Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 90

Tue, 07 Jun 2011

• 1. the Torah is not Religion (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Kol, winemaking and besomim (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Kol, winemaking and besomim (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. Re: Kol, winemaking and besomim (Hankman)
• 5. Re: ein shaliach lidvar aveirah (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: pikuach nefesh (Hankman)
• 7. Re: ein shliach le-dvar averiah (Zev Sero)
• 8. Defining Derech Eretz (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: pikuach nefesh (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: The Anisakis Fish Ads: What It All Means (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 11. Re: The Anisakis Fish Ads: What It All Means (Micha Berger)
• 12. simcha vs bassar (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 13. (Selected) Prominent Sepharadic Minhagim Practiced By Ashkenazim, Ashkenazic Minhogim Practiced By Sepharadim, and Minhogim Shared by Yekkes and Sephardim (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Re: Kol, winemaking and besomim (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: [Areivim] Oh, Oy, Ow (Harry Maryles)

The following is from RSRH's Essay Sivan I that appears in his 
Collected Writings of RSRH, Volume I.  The entire essay is at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/sivan_1.pdf

One is accustomed to call the Torah "Religion" or Jewish
Religion, because the word religion describes everywhere outside
Israel the relationship of man to his God or gods; this word, too, is
invested everywhere else with dignity and holiness; could one then
have found a holier and more impressive designation for the Torah
than religion? And yet, it is exactly this term "religion" which has
made it so difficult to understand the essence of the Torah. From the
time when men first drew breath on earth they have had a kind of
religion. The heathen who prays to his fetish, the Aborigine who
moulds his god of honey-dough and paints it with human blood, the
Greek who carved his god of gold and ivory and ascribed to him the
Invention of his arts and indulgence in his own gallantries, and finally
the adherents of those two world-religions which have come into
existence by combining a few ideas from the Torah with various
conceptions taken from the nations of the world-all these had, and
continue to have some kind of religion. Even the atheist who despises
religion has, perhaps, himself retained some sort of religion; it may be
that he denies only the conception which other men have of God, that
he despises only the kind of religion which he finds among other
people. For by religion we understand the conception which men have
formed and are still forming of a Godhead and their relationship to
this Godhead. The religions of mankind are, therefore, human products-
creations of the mind and spirit of man; and there exists
consequently a genesis, a history of the development of religion and
religions, just as there exists a history of languages, arts and sciences.
The religion of a people rises and falls together with the other manifestations
of its culture. Religion is only part of the cultural life of a
nation and is conditioned by it. The more rational and the more
refined men are, the more rational and elevated will be their conception
of the deity and their relationship to it.

No religion can, therefore, in its beginning, rise above the cultural
level of the nation out of whose midst it arose. No religion, in its
inception, can possibly be in complete contrast to the conceptions,
inclinations and outlook on life of that nation. No religion, in the
ordinary meaning of this word, can easily undertake to raise and
educate the nation from which it sprang, up to its own higher standards;
for it (the religion) is but a plant sprung from the spiritual and
intellectual soil of that nation, and must, therefore, keep pace with the
nation's advancement or retrogression.

The Torah, however, did not spring from the breast of mortal man;
it is the message of the God of Heaven and Earth to Man; and it was
from the very beginning so high above the cultural level of the people
to which it was given, that during the three thousand years of its
existence there was never a time yet during which Israel was quite
abreast of the Torah, when the Torah could be said to have been
completely translated into practice. The Torah is rather the highest
aim, the ultimate goal towards which the Jewish nation was to be
guided through all its fated wanderings among the nations of the
world. This imperfection of the Jewish people and its need of education
is presupposed and clearly expressed in the Torah from the very
beginning. There is, therefore, no stronger evidence for the Divine
origin and uniqueness of the Torah than the continuous backsliding,
the continuous rebellion against it on the part of the Jewish people,
whose first generation perished because of this very rebellion. But the
Torah has outlived all the generations of Israel and is still awaiting
that coming age which "at the end of days" will be fully ripe for it.
Thus, the Torah manifests from the very beginning its superhuman
origin. It has no development and no history; it is rather the people of
the Torah which has a history.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110605/fce98724/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:03 PM,  <avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> In a recent daf yomi the gemara tells us that "kol" is bad for wine
> making while elsewhere a braisa on the ketores tells us that "kol" is
> good for the besomim.
> does anyone have a good explanation of these assertions in shas? The
> only thing I could come up with (is pretty dachuk and just speculation
> for lack of anything better) is as follows.

Who says yafeh means good in the beraita of qetoret? Perhaps it has
that word's primary meaning, as in, it is fitting, beautiful to speak
so while grinding it up?

As for the wine, not having that gemara at hand, please tell me
whether this makes any sense: it isn't the voice that causes problems,
but the speaking over an open barrel of wine, IOW, producing a qol.
Why would it be bad for the wine? Because some spittle may end up in
the barrel, introducing some unwanted microorganisms. While the
microorganisms weren't yet known, 'Hazal could verily have observed
that great standards of cleanliness were needed to avoid contaminating
the wine. [PS: this is just a hunch, and I am not, at present, backing
it up with any precise knowledge of wine making, either. Please
comment.]

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Meditating on the Tragedy in Japan
* Ode an das Pessachfest und den Fr?hling
* Denkmal an den deportierten l?rracher Juden
* Holiday Art
* Will the Judge of the Entire World Not Do Justice?
* When Theodicy Is No Theodicy

R' Chaim Manaster asked:
> In a recent daf yomi the gemara tells us that "kol" is bad for wine
> making while elsewhere a braisa on the ketores tells us that "kol"
> is good for the besomim.
> Does anyone have a good explanation of these assertions in shas?

My guess was that it's the CO2 that may be having an effect;
positively on the Ketores and negatively on the wine. (which may also
explain why flowers grow better when spoken to; a Google search shows
that other people think so too.)

My father's guess is that people tend to spit when speaking; the
result of gleeking may destory the quality of the wine but be the
perfect moisture needed for the Ketores (controlled by saying the
correct words).

- Danny

RAF wrote:

Who says yafeh means good in the beraita of qetoret? Perhaps it has
that word's primary meaning, as in, it is fitting, beautiful to speak
so while grinding it up?

CM responds:

So what is your point? Why is it "fitting" to speak while grinding it up??

RAF wrote:

 it isn't the voice that causes problems,
but the speaking over an open barrel of wine, IOW, producing a qol.
Why would it be bad for the wine? Because some spittle may end up in
the barrel, introducing some unwanted microorganisms.

CM reponds:

While I can not prove you wrong, my feeling is that is not what is meant 
here. Had the the gemara meant spittle then that is the word they should
have used, not the word kol. According to you, you can talk, but not over
the wine or in the direction of the wine or at a distance the spittle would
not travel to the wine. 

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110605/eb9bb1e8/attachment-0001.htm>

RZS wrote:
> But Yoav had no choice but to obey that order; he was *obligated* al pi
> din to obey it. ?So in this matter he was no more than an automaton, and
> David was the real actor.
>
> In any case, the whole case is different, because al pi din David was in
> the right. ?He *wasn't* a murderer -- his real crime was chilul hashem.
> As is often the case, the problem was in the coverup rather than the
> original incident. ?By acting in this sneaky way instead of openly trying
> Uriah for insubordination, he made it appear to be murder, and made people
> suspect his motives. ?That's very different from a godfather who tells
> people to do things that are actually wrong, and that they know to be wrong,
> and that they have the choice to refrain from.

The problem, you see, is that no one*, AFAIK no one suggests that
David was "only" guilty of a coverup, for chillul haShem. What the
meforshim understand under kol haomer David 'hata eino ella to'eh is,
that he wasn't guilty of doing that actual action, but nonetheless,
the navi is very clear about those David still being guilty of those
sins. IOW, technically, David avoided transgressing the actual issurim
of eishet ish and retziha, but it seems that HQBH wasn't impressed.
Azoi steit shwartz oif weiss, that is what the navi teaches
unambiguously.

Of course, all that is according to those who take the Talmud's
statement "kol haomer David 'hata eino ella to'eh" literally. There
are, however, other meforshim, who do not take that statement as
literally true, but rather as a reflection of what great trepidation
we must feel before approaching this subject, because we should be
very wary of attributing sins to David, even when possibly true. In
that spirit, let me add that navi is replete with allusions that show
rather convincingly that the story of David and Batsheva was not, I
repeat, not a crime of passion, but rather something he believed he
was supposed to do. But remember that the navi nonetheless seriously
rebuked him.

*: OK, perhaps there is some Acharon who does claim what you do,
though I am not aware of any. But the overwhelming thrust among the
commentaries is that David was guilty, just not of the technical
aveirah, but he was morally culpable, which is exactly the opposite of
what RZS suggested should be our attitude toward a crime boss.


Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Meditating on the Tragedy in Japan
* Ode an das Pessachfest und den Fr?hling
* Denkmal an den deportierten l?rracher Juden
* Holiday Art
* Will the Judge of the Entire World Not Do Justice?
* When Theodicy Is No Theodicy

RET wrote:

2. A pilot who is mistakenly firing on friendly troops. Can one shoot down the plane

CM responds:

I think, that of all the cases listed, this is the easiest one to
differentiate. He is clearly a rodef, unlike all the other cases. If the
question was not about the pilot but about the others in the plane, the
argument (though less simple) can still be made that they are part of the
crew that make the rodef function.


Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110605/c875b44e/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3/06/2011 1:23 PM, Daniel Israel wrote:

> If he had told them what they were carrying and then convinced them to
> do it anyway, you _might_ have a case.  But here you can't say they were
> responsible for their action, because he put them their via false pretenses.

In other words, they were ivrim.

>  So if I convince you to walk into my backyard, which is full of pits,
> perhaps you can say it is only lifnei iver.

Perhaps?  Isn't that *exactly* what lifnei iver *is*?

>  But if I assure you there are no pits, are you claiming I'm not a mazik?

Again, isn't that the *definition* of lifnei iver?


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

The topic of just what is derekh eretz came up on Areivim. I would
like to point the chevrah to my posts in vol 4. 

v4n36 (short, so I'll quote in full):
    I think this is a different usage of DE. I've identified what I
    believe to be three different usages:

    - Yafeh TT im DE -- involvement in the outside world

    - DE kadma laTorah -- midos and being a mentsh

    - zu p'rishus DE -- proper usage of ta'avos gashmios (or at least
      one of them)

    What the three have in common is knowing how to live in and proper
    utilize Olam haZeh -- a/k/a "eretz".

And then in v4n395, I use this to elaborate a derashah from my
greatgrandfather's, R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Meir Simcha Krieger's, sefer
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n395.shtml#09>:

...
    Avraham Avinu discovers HKBH by noticing the wonders of eretz, is
    mekareiv people, willing to associate with what he thought were three
    sand-worshipping idolaters. This is TIDE. He is mekareiv them how? By
    performing chessed -- DE in the sense of DE kadma laTorah. And he is
    given the b'ris milah -- DE as in the "perishus DE" of the haggadah.

    TIDE is about using DE -- the proper involvement with this world --
    as a means to kedushah, the substance that one is makdish and through
    which one is makdish his own life. One has soil, and tries to lift it
    into a mountain. TuM extends this to the people who share the aretz
    with you, while the Austritt approach does not. (I'm not convinced
    that the Austritt is part of TIDE, and not a second issue.)

    TIDE and TuM are also dangerous...
...

Then, rounding out the avos as role models for our various derakhim today
(although leaving the subject of Derekh Eretz):

    Chassidus is very much Yitzchak's field...

    Yaakov ish tam yosheiv ohalim. The Yeshiva movement, developing
    da'as Torah (da'as = Ya'akov). Titein emes liYa'akov...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?

R Zilberstein was discussing a case of triage. He paskened that a doctor should choose the medium case
rather than the most severe case as the chance of saving the patient is greater. He then said that even
if the doctor was in the middle of treating the severe case, eg he was putting pressure on a wound to
slow the blood flow,  he should leave because any damage to that patient is indirect (based on an
Even Haezel) and so even the CI would agree.
 ========================================================
IMHO  this is against R' Moshe (I"M  C"M 2:73) and R'SZA (M"S Tnina (2-3)
86)  both  of which state iiuc	once you start you can't switch - there's
an element of zchiyah by the choleh (although I can't tell you where that
theory comes from)
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110606/a4667062/attachment-0001.htm>

R'MB:
ours found in our oceans today. I can only think to repeat RNSlifkin's
comparison of the issur on salmon with anisakis with a new issur on
bee honey.<SNIP>

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



KT,
MYG

On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:29:45AM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: R'MB:
:> ours found in our oceans today. I can only think to repeat RNSlifkin's
:> comparison of the issur on salmon with anisakis with a new issur on
:> bee honey.<SNIP>

: There's a new issur on bee honey?!

No, and I believe that's his point. If you use just theory, you would
be forced to conclude that nishtanah hateva, or honey must have been
made in a different way back when our ancestors ate it. Maybe devorah
referred to a kosher creature....

I was told off-line by someone who it seems did some serious research
that some of the sources I thought were authoritative when I googled
might have erred on things like distinguishing between anisakis and
nematodes found in fish in general, or something of the sort. I went only
to biology sites, knowing that anyone discussing kashrus implications
might be too partisan to be objective. I didn't save my search results,
so I can't really comment. Problems with relying on Reb Google. I'll let
him speak up, but as far as he found, anisakis are first identified by
Carl Linnaeus (the "Father of Taxonomy") in the 18th century.

So, we're not talking about a situation Chazal knew about. (Unlike bee
honey.) Unless the complex life-cycle of the anisakis is common among
nematodes in general, in which case distinguishing between one and the
other isn't relevent to my question.

But at the very least, we're still talking about something well-known
for generations and that had an established precedent. Is there any new
information that came to light to ignite the current controversy? Or did
someone start with a clean slate, and wonder how we can matir something
even though the authors of the Chayei Adam, QSA, AhS, MB, etc... likely
knew they were eating it?

As the OU put it
<http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/articles/single_print/1377835>:
    The OU has seen no reason to differentiate between the "toylayim"
    found in the flesh of salmon from those found in other fish, which
    the Shulchan Aruch in YD 84:16 rules are permissible.

        Don't some people think that something has changed and that the
        OU should require the removal of these worms?

    The OU has found no evidence of anything different from what has
    already been permitted by Shulchan Aruch. The "toylayim" in question,
    a form of nematode called Anisakis, has been known to infect saltwater
    fishes such as salmon for well over 150 years. Linnaeus (known as the
    "father of nomenclature") described a similar species of Anisakis
    in the late 1700s!! The same worm is known to infest cod, herrings
    and many other marine fishes, all of which are permissible per the
    Shulchan Aruch cited above without the requirement of insect removal.

But, as is my wont, I'm asking the meta-question... According to those
who hold lechumerah, what are the rules for halachic precedent? When
are the rulings of earlier generations binding, and when do we need to
reopen them and ask from a clean slate? Is it something as simple as
lechumera vs lequla? Is this an issue of changes in scientific knowledge,
ie knowledge of the metzi'us, vs changes that would require assuming we
know the halakhah better than they?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?

seen online---

Here is a common misunderstanding ... Many frum Jews insist on eating meat 
at every holiday meal. They do this because the Talmud tells us there can 
be no happiness without meat and wine, and "happiness" is required on the 
holiday*. But, those fools who unreflectivly stuff themselves with meat 
have forgotten that "happiness" is a subjective quality. It can't be 
prescribed. I can't demand that you  enjoy a particular food or drink will 
make you happy. Everyone is different. Some people don't like meat. Others 
like fish and meat equally well. The idea that someone who enjoys fish 
can't use it to fulfill a requirement to be happy is absurd. If it makes 
him happy, it makes him happy. And the people who will eat a fish meal 
with great gusto but insist on having a small, undesired piece of meat at 
the end "just to fulfil the requirement" are missing the point. The 
obligation isn't to eat meat. The obligation is to be happy. And if eating 
fish makes you happy, eat fish and make no apologies*

(PS:The Shaagas Aryeh and Rav Moshe Feinstein agree. Both write 
that whenever you make yourself happy on Yom Tov, you have fulfilled the 
mitzvah.   I throw this in both because its true, and because I expect 
many of you won't accept the basic truth of my argument unless someone 
with a long beard said it previously.)

* Other authorities, notably the Rambam, rule that eating meat on Yom Tov 
is a biblical requirement. There are two ways to understand this: (1) They 
don't connect the meat eating to happiness, but to the no longer extant 
practice of eating sacrificial meat on Yom Tov; or (2) They were unable to 
imagine a man who didn't enjoy meat. I am not sure how a biblical law can 
be based on a failure of imagination, but there it is 


--- are there communities  outside of MO   who are not makpid to eat 
fleishig  on shavuot?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110607/3c620879/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see http://tinyurl.com/3n3plu5

On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 07:00:58PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: Who says yafeh means good in the beraita of qetoret? Perhaps it has
: that word's primary meaning, as in, it is fitting, beautiful to speak
: so while grinding it up?

The Qetores section of qorbanos is lifted from Y-mi Yuma 4:5, starting
right after the mishnah.

See also Menachos 87a and Kerisus 6b:
    de'amar R' Yochanan:
    kesheim shehadibur ra leyayin,
    kein hadibur yafeh lebesamim

In Kerisus it's pretty much like the Y-mi. In Menachos, the focus is
on why the gizaar in charge of making wine for nesachim doesn't give
instructions.

But getting back to the point... RAF, IIUC, you're suggesting R' Yochanan
is talking about what is proper to do while making qetores and not while
making wine. If so, why the "le-" preposition and the lack of mention
of any activity? The naive read of the words is that it's yafeh for the
besamim themselves, which would imply that the sound or CO2 aids the
spices (and harms wine during squeezing).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?

--- On Mon, 6/6/11, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

On 5/06/2011 2:32 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:

> It?s been years since I?ve heard phrases like ?The Ribaynay shel Aylam?
> and ?Tayreh?.

If you want to hear it you can spend some time in Lubavitch.? Or just
listen to R Michoel Slavin's recordings of leining.? (He is the bal-
keireh in 770 on Shabbos and Yonteff.)

http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/982057
/jewish/Torah-Reading-Recordings.htm

Or you could listen to any of the ubiquitous recordings of the LR speaking.
--------------------------------
(From memory)

Rabbi Hamburger's Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz?makes the argument that the
correct pronunciation of that vowel is the way it?s done in the United
States - ?Oh?. His argument is as follows. 
?
The Charedi (or Chasidic) ?Oy? is not really correct because that
pronunciation requires that a Yud be added to the Cholum. The Litvishe (and
Lubavitcher) pronunciation ?Ay? (as in pronouncing the letter ?A? in the
English alphabet) is especially incorrect because that sound is obviously
just a tzeirei. The Yekke pronunciation of ?Ow? is really the sound of a
patach and shuruk. (It should be noted that Rabbi Hamburger is a Yekke.) We
are thus left with the sound of the American ?Oh? as the most probable
pronunciation of the Cholum.
?
What accounts for all these variations in dialect? Good question. I have always wondered how different dialects of the same language evolved.
?
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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110607/60677d7d/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 90
**************************************

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..."