anybody who claims to be a nun, monk,
priest or minister is "legitimate" -- as long as they don't claim to
be a representative or officer of JUDAISM.

--Toby  Katz
=============

From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
> 2. And if so, How come Rabbi Salomon Breuer couldn't even TALK about
> Rabbi Nobel's petirah [given that Rabbi Nobel himself was Orthodox!]?

Non-recognition of Reform and Conservative RABBIS and MOVEMENTS is
austritt of the first degree, and that is what I'm concerned about.

Non-recognition of Orthodox rabbis who reject first-degree austritt is
second degree austritt.

Nobody seems to advocate that in America anymore, for various reasons.
Partly it has to do with the totally different communal structure
we have in America vs Germany, where there is no one united community
anyway and no one rav who is the authority of the community. To reject
the authority of Rav Hirsch or his successor /in Frankfurt/ would be
the height of chutzpa, and to many it would be literally unforgivable.
No rav in America holds such a communal position.

Personally I advocate austritt of the first degree but not of the second
degree, partly because that is the position that my father and other
advocates of austritt held and partly because it is quite literally
impossible to carry out a policy of austritt in the second degree --
you would have to be a hermit living in a cave.

BTW I don't remember my father ever using the word "austritt" and I am
using it rather loosely as a short-hand way of saying "Don't give C
and R rabbis or their movements any public recognition as rabbis or as
movements within Judaism." If somebody can come up with a better word
please let me know.

--Toby  Katz
=============

From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
> 3. How do you construe the lecture on Tehilim at the JCC on the
> Palisades? Is the inclusion of Non_ Rabbis a fatal flaw in Austritt?

I don't know anything about this lecture of which you speak, but
non-Orthodox Jews, clergy or laypeople, should never be asked to lecture
on Torah subjects. If you want a Reform guy to give a lecture on how
to do CPR, that's fine.

My father was totally opposed to Orthodox participation in Federation
and JCCs. JCC Judaism is a large part of what has made such a
churban of American Jewry, and even on C/R terms, it hasn't worked.
Swimming together on Shabbos at the JCC has NOT made Jewish boys and
girls more likely to marry each other.

--Toby  Katz
=============

RSZN wrote:
> can anyone point me to the reason that in the vayechal ?parsha, the shem
> hashem is YKVK throughout, ?except in the pasuk that moshe asks yelech na
> ADNAI bekirbeinu. any reason for the switch?

I have a theory, based on the standard kavanot in the sheimot, that
the YKVK sheimot denote the long term, while ADNY and E-LOHIM denote
immediacy.

However, while I have generally been able to confirm this, I have seen
several exceptions, which I would first have to deal with.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

"ain HKBH mekapeah schar kol briyah"
"hamispalel lesheavar harei zo tefillas shav" >>

These seem to be very different
"ain HKBH mekapeah schar kol briyah" means that is G-d's will

"hamispalel lesheavar harei zo tefillas shav" seems to mean that it is
impossible, i.e. by logic G-d cannot change the past

see also

 "On Divine Omnipotence and its Limitations", Hakirah Volume 2,
: available from: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%202%20Grossman.pdf

as mentioned in the article all rishonim seem to agree that G-d can't
do things against logic or basic physics laws.
He separately mentions that Ramchal disagrees.
Are there other achronim that say that G-d can (if he wishes) violate
logic or basic laws of physics (eg change events in the past)

-- 
Eli Turkel

RJK wrote:
>> RZS, in a back-handed slap at the exclusionary rule, says: "But the
>> exclusionary rule is something that was invented by USA judges in the
>> early 20th century, and would seem to have no more place in halacha than
>> it does in any other legal system."

> Why is the exclusion of probative evidence because it was obtained
> illegally any worse than excluding probative evidence because it is
> being proffered by a woman?

> Joseph Kaplan

I suspect that women can not testify because of a gezairas hakasuv
(see Shovuos 30a) and not as the result of some rational sevara
(If the meforshim ascribe a rationale, perhaps someone could point it
out). However there is valid logic for the invention of the exclusionary
rule by the US courts. The reason is simply to protect the overall
court system and rules of evidence that are at the root of any court
system. They chose to exclude probative evidence obtained illegally at
the cost of possibly distorting the outcome in a particular case in order
to protect the integrity of the system as a whole. The logic is debatable
(and certainly is) but not totally irrational.

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

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


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

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 266
***************************************

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..."