Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 238

Tue, 24 Nov 2009

• 1. Re: Are there halachic issues with using the Mormon fmaily history web site? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Was Esav a Rasha in the womb? (Marty Bluke)
• 3. Was Esav a Rasha in the womb? (Richard Wolberg)
• 4. Re: Was Esav a Rasha in the womb? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: pampers (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Raw food on Erev Shabbos (Isaac Balbin)
• 7. questions regarding pidyon haben (Ben Waxman)
• 8. Chillul HaShem & Goyim (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 9. Re: ikkarim: mashiach (hankman)
• 10. Re: halachic attitude to the convicted (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 11. Re: Are there halachic issues with using the Mormon fmailyhistory web site? (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: Was Esav a Rasha in the womb? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 13. Re: Are there halachic issues with using the Mormon fmaily history web site? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: questions regarding pidyon haben (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Chillul HaShem & Goyim (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: halachic attitude to the convicted (Zev Sero)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:51:36PM -0500, Samuel Svarc wrote:
: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
:> They also believe that both the Father and Jesus have physical, albeit
:> eternal, bodies. Not sure where the 7 mitzvos stands on what, except
:> leshitas haRaavad (who would permit belief in corporeality for Jews).

: The Raavad doe not permit belief in corporeality. He holds that such
: belief doesn't make one a heretic. There is a vast difference between
: the two formulations.

Please help me understand the difference. Which beliefs are not kefirah,
apiqursus or meenus and yet are assur? I'm used to thinking that these
three issurim covered all of the dinim of belief.

(Notice I shifted from describing the gavra ("heretic") to a discussion
of the "cheftzah" of the belief ("kefirah, apiqursus or meenus"). Not
everyone who believes in kefirah is a kofeir. So as to avoid that issue,
I switched the terminology to one that discusses the belief itself.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

R' Richard Wolberg wrote:
<So why should this be any different from the whole problem of free will?

I don't understand the comparison? Esav was a fetus in his mother's
womb without a yetzer hara. We can ask 2 very simple questions:
1. Why would he be drawn to AZ? Isn't AZ a function of the yetzer hara?
2. Why should he be punished for this?

R' Micha wrote:
Actually, He doesn't. You're saying that Hashem knows *now* what the
child will choose. But Hashem doesn't have a "now". G-d's knowledge is
entirely without a "when", so it doesn't stand before, during or after
your decision.

If you read what I sent originally, I clearly stated: 
"For Him, past, present and future are all together."

IMHO, we are just being informed by the Torah that Eisav's tendencies were such as to be drawn
to AZ. Many idolators of that time did not commit idolatry out of an evil inclination.
That was their natural inclination and once they were made aware of its evil, then the free choice
would come into play. In answer to Marty's second question, he wasn't punished for this in the womb.
He was punished for this once he understood the evil of AZ which was after he was born and capable
of understanding. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091124/8934c0aa/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:59:39AM -0500, Richard Wolberg wrote:
:> Actually, He doesn't. You're saying that Hashem knows *now* what the
:> child will choose. But Hashem doesn't have a "now". G-d's knowledge is
:> entirely without a "when", so it doesn't stand before, during or after
:> your decision.

: If you read what I sent originally, I clearly stated: 
: "For Him, past, present and future are all together."

I still believe you miss the above implication of that concept. There is
no question of Divine Foreknowledge if there is no concept of "fore" WRT
His Knowledge.

: IMHO, we are just being informed by the Torah that Eisav's tendencies
: were such as to be drawn to AZ. Many idolators of that time did not
: commit idolatry out of an evil inclination. That was their natural
: inclination and once they were made aware of its evil, then the free
: choice would come into play.

I don't see how this is related. One is about G-d's knowledge, the other
is about Esav's ability to make informed (or any) value judgments.

I actually find your IMHO to be pretty much what I repeated from my
shul-mate about the Maharal. However, with different wording. Esav
had a draw to AZ, but that was his nature. It's not until free will
that the yh"r is the source of his following that pull rather than
a more meaningful calling.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RMB wrote:
> How is it meqalqeil? The parent obviously likes the idea of having an
> indicator to know when to change the diaper -- otherwise, why did they
> pay for the shtick, and why did Proctor and Gamble invest the time
> developing this model diaper?

The second product is called "Pampers Feel 'N Learn Advanced Trainer,"
which means that the color changes for the child, not for the parent.
While I do not know this particular product, generally, the diapers
feature nice drawings, which disappear when the child urinates, hence
discouraging teh child from urinating in the diaper.

Therefore, it is not a sure thing that they will discolor (may the
child will finally "get it"), discoloration is not desired (it
indicates failure, for the child is still not sufficiently toilet
trained), and it is clearly done by the child for the child.

Thus, I concur that it is difficult to see what the problem is using these.

OTOH, the first product mentioned, Pampers Swaddlers Sensitive seem
like diapers for sensitive babies, probably newborns ("Swaddlers"),
whose skin is sensitive ("Sensitive"), and whose parents would like to
be alerted as soon as the child urinates or defecates. Hence, I can
see why that would be a problem. I wonder, is the color fading here,
too, or is color appearing (a big red danger triangle or yellow danger
diamond, perhaps) on the diaper? The next iteration will possibly
include a beeping alarm, fire safety style ;-). Either way, I can see
the problem (tsove'a or mo'heq, though the latter would be
miderabbanan, as there is no intention to then write on that surface).

Still, even the Swaddlers are gerama, so I wonder what posqim will say.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report
* On the Stereotypical Jew
* Wieso ?ruhte? G?tt?
* Wir sind f?r die Evolution!

I received the following from the OU's R' Eli Gersten:

> The issur of "Shehiya" forbids one to place food before shabbos on the
> fire if it will not be edible before Shabbos, unless one uses a blech.
> The purpose of the blech is that there should be an indication (heker)
> and prevent one from becoming nervous that their chicken is not
> cooking fast enough and turning up the fire.
> If one places the chicken in a Metal Box, which will act as one's
> blech, one can place the chicken in the oven even right before
> Shabbos. One must still be careful when they remove the chicken from
> the oven to only open the oven door when the fire is on (otherwise one
> might inadvertently be causing the fire to turn on).
> 
> The Mishna Berura 254:50 says that one may put a kettle of cold water
> before Shabbos on a blech to heat up on Shabbos. However, some are
> concerned that one might remove the kettle pour a cup of water and
> return the rest, if the water is not yet cooked they will be in
> violation of cooking on Shabbos, (See Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchaso 1:63
> footnote 187) 
> In these matters *one should follow their custom* [my emphasis].

A neighbor has asked a whole bunch of questions regarding pidyon haben. 
Please send any answers to the list as well as to: zi...@netvision.net.il.

Thanks
Ben

I am very curious about several things. Please answer to my email.

1) how much should the coins used be worth?

2) Is it an accepted practice to put garlic and sugar on the tray and
if so in what form?

3) Is it an accepted practice to put jewelry on the tray?

4) (not relevant)

5) Are there any other minhagim (or halachot) that I am have not
mentioned?

Most importantly (for my own understanding and please forgive my ignorance)
- what is the big simcha? The child should have served Hashem in a very
special way but cannot because of the sins of the bchorim before him. The
Cohen has a reason to celebrate but what exactly is the family of the bchor
celebrating? 

*I just posted the Hebrew text of this on my blog 
<http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/11/chillul-hashemfailure-to-
punish-that.html>. 
Thought it would be of interest on Avodah
*

*Rosh^ (17:8): [Translation Prof. Aaron Schreiber]Q*uestion: Let it be 
known to our teacher, may he be well, that here in Cordova a very 
serious incident took place. The ears of all those who hear of it become 
"singed." A certain debased person was detained on charges by Gentiles. 
He settled with them by paying money. Some of his acquaintances later 
went to console him. He went out [to welcome them] and stood at the.' 
Entrance of his yard. They calmed him in this matter, one of them 
saying, "Blessed is he who frees the imprisoned." Nevertheless, he, 
turning upward, [to heaven], blasphemed and reviled his King and God . . 
.. About ten of the community notables, men of action, with this 
honorable [man] Rabbi Judah, and local sages, with the city elders 
[decided] to do away with him. Learning of this, relatives of the guilty 
person went with bribes, it seems, to the great royal dignitary, Don 
Juan Manuel whom we received in our area as the procurator for his 
majesty, the king . . .. This lord agreed that the guilty one should 
remain in his prison until the Responsum of my teacher will arrive 
instructing [us] what to do . . .. Response: May the delightful pious 
and charming notables accept [the blessing of] abundant peace! Your 
asking me concerning capital cases is rather strange. In all of the 
lands that I have heard of they do not try capital cases except in this 
land of Spain. When I came  here I was very astonished. How were they 
able to try capital cases without the Sanhedrin? They replied that it is 
by royal authority. The assembly [of judges] also judges in order to 
save [lives], since greater amounts of blood would have been spilled if 
they were tried by the gentiles. I permitted them to continue with their 
practice. However, I never agreed with them on any loss of life. 
Nevertheless, I see that all of you are of the opinion to remove this 
evil from your midst. He certainly did desecrate the name of heaven in 
public and it was already heard by the Gentiles, who view with 
seriousness anyone who speaks against their religion and beliefs. The 
desecration would be increased if no act of vengeance would be taken 
against him. We do find that in order to sanctify the name of God they 
raised their hands against princes on behalf of proselytes [see 2 Sam. 
21: 8-9] and let their [the princes'] corpses hang overnight. [We also 
find] that in order to check lawlessness they stoned to death a person 
who had ridden a horse on the Sabbath [see Talmud, Yebamot 90b]. It is 
also proper that God's name should be sanctified by the loss of this 
wicked person, and so as you see fit. If I were present at your 
contemplations, my opinion would be to cut off the major portion of his 
tongue necessary for speech thereby silencing his lips. In this way they 
would mete out [punishment] to him according to his deed. This is a well 
known vengeance which is witnessed daily. You, however, do according to 
what seems proper in your eyes. I do realize that your intentions are 
that God's name should be sanctified. * *


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091124/5d898b5a/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:

This means that of the Rambam's ikkarei emunah, perhaps the last
    three are the most critical. Without an eschatology, without a final
    state, we have no way of defining which acts advance us to that
    goal, and which are ra, shattering that which was already built.
    ...

CM:

I never understood the Moshiach requirement in the Ikkarim. I get the point
that the purpose of the bria is so Hashem can give gemul b'ofen ha'yafeh,
ie, without the shame of nahama de'kesufa (as per Ramchal). All else leads
up to this goal. But why Moshiach? Why not just go to the olam hagemul
directly (at the appropriate time when everyone [who will get there] has
earned their chelek). OK boys and girls, welcome to olam haba. Why is
Moshiach a necessary part of this road to the ultimate gemul?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091124/b602e3d3/attachment-0001.htm>

Contrary to common misunderstanding - imprisonment as legitimate 
punishment is mentioned in the gemora as well as in the rishonim and 
achronim

*Pesachim^ **(91a): *AND LIKEWISE ONE WHO HAS RECEIVED A PROMISE TO BE 
RELEASED FROM PRISON, AND AN INVALID, AND AN AGED PERSON WHO CAN EAT AS 
MUCH AS AN OLIVE, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON THEIR BEHALF. [YET IN THE CASE OF] 
ALL THESE, ONE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER FOR THEM ALONE, LEST THEY BRING THE 
PASSOVER-OFFERING TO DISQUALIFICATION THEREFORE IF A DISQUALIFICATION 
OCCURS TO THEM, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM KEEPING THE SECOND PASSOVER,EXCEPT 
ONE WHO WAS REMOVING DEBRIS, BECAUSE HE WAS UNCLEAN FROM THE BEGINNING.  
GEMARA. Rabbah son of R. Huna said in R. Johanan's name: They learned 
this only of a heathen prison; but [if he is incarcerated in] an 
Israelite prison, one slaughters for him separately; since he was 
promised, he will [definitely] be released, as it is written, The 
remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies. R. Hisda 
observed: As to what you say, [If he is in] a heathen prison [one may] 
not [kill on his behalf alone]; that was said only [when the prison is] 
without the walls of Beth Pagi; but [if it is] within the walls of Beth 
Pagi, one slaughters on his behalf alone. What is the reason? It is 
possible to convey it [the flesh] to him and he will eat it.

*Mo'ed Koton(16a):* From where do we derive that one may place 
lawbreakers in chains, put in prison and prosecute them? Ezra (7:26) 
said: Let judgment be executed on him with all diligence whether it be 
to execute him, to uproot him, or monetary punishment or imprisonment.

*Rambam**/^ /**(Hilchos Chovel u'Mazik 8:11): ...*. Similarly all those 
who distress the community and harm it -- it is permitted to hand them 
over to the non-Jewish government to be beaten, imprisoned and punished. 
However if the person is only disturbing an individual and not the 
community -- it is prohibited to hand him over. It is also prohibited to 
cause the loss of the property of the moser -- even though it permitted 
to cause the death of the moser himself. That is because his property 
belongs to his heirs.

*Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach(*/Ve'aleyhi lo Yuval/, volume 2:113-114): 
Recounts in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Goldreicht: I asked Rabbi Auerbach 
about a particular Jew who stole a large sum of money and he was caught 
by the police in America. He was sentenced to a number of years in 
prison in America. Was it proper to assist in the collection of money 
for him [we were speaking about a large sum of $200,000] in order to 
fulfill the mitzvah of redeeming captives to have him released from 
prison? When Rabbi Auerbach heard this he stated "Redeeming captives?! 
What is the mitzvah of redeeming captives here? The mitzvah of redeeming 
captives is only when the gentiles are grabbing Jews, irrationally, for 
no proper reason, and placing them in prison. According to what I [Rabbi 
Auerbach] know, in America they do not irrationally grab Jews in order 
to squeeze money from them. The Torah says "do not steal" and he stole 
money -- on the contrary, it is good that he serve a prison sentence, so 
that he learns not to steal! [R' Broyde's article on mesira]



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091124/6153bb96/attachment-0001.htm>

Heard in a shiyur: The Raavad defines people who believe that God has a body 
as being confused, period. They think that they know - they're mistaken, but 
not more than that. The belief may be forbidden, but the person is merely 
confused.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
>
> Please help me understand the difference. Which beliefs are not kefirah,
> apiqursus or meenus and yet are assur? I'm used to thinking that these
> three issurim covered all of the dinim of belief.
>
> (Notice I shifted from describing the gavra ("heretic") to a discussion
> of the "cheftzah" of the belief ("kefirah, apiqursus or meenus"). Not
> everyone who believes in kefirah is a kofeir. So as to avoid that issue,
> I switched the terminology to one that discusses the belief itself.)

*Nidah** (16b): *"Night" is the name of the angel in charge of 
conception. He takes a drop and places it before G-d and says: What will 
be with this drop? Strong or weak? Wise or foolish? Rich or poor? 
However he doesn't ask wicked or righteous. This is in accord with the 
view that everything is in the hands of Heaven except for fear of G-d....

*Tosfos**^ **(Nidah 16b): Everything is from Heaven except for fear of 
Heaven.* Kesubos (30a) states that /everything is from Heaven except of 
cold and heat./ Our gemora is discussing human activity and 
characteristics while the gemora in Kesubos is describing things that 
happen such as illness and calamities which are decreed by Heaven and a 
person can't guard against them as Chullin (7b) /a person doesn't bruise 
his finger unless it has been decreed in Heaven. /The exceptions being 
cold and heat against which a person can protect himself. In apparent 
contradiction to our gemora is Berachos (10a) where Chezkiyahu didn't 
want to have children since he knew they would be wicked. That shows 
that before birth it was decreed that they shouldn't have fear of 
Heaven? One can answer that he knew based upon prophesy what would be in 
the future. Alternatively one can say that many things are dependent 
upon mazel (Shabbos 156a): /One who is born under Jupiter is a righteous 
person while one born on Shabbos [Saturn] is called holy. /It also 
recounts there that /an astrologer told the mother of R' Nachman that he 
was destined to be a thief./ We can also say that the predestined 
wickedness of Chezkiyahu's children was not in the Hands of Heaven since 
G-d didn't want to change to pattern of the mazal. [Therefore moral 
qualities which are predetermined by mazal are not considered a decree 
from Heaven].

****


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091124/62f8f3a7/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:51:36PM -0500, Samuel Svarc wrote:
> : On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>:>  Not sure where the 7 mitzvos stands on what, except
>:> leshitas haRaavad (who would permit belief in corporeality for Jews).

>: The Raavad doe not permit belief in corporeality. He holds that such
>: belief doesn't make one a heretic. There is a vast difference between
>: the two formulations.
 
> Please help me understand the difference. Which beliefs are not kefirah,
> apiqursus or meenus and yet are assur? I'm used to thinking that these
> three issurim covered all of the dinim of belief.
> 
> (Notice I shifted from describing the gavra ("heretic") to a discussion
> of the "cheftzah" of the belief ("kefirah, apiqursus or meenus"). Not
> everyone who believes in kefirah is a kofeir. So as to avoid that issue,
> I switched the terminology to one that discusses the belief itself.)

But then you have shifted from the Raavad's formulation.  The Raavad
does not comment on the belief but on the believer.  He says that the
Rambam has no right to dismiss all those who believed in corporeality
as kofrim, because they were "rabim vetovim mimenu"; but he doesn't say
anything about the belief itself.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Ben Waxman wrote:
 
> 1) how much should the coins used be worth?

AIUI they should be 96 grams of silver.  I also U that Israel mints
coins specifically for this purpose.

 
> 2) Is it an accepted practice to put garlic and sugar on the tray and
> if so in what form?

AFAIK the garlic and sugar are not put on the tray, but distributed
to the guests at the seudah, for them to take home and eventually
incorporate into a meal of their own, so that everyone who eats of that
meal will also have a part in the seudas mitzvah.  Essentially this is
the same minhag as that of taking home cake from a bris, for those who
weren't able to make it.  The reason for garlic and sugar is that they
are not perishable, and a little bit can flavour a large pot.

 
> 3) Is it an accepted practice to put jewelry on the tray?

It's been the minhag at every PHB I've ever been to (including my own,
though I don't remember that!)


> Most importantly (for my own understanding and please forgive my ignorance)
> - what is the big simcha? The child should have served Hashem in a very
> special way but cannot because of the sins of the bchorim before him. The
> Cohen has a reason to celebrate but what exactly is the family of the bchor
> celebrating?

You could ask the same about milah; wouldn't it be better if we had
been created without an orlah?  Adam Harishon was created without one,
and if not for the sin of Etz Hadaat, we would not have them either.
So why are we celebrating?  But we are as we are, in need both of milah
and pidyon haben as a result of our ancestors' lost opportunities, and
we were given mitzvot to correct that, so when we do them we are happy.
This is different from the mitzvot of get or avelut: we hope never to be
in a situation where we have to fulfil them, and thus we can't celebrate
when we unfortunately are; but we certainly don't hope never to have
children, even though they will be born imperfect and will need milah
and pidyon!

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

The translation doesn't make it clear exactly whom this man cursed.  The
original makes it clear, through the euphemisms, that his crime was the
classic Birkas Hashem (modulo the question of whether the Arabic term for
Hashem should be treated as if it were one of the seven Names).  He
expressed the wish that Allah should "bless" [i.e. the opposite] that
which Chazal euphemise as "Yossi", and said "Had I not prayed to Him
[i.e. had I not been a Jew] this would not have happened to me".

The chilul Hashem issue that the Rosh raises is that since the Moslems
take blasphemy against their religion very seriously, if we were to be
lenient with this blasphemer against *our* religion they would conclude
that we don't take it so seriously.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Contrary to common misunderstanding - imprisonment as legitimate 
> punishment is mentioned in the gemora as well as in the rishonim and 
> achronim
 
> Pesachim (91a): [...] if he is incarcerated in an Israelite prison,

See Rashi, who clearly rejects the idea that this refers to imprisonment
as a punishment.   Does any rishon disagree with Rashi?



> Mo?ed Koton (16a): From where do we derive that one may place 
> lawbreakers in chains, put in prison and prosecute them? 

Again, see Rashi, who translates it differently.  Is there any source
for this translation?


> Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u?Mazik 8:11): Similarly all those 
> who distress the community and harm it -- it is permitted to hand them 
> over to the non-Jewish government to be beaten, imprisoned and punished.

How does this support your claim that imprisonment is a legitimate
punishment?  Who says the the government has the right to act as it does?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 238
***************************************

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..."