Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 14

Mon, 24 Jan 2011

• 1. Re: Brain Death (David Riceman)
• 2. Interesting Aspects of Tu B'Shvat (Rich Wolberg)
• 3. Organ donation and techiyas hameisim (Michael Feldstein)
• 4. Taking A Hat Into A Bathroom (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Brain Death (Hankman)
• 6. Re: Publishing Pictures of Women (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Taking A Hat Into A Bathroom (Micha Berger)
• 8. I remember the sin of parents for [their] children (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Publishing Pictures of Women (Harry Maryles)
• 10. Shiras Hayom in Shacharis (LReich)
• 11. Re: Shiras Hayom in Shacharis (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Tolner rebbe speaks (in English) to Chabad talmidim in LA (SBA)
• 13. reading by street light (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)

RAM:

<<But I do maintain that even if head transplants might someday become 
as successful as today's heart transplants, Rav Moshe's argument will 
still apply, and that one would not be able to argue that successful 
reattachment proves that the body "was not really meis".>>

I suspect that RMF would have reconsidered his opinions about 
decapitation had there been people who were meisim mamash and then 
revived.  In addition to the concerns expressed by RET, see Gittin 61b 
"keivan shemeis adam na'aseh hofshi min hamitzvos".  RMF's arguments are 
not conclusive (he implicitly concedes this in his discussion of Tosafos 
BM 114 on p. 288, the bottom of column 1 and the top of column 2).  I 
think he would have considered the presence of formerly dead people 
halachically unacceptable (of course I have no evidence of his opinions 
on this subject, this is just a wild guess).

RMB:

<<I'm saying we do not have agreement on the halachic definition of 
"alive".

You're saying we do not have agreement on [what] it means to be a living person,
and the question is which indicators are sufficient that we can presume
(chazaqah) that that definition holds.

What's that definition?>>

I'm saying "alive" and "dead" are primitive concepts which don't need
definitions.  Most actual cases are clear, but some important cases are
not, and it is for some of those that we rely on hazakos.

Incidentally the distinction between "alive" and "[what] it means to be a living person" is too subtle for me.  Can you explain it?


RMB:
<<I was suggesting that R' Tendler's and the CR's position is based on

defining life in terms of the ability to have a self-caused heartbeat,
whereas the majority opinion is based on the ability to have a hea[r]tbeat,
regardless of what is making it beat.>>

Let's consider another case.  If a married man falls into mayim sheyeish
lahem sof and remains there for, say, 15 minutes, his wife may remarry.  I
would explain that falling and remaining in water creates a hazakah that
the man is dead.

RMB, as I understand him (henceforth RMBAIUH), would take that as an alternative definition of death (why is it any worse than no heartbeat?).

What if he descends in a submarine, or wearing a wetsuit and an oxygen
tank? I would say, as in the case of heart surgery, no hazakah has been
created because of these special circumstances.  But if this is another
definition of death, RMBAIUH would have to contend that this guy is dead
and his wife may remarry, and we have returned to my comment on RAM above.

In short, the logical leap from "we have no definition of death" to "therefore when Hazal say X about death they must be defining it" is questionable at best.

David Riceman

In regard to my posting:

I stand corrected and appreciate ZS's correction: "*Beis* Shammai and *Beis* Hillel.  This is not one of the three known
disputes between Hillel and Shammai."

I am aware that the three known disputes between H. & S. are niddah, chalah and mikveh (Mishna Eduyot 1:1-3)

For those who may have not understood what I meant, I should have said BEIS Shammai and BEIS Hillel. What this correction brings to mind is Psalm 8:5.
Ma enosh ke siz'k'renu uven adam..., etc.  Somewhere I recall seeing a commentary that though e-nosh denotes man as mortal and frail (and probably is 
etymologically derived from Enosh, Adam's grandson, nevertheless, the word MAN technically refers only to Adam Harishon since he was the FIRST MAN, 
per se and we are all the Children (or Sons) of man. [As we are either ploni BEN ploni or BAS ploni]. 

rich wolberg
(son of man)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110123/61b57aeb/attachment-0001.htm>

Re heart transplants and techiyas hameisim...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


not want to donate organs because they are concerned that they will be left
without a kidney in techiyas hameisim.

Trust me, if Hashem can revive the dead, he can supply those who donated an
organ with a spare in the World to Come.



-- 
Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110123/9c740f47/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see http://tinyurl.com/6zqfn8g

The final paragraphs there read

"My general impression is that the common practice is to treat
bathrooms stringently and not to recite blessings or bring holy items
inside one. Therefore, you should avoid bringing into a bathroom your
hat and/or jacket that are designated for prayer. You should instead
place them on a chair or other object outside the bathroom, or double
back and pick them up before prayer. If all that is impossible, there
is probably some room for leniency.

By wearing specific garments for prayer you are elevating them into
tools for religious worship. It is your task to treat your tools with
the care and respect they deserve."

YL

Please see http://tinyurl.com/6zqfn8g

The final paragraphs there read

"My general impression is that the common practice is to treat 
bathrooms stringently and not to recite blessings or bring holy items 
inside one. Therefore, you should avoid bringing into a bathroom your 
hat and/or jacket that are designated for prayer. You should instead 
place them on a chair or other object outside the bathroom, or double 
back and pick them up before prayer. If all that is impossible, there 
is probably some room for leniency.

By wearing specific garments for prayer you are elevating them into 
tools for religious worship. It is your task to treat your tools with 
the care and respect they deserve."

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110123/3e9088b6/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:
That is not in contradition to what I said. What I said was that brain
stem death makes the person incapable of prolonged hearbeat. If someone
who has no brain stem activity is on a machine keeping his heart beating,
we can know that what's going on isn't an *independent* heartbeat,
and doesn't qualify as life. Not that the heart is or isn't beating,
but whether the person could ever have a heartbeat of their own doing.

CM responds:
RMF was talking about removing someone from a ventilator, not from a
heart-lung machine (I think). The key difference  being that the the former
does not artificially provide a heart beat or pumping action whereas the
latter not only provides for breathing but also pumps the blood in place of
the heart (and also provides oxygenation, CO2 removal etc). Thus when you
write "on a machine keeping his heart beating, we can know that what's
going on isn't an *independent* heartbeat, and doesn't qualify as life" you
seem to be thinking of a heart-lung machine, not the simple ventilator that
was the subject of RMF's tshuva and RMT's reference in the video.

So far as consistency in RMT's video, I too had the feeling that there
could be issues of his exact meaning, but could not put my finger on it. I
assumed it was a fairly subtle point or just my own inability to grasp the
subtlety, so not having much time to watch the video again I just let it
go.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110123/14991f1f/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:

> This week's paper contains another letter urging the paper not to
> publish pictures of women. In part this letter says, "The Gedolim
> have already expressed their opinion to omit pictures of women
> from frum papers and if the FJJ considers itself frum it should
> be no different." There is no mention as to who "the Gedolim"
> are.

"Their opinion" is an unfortunately vague term. Not only don't we know who
these "Gedolim" are, but we also don't know exactly what they said. Was is
merely a suggestion, or did they claim such photos to be assur? We don't
know.

I also find the phrase "from frum papers" worthy of comment. What would
those gedolim say about publishing such photos in a publication aimed at
other Jews, not specifically shomrei mitzvos? It is possible that even
those gedolim never intended to declare a prohibition upon all Jews in all
communities, but only a chumra to be followed in specific communities.

> Can anyone supply sources regarding teshuvos about this issue,
> both pro and con? There are a number of books published by
> Artscroll and Feldheim that do contain pictures of women, so I
> have to presume that there rabbonim who permit this.

To me, the fact that a certain publisher has published such photos proves
nothing. It's possible that a prohibition exists, but that these publishers
were unaware of it, or had forgotten it, or followed different poskim. It
is also possible that when those photos were published no prohibition
existed, but nowadays different rules apply, and a prohibition does indeed
exist.

Personally, I have noticed the lack of women's photos in certain
publications. Regardless of whether or not any poskim actually forbid them,
I can easily understand that certain people might prefer not to see such
photos, and I can also understand that some publishers might want to
accommodate those customers, and I commend them for it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Home Refinance 3.8% FIXED
No Hidden Fees, Easy Approvals & Better Terms-Free Quotes-3.9% APR!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d3c869cbbe0d1847est03vuc

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:42:25PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Please see http://tinyurl.com/6zqfn8g
...
>> By wearing specific garments for prayer you are elevating them into
>> tools for religious worship. It is your task to treat your tools with
>> the care and respect they deserve."

Which is why we take a tallis off when going to the men's room, but not
a tallis qatan.

R' Yosef el-Qafih (Kapach) writes about the shamle, a four-cornered
outer garment worn all day as part of traditional Teimani Jewish
clothing. They are also often used to carry things, by bunching up
the cloth into a sack. So, he was asked whether it is permissable,
despite the samla having tzitzis on it. He answers that it's no problem,
because the qedushah of a tallis is that it's meyuchedes for tefillah,
not because of it carrying tzitzis.

(Sidnote, the shamle is typically brightly colored, with matching strings
in the tzitzis.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 20:5

5 Do not prostrate yourself before them and do 
not serve them, for I, Hashem, your God, am a God 
Who demands His exclusive right; I remember
the sin of parents for [their] children, for the 
third and fourth generation, for those who hate Me;

Now then, what is the meaning of pokad ahvon avos al bonim ... l'sonoi? Does
it mean that God remembers the sins of the parents, when children,
grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren hate Him? Does it mean
that when children, grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren continue
on the path of sin, God remembers the first step taken by the
parents, considers that the sin has not yet become embedded throughout
many generations, that return is still possible, and He tries to lead the
children, the grandchildren or even the great-grandchildren back to
Him by educating them in the school of suffering? Does it mean that
if the fourth generation does not repent, subsequent generations perish
in their sin?

Perhaps the meaning is that God visits the sins of the parents upon
the children, and so on, if they hate Him. Children, grandchildren, and
great-grandchildren continue to suffer the consequences of the parents?
sin, because they continue on the path of sin. Because of their sins,
they are stricken with troubles and suffering; for the example of their
parents set them on a path full of obstacles, inviting sin and sorrow
into their cradles, to accompany them throughout their lives.
Perhaps the meaning is that God punishes parents by the suffering
that they cause their children through the sins they bequeath to them
for their journey through life.

Perhaps the meaning is that God carries over the sins of parents to
children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren; He makes them responsible
for atoning for the sins of the parents.  Instead 
of quickly destroying the parents
because of their sins, God waits until the fourth generation: perhaps
grandchildren or great-grandchildren will return and rectify the deeds
of the parents. Only then, if there is no betterment, does He allow the
generation to perish in their continued guilt.

Whatever may be the true nature of this Divine attribute, two fundamental
truths emerge from it for our most earnest reflection:

The one and only God wants us to accept upon ourselves the yoke
of His rule over all our actions and to recognize Him as the Lawgiver
for our whole lives, and it is He Who grants us life and sustains us for
the fulfillment of His Law. It is in our power to build up our lives or
to ruin them, all according to the measure of our adherence to, or
defiance of, His Law. God lives and endures, and He judges a person
according to his deeds. There is no escape from His judgment.

Furthermore, the weal or woe of the children depends on the parents
? all according to the measure of their virtue or vice. Children are
fruit growing on the tree of the life and fate of the parents. For the sake
of our children we should preserve our health; for the sake of our
children we should act morally and charitably; for the sake of our children
we should be spiritually vigilant and valiant.

Just as it is certain that God sends each child into this world with a
perfectly pure soul, it also is certain that parents bequeath to the physical
nature of their child their flawed propensities, weaknesses and defects.
These present the child with a formidable task, and to overcome them the
pure soul of the child must test and prove its godlike power. The parents?
sins line the cradle of their infant with 
unhappiness, sickness, and the example
of moral degeneration, and the little citizen of the world is destined
to climb a hard steep path of trials until he prevails in the moral test.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110123/df19bbc5/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On Sun, 1/23/11, Prof. Levine <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu> wrote:


The Flatbush Jewish Journal is a local newspaper that serves the Brooklyn
Jewish community. Several weeks ago as part of an obituary it published a
picture of the deceased -? a woman who passed away when she was in her
eighties.? The next week the paper published a letter to the editor urging
the FJJ to follow the practice of the Hamodia, the Yated and Mishpacha
Magazine and not publish pictures of women.? The next week there were
several letters that were pro publishing pictures of women.???Recently the
paper published a picture of Rav and Rebbetzin Pam as part of its obituary
about the life of Rebbetzin Pam.

This week's paper contains another letter urging the paper not to publish
pictures of women. In part this letter says, "The Gedolim have already
expressed their opinion to omit pictures of women from frum papers and if
the FJJ considers itself frum it should be no different." There is no
mention as to who "the Gedolim" are.

Can anyone supply sources regarding teshuvos about this issue, both pro and
con? There are a number of books published by Artscroll and Feldheim that
do contain pictures of women, so I have to presume that there rabbonim who
permit this.
--------------------------------------------------
?
I predict that both publishers will eventually phase out any pictures of women in future publications.
?
This is a good example where a perfectly legitimate practice of publshing
Tzniusdik pictures of women will become a thing of the past in the Charedi
world. There was absolutley no probelm with?that picture of Rav Pam and his
wife that was published in some of the Frum print media. I am pretty?sure
that R' Pam himslef would have had no issue with it belig published. I am
pretty sure as well that there are many memebrs of the Agudah Moetzes who
feel the same way. 
?
The problem is that there are some Charedim (mostly Chasidic I would guess) that believe that this is not Tznius.
?
What has been happeneing in instances like this is that those who see no
problem with it nonetheless bow to those who do... and agree that in the
interests of unity?even Tzniusdik pictures of women should not be published
at all.
?
Once that Minhag takes hold - before long it becomes the belief by all
Charedim that this is in fact Halacha L'Maseh or at lthe very east that the
given Chumra (in this case publishing a picture of a woman) becomes
normative Judaism. Those who continue to publish pictures of Tznius women
are then looked at as doing somtehing wrong.
?
It would be nice - and very appropriate in my view -?if rabbinic leaders
would?stop catering to the most extreme?customs of a particular segment of
Judaism -?so as to be more inclusive. Until the last few years this was not
a devise issue. Chasdim had their customs and the Litvishe wolrd had
theirs. And they were both Meshadech with?each other... and sat on the same
dais at Agudah events.?So their is no real unity gained by doing this. By
accepting this Chumra into the Litvishe world -?they end up?including one
segment at the expense of another. If unity is the goal bowing to the
factions with the most Chumros is not the way to do it.
?
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/20110123/beda2ad1/attachment-0001.htm>

In a posting of 21 Jan R' Eli Turkel asked:-
> Anyone know when shirat hayam was added to the morning davening.
> This is more serious as otherwise it is a hefsek between Boruch Sheamar
> and Yistabach which is why sefardim say hodu before boruch sheamar

Here follows a letter of mine published in the London "Jewish Tribune"
some years ago.

Elozor Reich



The Editor
Jewish Tribune

Dear Sir

We are all indebted to Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer for his illuminating
article in your edition of 5th February. He gave an esoteric explanation
for the Shiras Hayom being halachically deemed the least important part
of Pesukay DeZimro. However, there is a simpler historical reason.

This Shirah is only a comparatively late addition to Pesukay DeZimro. It
does not feature in the Siddur of Amram Gaon (to refer to the Geonim as
Rav is incorrect and lessens their honour), which was compiled in the
9th Century C.E. Natronoi Gaon, who lived a little later, states that it
is not our custom to recite Oz Yoshir. From this statement it appears
that such a minhag already existed elsewhere but it was not practised
in Bovel. Several sources quote an ancient manuscript Siddur which
states as follows. "In olden times Yishtabach was recited immediately
after 'Leshem Tifartecho'. When the Gaon R' Moshe of Lucca (in Italy),
the son of R' Kalonymus, arrived in Mayence (Germany) during the reign
of Charles (Charlemagne d. 814), he instructed his contemporaries to
continue Pesukay DeZimro (as we do today) until 'Ushmo Echod'. This is
R'Moshe the author of the Piyut 'Aymas Noiroisecho' (Said on Achron Shel
Pesach), who was a pupil of..... "

There is a problem with the chronology of this last citation, partly due
to the frequent reuse of the same names in the illustrious Kalonymous
family of Italy who flourished over several generations. Some say that
the R' Moshe, who was author of Aymas Noiroisecho, lived later, in
the times of Rabbenu Gershom in the early 11th Century. Going forward
another few Generations, we see the Rambam (Tefilloh 7:13), who passed
away in 1215 C.E., stating that some have a Minhag to say the Shiras
Hayom after Yishtabach, other say Shiras Haazinu, and yet others say
both. The Orchas Chaim, who lived in Provence/Languedoc around 1300 C.E.,
already considered our practice as standard.

 From this and other sources too extensive to quote here the following
picture emerges. In the Gaonic period (6th to 11th Centuries) some people
in Italy had a minhag to say Oz Yoshur every day, either as an adjunct
or insert to Tefillas Shacharis. This minhag is praised in the Zohar
(One may surmise that this custom has its origins in Eretz Yisroel, from
whence most of the old Italian Nusach was derived.) Its insertion before
Yishtabach as an official part of Pesukay Dezimro occurred in Germany (&
France?) around the 11th Century. Crossing the Pyrenees via the conduit
of Provence, it took about another 200 years before it received similar
acceptance in the Iberian Peninsula (Nusach Sefard)and the North African
littoral (Algeria, Morocco & Tunisia).

This late arrival on the Tefiloh scene mandated a lower priority for
the Shira. One sees a later analogous situation, where the addition
of Shir Hamaalos Mimaamakim during Aseres Yemay Teshuvoh is said by
some Communities before Yishtabach, by others after it, and is still
not accepted at all in some Litvishe and other circles. But that is
another article!

Yours sincerely
L Reich

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 01:36:17PM -0000, LReich wrote:
> We are all indebted to Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer for his illuminating
> article in your edition of 5th February. He gave an esoteric explanation
> for the Shiras Hayom being halachically deemed the least important part
> of Pesukay DeZimro. However, there is a simpler historical reason.

Do you recall RYP's explanation?

Because regardless of the history of how Shiras haYam got into Pesuqei
deZimra, it's such "frum" explanations that provide material for kavanah
when saying it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

http://shturem.net/images/news/47652_news_12012011_3315.mp3

An amazing drosheh - well worth listening to.

SBA

http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2011/01/machlokes-between-rav-ch
aim-and.html 

on whether the gzeirah of shema yateh   is relevant  to reading by street 
lights....

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110124/27f0bc82/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 14
**************************************

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..."