Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 200

Sun, 21 Nov 2010

• 1. Re: Murder? (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Answered tefilot (D&E-H Bannett)
• 3. Re: Is Turkey Kosher (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Meir Shinnar)
• 8. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Murder? (Harry Maryles)
• 10. Re: Murder? (T6...@aol.com)
• 11. Re: "Brain death" as a halachic criterion for death (T613K@aol.com)
• 12. Re: Contents of Avodah on Atifas Talis (Yishmealim) and the Gra (Arie Folger)
• 13. Four Worlds or Five (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Murder? (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Murder? (Arie Folger)

On 19/11/2010 2:50 PM, Harry Maryles wrote:
> Is there no ethical problem with a wealthy person having a better
> chance at surviving a disease because of his wealth? Shouldn't health
> care be blind to wealth?

No, why on earth should it be?  It's natural that rich people have better
access to everything that enhances or extends life.  In a famine rich
people can afford food; is that somehow wrong?  What's the point of wealth
if it can't buy you what you need, when you need it?

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

Re: The comment on melekh ozer umoshi'a umagen <<A list 
would either have a vav before all but the first word, or 
only before the last one.>>

Hebrew usage is not the same as English. Note the listing in 
the Torah of the names of the five daughters of Tzlofchod 
ben Hefer.  Every time with different vav's. none following 
the modern English rules.

David 

On 19/11/2010 1:41 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:

> In RAZZ's view, it seems that Klal Yisrael, en masse, saw the turkey
> and understood it to be kosher. Hanach lahem livnei Yisrael; im einam
> nevi'im, b'nei nevi'im hem.  As if to say, "If the rabbis don't
> understand it, let them discuss and argue, but I know what's kosher."
> Not in an indifferent or cavalier way, but in a sincere and temimusdik
> way.

I don't see that happening.  Instead I see an assumption that since it's
accepted as kosher, and everyone including chachamim eat it, someone must
have permitted it; it couldn't have just happened by accident.


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

On 19/11/2010 2:16 PM, Jonathan Baker wrote:

> But what's a "genuine mesorah"?

Back to Moshe Rabbenu.  That is the premise of the whole business of
requiring a mesorah for birds.


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

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 08:17:37PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 19/11/2010 2:16 PM, Jonathan Baker wrote:
>> But what's a "genuine mesorah"?

> Back to Moshe Rabbenu.  That is the premise of the whole business of
> requiring a mesorah for birds.

Does it need to go that far back? What if the mesorah is only from
before our fear that we might mis-read the simanim?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R' Jonathan Baker wrote:

> I'm sure you've heard LG tell this story.  Someone asked the Bobover
> Rebbe "how can we eat turkey, since it's a New World bird?" Rebbe: "We
> have a mesorah from our ancestors that we eat it." Questioner: "But
> how can that be, since the turkey was unknown to our ancestors before
> 1500?"  Rebbe: "Well then, it's a good thing our ancestors weren't so
> frum!  Now we have a mesorah from them, so we eat turkey."

Cute story! But who is LG?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Refinance Now 3.4% FIXED
$160,000 Mortgage: $547/mo. No Hidden Fees. No SSN Req. Get 4 Quotes!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ce876271726830598est06vuc

> 
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:27:54PM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
> : > But from a process and acceptability point of view, my problem is with
> : > the creation of new peshatim where there is no TORAH reason to do so. I
> : > find that kind of force fitting to another discipline beyond my personal
> : > range of acceptibility. (Meaning that it doesn't even feel to me like
> : > "a different but valid shitah".)
> 
> : The problem with this approach is how one defines what is a TORAH
> : reason - and one of the TORAH reason that I (and I think many
> : rishonim) subscribe to is that the TORAH has a monistic view of truth
> : - truth from the torah and from other valid sources can't be in
> : conflict...
> 
> Yes. So the question is which do I assume was misunderstood, the science
> / philosophy, or the Torah. I'm arguing that if you have to change the
> Torah ONLY because you need to eliminate the conflict, then to my mind
> (or should I say "to my gut instinct?") you should instead wait for the
> science to be ammended.
> 

The moment that one allows for changing pshatim - changing our
understanding of the torah - based on what you would recognize as internal
torah dynamics - and therefore our understanding of torah is not static -
whether that change comes from seeing a possible contradiction between
textual sources, or contradiction between other sources of knowledge
through which the bore reveals himself seems a question as to how one views
those other sources of revelation...a



> The issue isn't a rejection of monism, it's epistomology -- how much
> weight do you give to the "evidence" of mesorah vs that given to
> scientific data and theorization? At which point do you consider one
> more likely to be in error than the other? And at which point do you
> realize the whole topic is beyond our ken, and our understandings of
> BOTH must be limited enough to cause the apparent problem.
> 
The epistemological issue is that both sources of knowledge - both mesora
and science/reason - both come from hashem - and are both true - and you
reject that monistic approach.	 Yes, when there is a contradiction, one
has to weigh the evidence - but we are used to assessing and deciding
between variant positions in the mesorah - suggesting an imerfect
understanding - and the question is why is knowledge obtained by one of
hashem's other ways of revelation to us not included in this type of
debate?  I am not arguing that science is always right - nor that we jump
on the latest bandwagon. However, once we recognize that on many positions
our understanding of the mesora is conflicting and imperfect - which WE do
not think impacts on our belief in torat hashem temima - then positions
where what we know of the mesora seems to agree internally, yet conflict
with other evidence - including that other evidence in the discussion of
how we understand what happeneddoes not also impact
  on torat hashem temima..


> (I repeatedly suggested a generic answer based on the Maharal about
> the nature of miracles (pardon that turn of phrase) and suggested that
> according to his formulation, they would leave never evidence behind
> that could be experienced by anyone who doesn't live with the miraculous.)
> 


 an understanding of much of tanach - that things happened in a miraculous
 realm that left no impact on the general physical world - seems far more
 radical than most allegorical approaches...
eg, a flood that affected the entire world - but left no traces that it actually happened?
Meir Shinnar

 
>> The problem with taking "yom" non-literally is not that it  doesn't fit
the words, but that it undermines the basis for Shabbos.  If  Hashem
worked for six aeons and then rested on the seventh, why can't I  say
I'll work for six decades and then rest for the seventh?  <<

-- 
Zev  Sero                       
z...@sero.name                 



>>>>>
That's turning the whole thing back to front.  Most likely the  very reason 
the Torah uses the word  "yom" (rather than some other  word, like 
"tekufah") is that it wants us to apply the word to our human  understanding and 
rest every seventh DAY.  The Torah wants us to use the  word "day" as humans do 
(while knowing that G-d's "day" may be quite different  from a human day.)
 
There are numerous examples in Tanach of a word being used because we are  
supposed to learn a lesson or a halacha from the use of this word rather 
than  that word.   There are numerous places in the Chumash where Rashi  (based 
on Chazal) translates words and phrases in ways that seem quite  
far-fetched and quite far from what a simple reading would imply.  (Not  that I can 
think of any examples right now but I bet there are Avodah scholars  who can.  
In fact I bet RZS can, easily.)  
 
 
 

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



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101120/42e238ea/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On Fri, 11/19/10, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

It's natural that rich people have better
access to everything that enhances or extends life.? In a famine rich
people can afford food; is that somehow wrong?? What's the point of wealth
if it can't buy you what you need, when you need it?
-------------------------------------
?
OK. Try this on for size. A 12 year old child needs a kidney and will die
if he doesn't get one. He is listed first on UNOS for the first available
kindney. A compaitible donor is found. As it happens that same kidney?is
comptible with a75 year old ?billionaire. He too needs the kidney but his
situation is not as dire. His prognosis give him more time than the 12 year
old,?Nevertheless he approaches the donor and offers him a million
dollars.The donor agrees and he gets the kidney thus prolonging his life.
The child dies.?Is the behavior of the billionaire ethical?
?
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/20101120/9bdf200b/attachment-0001.htm>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: multipart/alternative
Size: 2795 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101120/ef1e16cf/attachment-0001.bin>

 

From: Saul Mashbaum  <saul.mashb...@gmail.com>
>>>
This long essay mentions that  almost all poskim who oppose "brain death" as
a halachic criterion  nevertheless say that it is permissible to accept an
organ which was  harvested  on the basis of "brain death". ....>>

. The article  in question states:

>>

Rav Auerbach originally ruled so  strongly against reliance on brain death
that he even prohibited receiving an  organ from a brain dead patient, even
though the prospective recipient would  die and there were other patients
ready and able to accept this organ in his  place

>>

Saul Mashbaum

 
 
>>>>>
But R' Auerbach later changed his mind?
 

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101120/3a590b2d/attachment-0001.htm>

RJSchnur wrote:
> Hence [according to the Gra -- arie] one doesn't even have to
> cover his face down to his mouth or hold it there for the time
> length of daled amos.

Among the Rishonim, just about nobody holds that. The current
prevalent practice of covering one's face for "'atifah" is based on a
sole source, the Derishah/Perishah, and is arguably a misreading. As
some raised the question: Does anyone think Arabs or Berbers walk
around with their eyes covered? How do they know where to walk?

The idea is, instead, more convincingly about covering the chin and lips.

A while back a comprehensive paper on this topic was published in
Hakirah, and was publicly accessible. Unfortunately, their site is
right now malfunctioning, so I can't post any links.

> And since the requirement is front and back he also holds that
> one only grasps the front 2 tsitis for krias shema, leaving the back
> two where they are. As long as I am bringing that up, there is also
> no kissing or rubbing the yes with the tzitis, only looking at them.
> He considers any of those activities as a hefsik both during krias
> shema and after baruch sheamar where he doesn't even require
> holding of any tzitis.

The two moments of holding the tzitzit are very different, and reflect
differently on the Gra's underlying motivations. Holding the tzitzit
during Shma' is for 'hibat mitsvah. Considering the reason for holding
them, two front tzitzit could do just as well, while teh Gra is
against putting all tzitziyot in front, which for him is an overriding
concern. The kissing is also related to that 'hibat mitsvah, however,
the Gra considers those actions a hefseq. The rubbing, OTOH, is a
segulah issue, which I have not ever explored in depth.

Finally, holding the tzitzit during Barukh SheAmar is connected to the
confluence of two Lurianic teachings:

* Prayer, as explained in Zohar Vayetse, is compared to the ladder of
Ya'aqov, which had four rungs (actually, the Ari teaches it had five
rungs, but the fifth is almost always totally hidden from absolutely
everyone, very seldom being perceivable on any level - and I am
simplifying here). These rungs are connected with the four world of
ABIA, Atsilut, Beriah, Yetsirah, 'Assiyah. When we pray, we traverse
the worlds back and forth, with different parts of prayer being
connected with the respective worlds. 'Assiyah is traversed through
Qorbanot, 'atsilut through 'amidah. Pessuqei dezimra, which BEGINS IN
ALL, ABSOLUTELY ALL communities with Barukh SheAmar (Hodu is,
according to Sefarad, part of Qorbanot), is for the world of Yetsirah.

* In parallel, there are four acts that also symbolize traversing
these four worlds. Tzitzit symbolize Yetsirah, hence we hold them when
entering Yetsirah.

Hence, the Gra's motivation for not holding the tzitziyot during
Barukh sheAmar requires analysis of his own - sometime idiosyncratoc -
way he understood the Lurianic teachings.

For more on the above, watch out for the forthcoming Revised RCA
Siddur, which includes an essay in the back on these issues. We are
now moving to the last phases of readying it for publication.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:03:13PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote (on the oddly
named thread "Contents of Avodah on Atifas Talis (Yishmealim) and the Gra"
-- who is going to look under C for something on atifah?):
: * Prayer, as explained in Zohar Vayetse, is compared to the ladder of
: Ya'aqov, which had four rungs (actually, the Ari teaches it had five
: rungs, but the fifth is almost always totally hidden from absolutely
: everyone, very seldom being perceivable on any level - and I am
: simplifying here)....

It's not clear what the Ari held. Depends on the Ramac's shitah in Peri
Eitz Chaim vs the Mahari Serug's on the Reshimu -- the imprint of the
Or Ein Sof left behind after tzimtzum.

Given the notion that "histaqeil be'oraisa ubarei alma" and that the
osios of the Torah were primordially broken up as sheimos of HQBH, there
is real credance to the Mahari Serug's notion that the alef-beis is the
Reshimu that logically precedes the four olamos.

This then is the Olam haLevush, a step in creation before Adam Qadmon,
which the Mahari Serug discusses and the Ramaq does not. And notably
the Leshem differentiates between shitas haTzimtzum and the Gra's derekh
(shitas haMarchivim) as involving the Gra's belief in Olam haLevush.

Thus the 5th, hidden rung on the ladder was apparently less hidden on
the Gra's system of thought.

I would assume the 5 verse version of Shalom Aleikhem vs 4 verses is
also based in this machloqes.

(Someone who sees R' Meir Treibitz, perhaps RDE, can let him know
someone out there actually listens to his shiurim. I have ideas in
here from four different series.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 05:32:46PM -0500, I wrote:
: FWIW, I just texted someone who worked in Be'eirot Yitzchaq (a member
: of Qibbutz haDati located between Petach Tiqva and the airport) and
: he replied that turkey droppings do qualify as particularly less more
: odorous than chickens'.

RAF noted in private email that that sentence makes no sense.

Turkey droppings, when wet, develop a very strong odor. Fix leaks in
the turkey coop roof, or else it's hard to put up with the smell. They
therefore fit the description of tarnigolos adumos, that there would be
a bigger problem davening near their tzo'ah than that of a regular
tarnigol.

Which would add to the likelihood of conflating turkeys with the
tarnigol adumah which has a mesorah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

On 20/11/2010 11:07 PM, Harry Maryles wrote:
> OK. Try this on for size. A 12 year old child needs a kidney and will
> die if he doesn't get one. He is listed first on UNOS for the first
> available kindney. A compaitible donor is found. As it happens that
> same kidney is comptible with a75 year old billionaire. He too needs
> the kidney but his situation is not as dire. His prognosis give him
> more time than the 12 year old, Nevertheless he approaches the donor
> and offers him a million dollars.The donor agrees and he gets the
> kidney thus prolonging his life. The child dies. Is the behavior of
> the billionaire ethical?

Why not?  It's his money and the donor's kidney; how is it anyone else's
right to interfere?  What is this, communism?!  Chayecha kodmin; your
blood may be no redder than anyone else's, but it's also no less red.


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

RHM wrote:

> Is there no ethical problem with a wealthy person having a better
> chance at surviving a disease because of his wealth? Shouldn't
> health care be blind to wealth?

But isn't that already the case with the fact that wealthier people
buy better healthcare and generally get more care? Unless Obamacare
happens (not to belittle the problems, but it surely will be more
equitable, though at a price).

In general, I also wonder, isn't the right way to improve health care
to improve it for everybody, rather than prevent some from getting
what they need? If so, there may be an argument for regulating and
taxing organ sales, in order to fund research in xenotransplantation,
growing organs from stem cells, and longer lasting protheses.

But I must admit that I do wonder about whether accepting organs may
represent a more active involvement in taking them than is generally
acknowledged. Can a doctor join this conversation, please?

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 200
***************************************

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..."