Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 399

Mon, 01 Dec 2008

• 1. Re: [Areivim] Reading the Ingredient Panel (Harry Maryles)
• 2. Re: Lesheim Yichud Source Please and explanation (Michael Kopinsky)
• 3. Re: reading of ketuva (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. Veitzei "The Ladder Of Success Must Be Set Upon Something Solid Before You Can Start To Climb? Anonymous (Cantor Wolberg)
• 5. RSRH's Essay on The Jewish Woman (Yitzchok Levine)
• 6. Fwd: Source for yotzeir on parasahas Zachor (Micha Berger)
• 7. RSRH: A Time-Honored Jewish custom (Yitzchok Levine)
• 8. Position of Jewish Woman and Wife (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Surrogate Mother (david guttmann)
• 10. Re: R' Yaakov Emden (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 11. Re: effects of relgious worship on health (fwd) (Steven J Scher)
• 12. Life on earth can be "G-d's house" (Yitzchok Levine)
• 13. Re: [Areivim] Reading the Ingredient Panel (Harry Weiss)
• 14. Re: Surrogate Mother (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Surrogate Mother (Rich, Joel)
• 16. The Forgotten Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch
• 17. Re: effects of relgious worship on health (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: effects of relgious worship on health (fwd) (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 19. Humanism in Yahadus (Micha Berger)

--- On Fri, 11/28/08, Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu> wrote:



The following is from the latest issue of Kashrus Connection from the
Chof-K which I have posted at http
://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/kk_newsletter4.pdf YL

Reading the Ingredient Panel
Can one tell the kashrus of a product by
reading a list of ingredients?

The list of ingredients is not enough. A product
can be made on equipment which was used for
non-kosher foods, which would require a
kashrus agency to kasher the utensils prior to the
manufacturing of the kosher product. An
ingredient panel might say ?flavors?; this can
mean anything at all, since the government
does not require the company to specify the
source of the flavors that go into their product.
Nonetheless, there are some products which
may be bought without such a symbol, such as
non-flavored seltzer, non-flavored tea, and
unflavored bottled water.
?
This is true. 
?
But I have been told by people who involved in Hechsherim that there are some things a label can tell you. 
?
Lactose intolerance can be a serious problem. Those who have it can get
violently ill in some cases. So the FDA policy IIUC is to clearly mention
if there is even a trace of milk in any of food product. If it does not say
so on their ingredient panel, then one can be assured that a product has no
milk or milk product in it - even if it has a D attached to the Hechsehr.
The OU policy is to label those products that are dairy free but made
in?dairy equipement? with a D for dairy. The reason they do that is because
most people don't know that the only thing one may not do with such food is
cook it with meat products. One may however eat such a product after eating
meat. Chaf-K does in fact label their products DE when appropriate. I'm not
sure about other Hechsher organizations.
?
A D next to an OU does not therefore make a prodcut automaticly dairy. By
reading the ingredients one can determine if their is any dairy in their at
all even B'Mashehu. If it is, it will be cleary listed and will probably
also contain a warning in bold letters.
?
But please do not rely on me. Before taking this advice one should consult a 'Hechsher savy' O Rabbi.
?
HM
?

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081128/554a36fa/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il> wrote:

> One other point which is relevant: the Noda b'Yehuda wrote that the
> appearance of this phrase in siddurim was a new phenomena in his day. So
> while the source may be much older, according to this source it was never
> said until fairly recently.
>

Not necessarily that it was never said, but rather that it was never
included in the siddur. It may very well be (and I'm entirely speculating
here) that before that time it was said by mekkubalim and other people in
the know, and only in the time of the NbY did it get included in the siddur,
and thus spread beyond just the few and elite. If this is so, then it would
seemingly support RMB's interpretation of the NbY's objection.

KT and GS,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081128/bce36015/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel asked:
> Since reading the ketuba is only to separate the kiddushim
> from the nisuim why isnt this the norm? What purpose is
> there in reading a lengthy ketuba in Aramaic where few
> understand and fewer listen?

Didn't you answer the question yourself? The only purpose in reading the kesuba is to make a hefsek. Why should there be a need to understand it as well?

(Note that this thread refers only to the public reading of the kesuba, and has nothing to do with reasons for *having* a kesuba.)

Akiva Miller

28:12  "And he dreamt, and behold! A ladder was set earthward and its  
top reached heavenward: and behold! angels of God were ascending and  
descending on it."

The ladder alludes to Sinai, since the Hebrew words Sinai and Sulam  
(ladder) both have the numerical value of 130; and according to the  
Midrash the angels represent Moses and Aaron; and God stood atop the  
ladder just as He stood atop Sinai to give the Torah.

By speaking of angels ascending and being replaced by others, the  
Torah indicates that God extends His protection to Tzadikim, though  
the angels are not visible -- not even by those they escort. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081129/392cd985/attachment-0001.htm>

This Shabbos I had a chance to read RSRH's long essay titled The 
Jewish Woman. IMO this is a masterful presentation of the role of the 
Jewish woman. It contains such marvelous insights that  I feel that 
relevant parts of this essay should be taught to all yeshiva high 
school boys and girls. In addition, I think that some of Rav Hirsch's 
insights into marriage should be part and parcel of all Kallah and 
Chosson classes. I have put this essay at

<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jewish_woman.pdf>The 
Jewish Woman (Collected Writings VIII) 
<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jewish_woman_83_94.pdf>Pages 
83 - 94 
<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jewish_woman_95_112.pdf>Pages 
95 - 
112 
<h
ttp://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jewish_woman_113_135.pdf>Pa
ges 
113 - 135

The first link is to the entire essay which is 53 pages long. For 
those who do not have a high speed connection or who have trouble 
handling pdf files, I have broken the essay into 3 parts, as the 
above indicates.  Please keep in mind that one can buy the Collected 
Writings of RSRH at www.feldheim.com .

Here is a small sample from this essay.

In view of the foregoing. a man should exercise more care and purity 
of mind in selecting a wife than in any other decision. Some take a 
wife out of sensuality, others out of greed. others for personal 
ambition, and still others with pure intentions that are pleasing to 
God. One who marries out of sensuality will have disobedient and 
rebellious children. That is why the Biblical laws regarding marriage 
to a woman that was captured in battle are followed by the laws 
concerning the "stubborn and rebellious son." If a man marries for 
money, he will end his days in poverty and dependence on charity. The 
sons of Eli. who married women out of greed, lived through the 
humiliation of seeing what was left of their home sold to others for 
one coin and one loaf of bread. One who marries a man out of ambition 
will have descendants doomed to ruin. Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. 
dazzled by the splendor of the palace of Ahab, allied himself to the 
latter by marriage. What was the result? After his death. Athalia, 
the mother of his grandson, killed every possible rival in the family 
to make sure she could rule over Israel.

On the other hand. a man who takes a wife with pure and pious 
intentions will have children who will bring happiness and salvation 
to Israel. This was the case with Amram who, through his wife 
Yocheved. became the father of Moses and Aaron. Another case in point 
was Obed, the son of Boaz and Ruth, ancestor of David and Solomon.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081130/0e4d2cce/attachment-0001.htm>

I was asked to ask the chevrah the following:
: (Aside from Sefer Otzer HaTefilos' derash) what is the source for the
: Yotzer of parashas Zachor to say that Esav sold his birthright for a
: cup of wine alone (stanza starting "Zachor HaDichui") rather than the
: standard explanation of lentils ?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In his essay on 
<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jewish_woman.pdf>The 
Jewish Woman RSRH discusses how Rivka was chosen to be Yitzchok's 
wife.  On pages 107 - 108 he writes regarding how this Shidduch was 
decided upon and then comments on how other shidduchim should be 
decided upon. YL

It is significant that the one person whose wishes should have been 
regarded as decisive in this arrangement has nothing to say in the 
matter. Isaac, whose wishes should have mattered the most, remains 
silent throughout. While Rebecca is asked for her approval before any 
arrangements are made in her behalf, Isaac permits his father and his 
father's faithful servant complete freedom to act for him in a matter 
which, more than anything else, will be decisive for his personal 
happiness. Does this story not reflect a character trait in the 
family of Abraham that still predominates within the families of 
Abraham's true spiritual heirs today, promoting their true happiness 
throughout life? How much ridicule has been wasted on the fact that 
until very recent times Jewish marriages were made not by the 
well-known blind deity with his quiver of arrows but solely on the 
basis of thorough, rational consideration by the parents and families 
of both parties!

Here again we see a time-honored Jewish custom, with its good common 
sense, that has proven more effective than any other approach in the 
promotion of personal happiness. In other societies marriages are 
made by emotions as blind as their god of love. Passion acts as the 
matchmaker, thus excluding, from the very outset, the role of calm 
reflection in a matter where dispassionate consideration would seem 
to be of the essence. Partners whose emotions are blinded by passion 
never get to know one another before marriage; as a result, they 
enter marriage with notions and expectations that have no relation to 
reality. But very soon reality brings disillusionment, chilling the 
passions and estranging the partners from one another. Jewish 
marriages, on the other hand, are made on the basis of calm 
deliberation and careful reflection, testing whether the prospective 
partners are mutually compatible in their emotions, character, 
personality and all the other factors that determine marital 
happiness. These are considerations and reflections of which neither 
the young man nor the young woman are capable but which are within 
the capability of the parents, relatives and friends of both parties. 
Only when good common sense would approve of the union are the 
couple's feelings toward one another taken into account. That is why 
statistics show a disproportionately higher percentage of happy 
marriages among Jews than among members of other societies. 
Therefore, too, in Jewish marriages the wedding* is not the climax 
but only the highly promising seeding of love that unfolds more and 
more with every passing day of the marriage. This is a love that, as 
the partners pass through life's days of sunshine and tempest, 
becomes ever more firmly rooted and bursts into ever more glorious 
flower as the two hearts grow into one another and the two souls. 
deeply involved in the serious business of life. become aware of what 
they mean to one another and realize what a treasure each has in the 
other. An Isaac who chooses his Rebecca on his own may well make a 
mistake, but an Isaac who permits his father Abraham to bring him his 
Rebecca will rarely be disillusioned.

Note, finally. the striking contrast between the Aramite family on 
the one hand and the family of Abraham on the other. See Isaac 
permitting his father to act for him in the most serious decision of 
his life. On the other hand, see Rebecca's brother, Laban, rudely 
pushing his aged father. Bethuel, aside when this most important 
family concern is discussed, impudently lording it over the family 
and shoving the "old man" into a corner like so much castoff 
household refuse. Even when the family is called upon to give its 
formal sanction to the proposed marriage, Laban does not allow his 
father to speak before him. The "old man" does not get any of the 
delicacies that Eliezer has brought for Rebecca's family. It is the 
son and his mother that do all the talking (with the son speaking 
before his mother. which was considered proper), and when the 
bride  receives the family's blessing as she leaves her home to go 
with Eliezer, it is not her father but her brother who blesses the 
departing daughter.

* R. Hirsch alludes to the German term for "wedding," Hochzeif. 
literally "high time" or "climax." (Ed.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081130/ab5f00a5/attachment-0001.htm>

Part of RSRH's essay The Jewish Woman includes his commentary on 
Aishes Chayil (Proverbs 31,10-31). He concludes his commentary with

This retrospective view of a Jewish wife gives us a most beautiful 
portrayal of one woman's work. Even if Scripture had preserved for us 
nothing more than this vignette from the history of our womanhood, 
this one hymn would be sufficient to afford us a splendid view of the 
position of women in Judaism and an eloquent rebuttal of all the 
fabrications, past and present, invented by incomprehensible 
thoughtlessness about the enslavement and degradation of Jewish women 
in days of old. What European woman of our own century would not look 
back upon this portrayal from remote Jewish antiquity as a shining 
ideal that she would be delighted to approximate in her own life?

What, then, is the position of the Jewish woman and wife? She is her 
husband's close friend and makes him happy. He feels secure with her, 
and he looks to her as the inspiration for his greatest achievements.

She enjoys full independence as the manager and supervisor of the 
home, but that is not all. She wants to do more than simply accept 
her husband's earnings and use them for the good of the home, to feed 
and otherwise provide for the members of her household. She herself 
participates in the work that needs to be done. She is eager to make 
her own economic contribution to the prosperity of her household. 
Thus, of her own free will, she has made herself an active partner in 
her husband's labors.

Constant activity is her element; good works are her delight; wisdom 
dwells upon her lips, and her every word and action is a lesson in 
selfless love and devotion.

She is the ever-watchful supervisor of the routine of her household, 
and at the same time she is her husband's quiet, wise counselor in 
matters affecting the welfare of the community in which they live.

The memory of what she meant to them will live on forever in the 
hearts of her husband and children who, for the rest of their lives, 
will rise in respectful tribute to her memory and will never cease to 
praise her. Her memory will live on also outside her immediate 
family, in the hearts of her community, as an eternal praise and a 
valiant example to be followed by future generations.

Fortunate, and also immortal. the nation that can boast of such women 
and mothers in its history.

See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jewish_woman.pdf for 
the entire essay.

Yitzchok Levine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20081130/2f33450d/attachment.htm>

I would like to get an idea of the current Halachik thinking about having
children via a surrogate mother? What are the issues? 

Thank you in advance for some insight.

David Guttmann
 
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 
 
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org 

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:19:09 -0500
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <r...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> In the Hagahos R' Yaakov Emden to Gittin 57a (the Agadata on Bilam and 
> Posh'ei Yisroel that Onkelos summoned), the new Vagshal Gemaros have two 
> passages that do not appear in any of the earlier editions such as the 
> Vilna, and even not in the more contemporary editions such as the Oz 
> v'Hadar. Even in the Vagshal edition, the second one of those he'aros 
> has clearly been censored by whoever added it, as there are two ellipses 
> in it - something that you do not find in other he'aros in the "Hagahos 
> v'Chiddushim" section. Both passages deal with Shabbetai Zvi. The 
> Vagshal "Devarim Achadim" says they added stuff to Hagahos R' Yaakov 
> Emden from manuscript. Does anyone know where this manuscript is, 
> whether these passages have been previously published, or what was even 
> now deemed too sensitive to print? Of course, the juiciest find would be 
> that the second passage mentioned R' Yonoson Eyebeschutz or some other 
> contemporary...

Wolf2191 [0] notes that R. Yaakov Emden's Shas is in the National
Library (Hebrew University), and he directs RYGB to Or Yisroel
#43 p. 203 [1].

[0] http://ishimshitos.blogspot.com/
[1] private correspondence

> YGB

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

This discussion is transfered from Areivim at the suggestion of the 
Areivim moderators.


This is me:

>> I find it very hard to imagine studies that COULD offer proof of HaShem's
>> existence.  What would such evidence look like?
>

to which R'Yitzchak Grossman replied:

> Let's say a study were to show that people who have been prayed for by
> others, specifically by Jews praying to God, do statistically,
> significantly better than those who have no such prayers said on their
> behalf.  Assume that we can isolate all other factors, for example by
> ensuring that the studies are blind and controlled, in the sense that
> the patients don't know which of them are being prayed for, and we
> control for socioeconomics and culture. i.e. both groups are Orthodox
> Jews of similar Hashkafos and Yiras Shamayim, etc.
> 
> I'm sure I've missed some catches, but I see no reason that with enough
> care and forethought it should not be possible to design such a study.
> Whether this would be ethical or Halachically permitted are other
> questions, of course.



An important part of this kind of a study would have to be that the choice of 
who was prayed for and who wasn't prayed for was randomly assigned. And the 
thing that would make this evidence convincing is a large effect -- a clear 
difference between those prayed for and those not prayed for.

This is the big problem I have with this type of study.

What we are saying is that HaShem, simply to convince people of His existence, 
would treat one randomly chosen group of people substantially better than 
another randomly chosen group of people.  This doesn't sound to me like the God 
who was willing to spare a whole city of reshaim if 10 tzaddikim could be 
found.

(Actually, to give you your counter-argument.... It just occured to me that 
this MIGHT work if we assume that the selection of people were NOT random from 
HaShem's perspective.  In other words, if HaShem controlled the random 
selection process so that the people He actually wanted to get better were in 
fact placed into the group to be prayed for, then maybe this would make sense.

I'll have to think about this more, because in some sense this makes the 
assignment of people to groups non-random.... what I can't get my head around 
right now is if that means that the experiment no longer is valid because of 
that type of non-randomness.  My leaning is to say that it isn't a problem... 
after all, one way to think about randomness is to say that it is leaving the 
outcomes in HaShem's hands, without a human way of predicting how it's going to 
come out.)


Now, moving out of the hypothetical:

Even if we did the study that R'YG suggests, I don't think that it would 
come out in a way to provide clear evidence for HaShem's existence.  For 
it to do so, HaShem has to want to very clearly demonstrate that He 
exists.  And, in my opinion He has much better ways to do that then to 
affect the results of some scientific study!


  - Steve

There is a tendency in some circles to disassociate spirituality from 
participation in the material world.

The following is from the new translation of RSRH's commentary on the Chumash.

28: 17 And he [Ya'akov] was afraid and said: How awesome is this 
place! This is none other than the house of God! and this is a gate to heaven!

Vayera. This new awareness and the new demands that it brought with
it are what inspired in him the feeling of awe and fear: "How awesome
is this place!" What has been shown to me here is none other than the
house of God, a gate to heaven. Life on earth can be "God's house," a
house in which God takes up residence. When the angels ascend and seek
God in heaven, they have to descend to find Him on earth among men.
Every house that is home to such a life is "a gate to heaven," a gate
through which man enters to cleave to the Shechinah; it represents a
perfect union of the earthly and the heavenly. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081201/e86c837c/attachment-0001.htm>

> From: Harry Maryles <hmary...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Avodah] [Areivim]

> does not say so on their ingredient panel, then one can be assured that 
> a product has no milk or milk product in it - even if it has a D 
> attached to the Hechsehr. The OU policy is to label those products that 
> are dairy free but made in?dairy equipement? with a D for dairy. The 
> reason they do that is because most people don't know that the only 
> thing one may not do with such food is cook it with meat products. One 
> may however eat such a product after eating meat. Chaf-K does in fact 
> label their products DE when appropriate. I'm not sure about other

Some products may be fully Pareve.  I often use the TraderJoes merrengues 
which for years were OU Parve and are now OU Dairy.  I contacted the OU to 
check if they were dairy or dairy equipment.  (I hightly recommend 
contacting the OU to get that information rather than relying on the 
ingredient panel.  They are glad to give out that information.)  They said 
it was totally pareve, but the manufacturer wanted to change their 
prooduction in the future and that I should check with them regularly to 
check on the status.



Harry J. Weiss
hjwe...@panix.com

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 09:11:24PM -0500, david guttmann wrote:
: I would like to get an idea of the current Halachik thinking about having
: children via a surrogate mother? What are the issues? 

R' Eli Clark (v2n73) wrote:
> By coincidence, I happened to have co-authored an article on the
> subject (available by e-mail upon request). The primary halakhic
> question is who is considered the halakhic mother -- the birth mother
> (i.e., the surrogate) or the genetic mother. Virtually all posekim
> agree that the birth mother is the halakhic mother. Hence, in the
> case of a Jewish birth mother, the resulting child would be Jewish and
> -- if the child did not know the identity of its halakhic mother --
> could unintentionally marry a close relative, commit incest and produce
> children who are mamzerim. Hence, le-khathillah, R. S. Z. Auerbach, R.
> Elyashiv and R. E. Waldenberg prohibit surrogacy arrangements. R.
> Bleich points out as well that the production of a child in a surrogacy
> arrangement may not fulfill the mitzvah of piryah ve-rivyah and therefore
> questions the religious motives of a couple wishing to employ surrogacy.
...
> Nevertheless, it is clear that many couples prefer to try to produce
> a genetically related child than adopt. It is also clear that the
> mamzerut issue can be addressed by either using a non-Jewish woman as
> surrogate or ensuring that the Jewish surrogate's identity is known to
> the child. In the article, I also address some related issues, such
> as the enforceability of surrogate contracts, issues of gilluy `arayot
> and hotza'at zera le-vatalah and moral considerations. (The maternity
> issue was the subject of several pieces in Tehumin and Tradition in the
> mid-1980's. R. Bleich recently addressed some of the other issues
> in the Winter 1998 Tradition. My article is slated to appear in a
> forthcoming issue of the RJJ Journal.)

(His email address is at the original post
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n073.shtml#09>.)

Later in that digest, R' Yitzchok Zirkind replied. WRT R' Bleich's
opinion:
> There is discussion WRT a Mamzeir see Minchas Chinuch first Mitzvoh,
> but in a case where no Aveiroh was done why would the father not fulfill
> Pru Urvu, however for a BN that his whole obligation is Lo Sohu Bro'oh
> there should be Lich'oroh no question that he fulfills his obligation.

And about avoiding mamzeirus by using a non-Jewish surrogate:
> Why would this not be in the same category of Boeil Aramis which the
> Rambam (Hil. Issurei Bioh 21) says that it causes a possible Jewish
> child to be non Jewish (the fact that the child will be converted doesn't
> change the Halacha there).

(N.B.: RYZ since became part of the Beis Din of Crown Heights and is one
of the 2 Executive Supervisors of Kashrus of the CH Badatz.)

In v2n75, R"Dr Josh Backon wrote:
> See TCHUMIN Vol. 5, p. 248, the article by Rav Nechemiah Goldberg on
> surrogate motherhood. Also the discussion on the topic in the NISHMAT
> AVRAHAM Even Ha'Ezer p. 15-17. Some opinions: if the donor and surrogate
> are both Jewish, the surrogate is the *mother*. If either one is not
> Jewish, the donor of the egg determines whether the child is Jewish
> or not.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

BCc: REC, RYZ

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

 
. R.
> Bleich points out as well that the production of a child in a 
> surrogacy arrangement may not fulfill the mitzvah of piryah ve-rivyah 
> and therefore questions the religious motives of a couple wishing to
employ surrogacy.
.=============================
Does he make the same assertion about adoptions? IVF? AIH?
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.

I have added a link to Rabbi Mayer Schiller's article about the 
Humanism of RSRH at www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh

It is

<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/humanisim_rsrh.pdf>The 
Forgotten Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch by Rabbi Mayer Schiller

(Posted with permission from the summer 1989 issue of Jewish Action, 
the magazine of the Orthodox Union.)


Yitzchok Levine  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081201/cd057147/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:26:44AM -0600, Steven J Scher wrote:
: This is the big problem I have with this type of study.

: What we are saying is that HaShem, simply to convince people of His 
: existence, would treat one randomly chosen group of people substantially 
: better than another randomly chosen group of people.  This doesn't sound to 
: me like the God who was willing to spare a whole city of reshaim if 10 
: tzaddikim could be found.

That's how the study is being used. In reality, all the study is really
saying is that people who take quiet time out each week to pray, or in
the case of Buddhists to meditate -- without even necessarily involving
any notion of deity! -- are more likely to live longer.

Given the effects of stress, that is explainable without any religious
implication. Bitachon reduces stress by giving meaning and purpose to
daily irritants, and thus high blood pressure, stomach acid, and other
stress-related symptoms.

If the study were about the people prayed for rather than the people
praying, and one can show that the recipient's health didn't correlate to
their own religiosity, then it would be easier to tie to religious import.


The discussion on Areivim also drifted into the notion of proving G-d,
and rishonim who made such an excercise an essential part of Avodas H'.
The Rambam, as a famous example, didn't believe that knowing G-d simply
because one believes one's parents and rebbeim was a fulfillment of
yedi'as Hashem without such a proof.

As RYGrossman wrote on Areivim:
> The Pis'he Lev's introduction to Sha'ar Ha'Yihud of the Hovos
> Ha'Levovos summarizes the basic classic opinions requiring or
> encouraging rational demonstration of God's existence.  [The bulk of
> that introduction is actually aimed at showing that we ought *not* to
> engage in this sort of philosophical speculation, but he still does
> provide a good summary of many of the opinions that do encourage it.]

The Lev Tov doesn't touch Sha'ar haYichud, and instead just has an
intro explaining why.

When RSJScher asked:
> I find it very hard to imagine studies that COULD offer proof of HaShem's
> existence.  What would such evidence look like?

Rn TK replied:
> There is a difference between "proof" and "evidence."  There is a HUGE
> amount of circumstantial evidence for Hashem's existence but no actual
> proof.  The evidence falls into two broad categories:
 
> A. Evidence from history, science, from the Torah, and from daily events
> ("coincidences," "amazing cures," "unbelievable rescues" etc) that there
> is Somebody Up There pulling the strings.

> B. Evidence /against/ the thesis that everything happens by chance,
> that everything is random.

> Atheists also have some evidence on their side, evidence for randomness
> and evidence against Divine Providence, so you end up weighing the
> evidence on both sides. To me the evidence on our side is overwhelmingly
> superior to the evidence on the other side, but obviously atheists look at
> the same scales and weigh the two sides differently. I should amend that:
> actually most atheists have not seriously considered the evidence against
> their side but mostly dismiss it without giving it very deep thought.
> This even includes clever, facile atheists who have written whole books
> on the subject -- men like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
> Their learning is shallow and superficial.

> BTW I have not even laid out a table of contents here for a Proof of G-d's
> existence, so don't bother trying to argue that I haven't "made my case."
> I have only said there is a case, a strong one. I would add that if G-d
> hid Himself so completely that there was NO evidence for His existence,
> or overwhelming evidence for His non-existence, He would not be playing
> fair with His creatures, and one of the postulates about G-d is that He
> is just. To assume a G-d who exists but who is unjust is tantamount to
> assuming no G-d at all. Equally, to assume a G-d who does not want to
> be found and who does not want us to have a relationship with Him is
> also tantamount to assuming no G-d. He has definitely left clues all
> over the place.

To repeat my own aphorism:
    The brain is a wonderful organ
    for justifying conclusions
    the heart already reached.

And therefore bright people aren't more likely to arrive at truth on
religious questions. Instead, they are more likely to buttress the answer
their negi'os lead them to.

Few philosophers today believe it's possible to prove G-d's existence.
Or disprove it. But evidence....

To put it another way... A proof is a bunch of reasoning built atop
postulates. Where do the postulates come from? In general, by extrpolating
from experience or sources deemed reliable. Can such a structure ever be
stronger than belief based directly on the experience itself?

Yet another way, as R' Shalom Carmy once posted here:
> People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take
> for granted things that I don't.

> The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about
> G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising
> these proofs is identical with knowing G-d.

> Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as
> a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence.




This topic was discussed at length on Hirhurim (back when it was entirely
RGS's blog) and I discuss it too on Aspaqlaria.

My own feeling is that the typical kiruv worker both knows and doesn't
know the value of experience over proof. OT1H, the typical program is
built around the experience of Shabbos. OTOH, when asked to prove Yahadus,
they fall back to the misnamed "Kuzari Proof". (I say "misnamed" because
Rihal's point was mesorah was more solid than philosophy; not to create
a new philosophical proof based on mesorah!)

In RnTK's terms, experiencing a Shabbos with all the oddities of hilkhos
boreir is more evidence than all the arguments about ma'aseh Bereishis,
the Mabul, Migdal Bavel, or whether other cultures had a concept of a
7 day week.

By this standard, the tough question isn't why China has a record of an
individual culture before the Mabul and Migdal Bavel (which can be
addressed and has been discussed here ad infinitum), but explaining
mechias Amaleiq.

Some links to the archive:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=B#BELIEF%20OR%20PROOF
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=K#KNOWLEDGE%20A
ND%20PROOF

Hirhurim:
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/11/proof-of-gods-existence.html
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007/04/proofs-of-god.html
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007/05/proofs-of-god-ii.html
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/03/defense-of-simple-faith.html
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/05/defense-of-simple-faith-ii.html
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/06/defense-of-simple-faith-iii.html
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/11/problem-with-proofs-of-god.html
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2008/10/proofs-for-god-justification.html
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2008/08/r-soloveitchiks-proof-of-god.html
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2008/08/rav-kook-and-proofs-of-god.html

Aspaqlaria (Category: Faith and Proof):
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/machashavah/faith-and-proof


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:26:44 -0600 (CST)
Steven J Scher <sjsc...@eiu.edu> wrote:

...

> to which R'Yitzchak Grossman replied:
> 
> > Let's say a study were to show that people who have been prayed for by
> > others, specifically by Jews praying to God, do statistically,
> > significantly better than those who have no such prayers said on their
> > behalf.  Assume that we can isolate all other factors, for example by

...

> An important part of this kind of a study would have to be that the choice of 
> who was prayed for and who wasn't prayed for was randomly assigned. And the 
> thing that would make this evidence convincing is a large effect -- a clear 
> difference between those prayed for and those not prayed for.

Of course.
 
> This is the big problem I have with this type of study.
> 
> What we are saying is that HaShem, simply to convince people of His existence, 
> would treat one randomly chosen group of people substantially better than 
> another randomly chosen group of people.  This doesn't sound to me like the God 
> who was willing to spare a whole city of reshaim if 10 tzaddikim could be 
> found.

We are not saying that He would do so "simply to convince people of His
existence"; on the contrary, I am saying that as long as He can be
expected to act according to the normal ways in which we are told He
acts, i.e. as a Shomai'a Tefillah, we ought to be able to measure and
quantify this effect. ...

> Now, moving out of the hypothetical:
> 
> Even if we did the study that R'YG suggests, I don't think that it would 
> come out in a way to provide clear evidence for HaShem's existence.  For 
> it to do so, HaShem has to want to very clearly demonstrate that He 
> exists.  And, in my opinion He has much better ways to do that then to 
> affect the results of some scientific study!

Again, I am not saying that we are looking for an attempt of His to
show His existence; the demonstration of His existence would be a
measurable emergent effect of His normal behavior, as Judaism describes
it.

>   - Steve

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

Different variants of this issue have come up so often lately, that I
want to pull them together into an Avodah discussion.

On Areivim I hijacked a conversation because "humanism" was being used as
a shorthand for "secular humanism". The mental shorthand is dangerous,
as by making humanism something for "them", we increase the tendency
away from it.

In Yahadus, the question of humanism isn't "yes" or "no", but "how much"?

This is really two questions: intensity and breadth. (1) How often
does bein adam lachaveiro (BALC) concerns override other mitzvos? (2)
How rapidly does our responsibility drift off as we get further from
dealing with unzerer?

Intensity: RnCL recently raised the issue of the role of humanism
in pesaq.

Breadth: Here we recently discussed the difference between the Tanya's
take on Bava Basra 10b, that the gemara is describing an ontological
deficiency, and those of Rabbeinu Bachya through R' Elchanan Wasserman
(REW cites numerous rishonim) who explain the gemara as being a
condemnation of paganism.

I believe we all agree that there is some kind of difference between
the neshamos of Yehudim and nachriim. After all, there is the whole
concept comparing a geir to a qatan shenolad, and the acceptance of
another neshamah.

OTOH, if I start Shabbos early, do I perceive any less BALC to a Jew
who didn't yet accept that neshamah yeseirah?

***********************
1- Is the distinction quantitative or qualitative?

2- Is it inherent -- Jews were given the Torah because they are
different? Or, is it that we are different because we are the carriers
of the Torah? (Even those of us who try to escape that role.)

IOW, are all men created equal, but then some become part of the Torah
sheBa'al peh, or are some created different?

3- What bothers me the most is the third, perception issue. Do we define
the gap by using a language of how much greater we are than them, or of
how similar they are to animals? Does one express it as barukh Mordechai,
how much the Yehudi is beyond, or as arur Haman, how little the nachri
is above the chai?

It's the third question, even though is can often be one of perspective
rather than substance, will have the greatest behavioral impact.

The Kuzari says the difference is inherent (although not between Jew and
gentile but between matrilineal descendant of the Avos and gentile) and
qualitative. But about the greatness of the Jew, not the lowliness of
the gentile.

The rationalists (including R' Saadia, Rambam, much later R' Hirsch) say
it's both quantitative and caused by been given the Torah. (The Rambam
even goes so far as to place Aristo ahead of a Jewish am haaretz, not that
I think anyone else would. Maybe chassid umos ha'olam vs Jewish rasha...)

The Maharal says the difference is inherent and quantitative. See RDE's
discussion (link to his blog below), referring to Tif'eres Yisrael ch.
2, Be'ere haGolah, R' Harman's edition, fn 562-563, and Gevuros Hashem
28.

***********************

There is a whole genre that seems to exist to emphasize humanism in our
observance to the sole effect of having the reader nod their heads and
go on acting like they did.

From RYS's life:
- He saw the need for a Mussar Movement after he tried to peak into
  someone else's machzor on YK, and the person was annoyed with RYS
  interrupting his kavanah.
- The time he missed Kol Nidrei because a baby was crying, and his older
  sister who was babysitting didn't know what to do.
- When he washed for hamotzi with a bare minimum of water, because he
  saw the maid had to heave the water up from the bottom of a hill.
- And in another Shabbos dinner, RYS rushed through the meal so that
  the almanah who cooked and served the food wouldn't have to stay up late.
- When he was too old to bake matzos himself, and his talmidim took over,
  they asked him what the most important chumrah to watch for. "Do not
  oppress the almanos who operate the bakery!"
And many many more of the like.

And in the hagiographies of 20th century gedolim...
    "When Rabbi Aharon Kotler, founder and first Rosh Yeshiva of the
    great Lakewood Yeshiva, was in the car with his driver, and would
    come to a toll, he would tell the driver to take the car to a human
    toll collector instead of to a toll machine in order to practice
    kavod habrios (human dignity). Going to the machine would disparage
    the kavod of a human being. The practice of giving kavod is too
    important and inescapable."

(Some of them actually came across to me as faint praise. Am I to be
inspired or amazed by the fact that sometimes Rav Moshe washed the
dishes?)

RYG posted to Areivim (in part):
> The definitive discussion of Jewish humanism is doubtless R. Aharon
> Lichtenstein's "'Mah Enosh': Reflections on the Relation between
> Judaism and Humanism", available from yutorah.org:
> http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/1.%20Aharon%2
> 0Lichtenstein%20-20%27Mah%20Enosh27%20Reflections%20on%20the%20Relatio
> n%20between%20Judaism%20and%20Humanism.pdf
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/57kkkv

I also recall RYGB sending me something about Hirschian Humanism, in
addition to the recent post by RYL. I'm cc-ing RYGB in case he still has
the URL to the essay.

Meanwhile, this issue also came up in an exchange on RDE's blog. See
<http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/11/all-men-are-equal-rap-
vs-r-micha-berger.html>
or <http://tinyurl.com/6euxz3>, and
<http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/11/all-men-are-equal-ii-critique.ht
ml>.
Most of what I would have said here I wrote there already (while this
post was in my "Drafts" folder).

On my own blog, I summed up what I took from a discussion we had here
(Mar-Apr 2007) on "Universalism" at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/04/universalism.shtml>.

And on Cross-Currents, RYAdlerstein recently wrote "Sharing it with
the World"
<http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2008/11/28/sharing-it-with-
the-world/>
or <http://tinyurl.com/5bjlpm>, lauding R' Jonathan Sacks (CR of UK):
> Should Jews actively promote Jewish values to the rest of the world?
> For two millennia, there was not much of a question. No one would
> listen. Today in the West we have the ability to speak our minds, and
> often a large audience of those who believe that Jews have access to
> a treasure-trove of Divinely communicated wisdom. They are open to,
> and invite, our sharing it with them.

> This is where the debate begins, not ends. Some believe that anything
> we say will in time be used against us, as it always was. Our stance
> towards others should be respectful and cooperative ? but not
> educative.

> Others believe the very opposite. It is more dangerous, they believe,
> to allow a world to plunge headlong into moral darkness. Besides, we
> have a Torah imperative to create universal respect for G-d (see
> Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos, Positive Mitzvos #3). How better to do it
> than by showcasing the power of His teaching?

(RJS's complete message is quoted in RYA's posting.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 399
***************************************

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..."