Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 94

Mon, 13 Jun 2011

• 1. Re: Pikuach Nefesh (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Hankman)
• 3. Rioting Over Food (Richard Wolberg)
• 4. Re: simcha vs bassar (Micha Berger)
• 5. Pikuach Nefesh (Joseph Kaplan)
• 6. PIKUACH NEFESH (Richard Wolberg)
• 7. Re: PIKUACH NEFESH (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Rioting Over Food (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Pikuach Nefesh (Zev Sero)
• 10. pikuach nefesh (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: Pikuach Nefesh (Doron Beckerman)
• 12. Re: Rioting Over Food (T6...@aol.com)

On 12/06/2011 2:01 PM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> By that thinking, what right is there to take down a rodef? Maybe he'll
> do teshuvah?

You take down a rodef because right now he is about to kill someone.
It makes no difference what his intent is; if he poses an immediate
threat he's a rodef.  That doesn't mean his victim will inevitably
die if he's not taken down.

  
> Rather, you judge the situation as it is right now, at this moment
> and leave the future to the future.

But that's not what was proposed here.  What was proposed here is that
we must treat the intended victims as if their deaths are inevitable,
and as if they were already dead.  And I don't think one can do that.


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

RMB wrote:

The concept of a precomputed calendar must be older than Hillel II even
according to those who disagree with R' Bachaye and R' Chananel.


This isn't a chiddush according to the rishonim who say that the notion
of a precomputed calendar (although perhaps not one based on all the
current rules) dates even back to bayis sheini. E.g. Rabbainu Bachaye
(Shemos 12:2) who says the iqar was always al pi hacheshbon, and (I
presume) re'iyah is part of the ritual, not the determination of the
date. Which is why they would close for eidus or pay people to stand
out to be eidim as needed. But it is a data point.

CM comments:

This R' Bachaye (Shemos 12:2) asserts that cheshbon is the ikar and places
the earliest use of cheshbon (= calendar) to the forty	years in the midbar
due to the ananim. eg. the following from the first website that came up in
my quick search that uses this R' Bachaye  from Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky http
://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/vedibarta-bam/foreword.htm 

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

ooops: I just noticed you were talking according to those who disagree with the  R' Bachaye.



"In the seventh month, on the first of the month, you shall have a holy assemble; it shall be to you a day ofshofar blasts." (Bamidbar 29:1)


  QUESTION: Our Sages (Rosh Hashanah 29b) note that the wording here is
  "yom teruah" - "a day of shofarblasts" - while in Parshat Acharei Mot
  (Vayikra 23:24) it says "Shabbaton zichron teruah" - "a remembranceof
  shofar blasts". From this they derive that the shofar is sounded on Rosh
  Hashanah only when it falls on a weekday, but not on Shabbat.
  Why is the mitzvah of sounding the shofar not cited the first time that Rosh Hashanah is mentioned in the Torah?
ANSWER: From the festival of Pesach one can determine on which day of the
week all the festivals of that year will take place. This rule is known as
a"t, ba"sh, ga"r, da"k (see Orach Chaim 428:3). 
Alef - the day of the week when the first day of Pesach falls will be taf - the same day as Tisha B'Av.

Beit - the second day of Pesach will be shin - the same day of the week as Shavuot.

Gimmel - the third day of Pesach will be reish - the same day of the week as Rosh Hashanah.

Daled - the fourth day of Pesach will be kuf - the day of Kriat haTorah - Simchat Torah - when we complete and start anew the reading of the Torah.

According to the Gemara (Shabbat 87b) the Jews left Egypt on Thursday.
Consequently, since the first Pesach was celebrated on Thursday, the
following Rosh Hashanah was on a Shabbat. Therefore the Torah does not
mention the actual sounding of the shofar but only "zichron teruah" - "a
remembrance of shofar blasts."



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



An answer to this difficulty may be the following: Rabbeinu Bachya (Shemot
12:2) writes in the name of Rabbeinu Channaneil that throughout the forty
years the Jews sojourned in the wilderness, the new month was in fact
established according to a pre-calculated system and not by testimony of
witness. The reason is; Hashem covered the Jewish camp in clouds during the
day and a pillar of fire during the night, (Shemot 13:21) which made it
impossible for them to see the sun during the day or the moon during the
night.

Thus, the first Rosh Hashanah the Jews celebrated was indeed on Shabbat and they did not blow the shofar.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110612/afa4e569/attachment-0001.htm>

I bet those meatless meatballs had the texture and appearance of
meatballs, not looking like white coriander-sized balls.

You are absolutely correct and you make a cogent point.
Don't you think HaShem could have done the same with the texture and appearance of the mun?
Do you really think it was done to test or trick b'nai Yisroel?
There is some type of mysterious psychology going on here. 

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:01:15AM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: As far as the hakpadah to eat meat by every seudah, frankly, I can't
: remember ever hearing it (and my black-hat credentials are impeccable. :-) )

My minhag avos is to have only dairy meals. That is what was done back
in Europe too. Since I neither love carb-based meals nor enjoy the taste
of most fish, the notion of bending minhag for textual arguments in favor
of meat would be a *qulah*.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

> Of course you are right, they were all doomed. But we only know that
> with certainty with 20/20 hindsight. Prior to these events we had no
> certainty that the passengers were all doomed. The air force might
> have talked the hijackers down or some passengers could possibly have
> survived the crash (not likely in hindsight but a possibility that
> could have been possible without the benefit of hindsight) or they
> could have missed their target (the inexperienced novice terrorist
> pilot was piloting the plane).

Or the hijackers might have done teshuvah.  They were not robots, they were
moral agents, fully responsible for their actions, and thus capable of
changing them.  Therefore nothing was inevitable.

*********************************
Both arguments are right; some passengers might have survived a crash and
the terrorists might have decided not to crash the plane.  But based on
hindsight we know that the odds are strongly against both those scenarios. 
What if the the person making the decision has enough expertise to know
that the odds are long that there will be any survivors on the plane no
matter what happens and that the odds are short that if the plane isn't
shot down there will be many deaths on the ground and all the passengers on
the plane will also die.  He still has to make a decision.  What should he
do?

Joseph Kaplan 

R' Micha wrote: (IOW,
"...it is about how people act more than outcomes.)

I totally agree; however, outcomes indicate how people act. So that if
someone willingly allows two thousand people to die because they refuse to
shoot down a plane that they know is going into a building and it is
certain everyone in that plane will be killed, then IMHO the people have
acted irresponsibly and the blood of the two thousand are on their hands.

OTOH, if the scenario were that the people were not going to die and by
killing them you saved a million others, then I fully concur with the rest
of the logic, even though others would disagree.

I know the argument you may use is that HOW DO YOU KNOW THOSE IN THE PLANE
WERE GOING TO BE KILLED ANYWAY? We are talking hypothetically. But if you
didn't know, then I would take your position. I'm saying if you know 100%
that the innocent victims in the plane are going to all be killed (via
the plane crashing into the WTC) and thousands of more innocent victims
will be killed, then the responsible action would be to destroy that
plane before it does a lot more damage. If there were a plane with
innocent people piloted by terrorists were going to drop a bomb on the
White House, there is no question it would be shot down ASAP. Is the
president's blood any redder?

R' CM wrote: 
> Of course you are right, they were all doomed. But we only know that with
> certainty with 20/20 hindsight. Prior to these events we had no certainty
> that the passengers were all doomed. The air force might have talked the
> hijackers down or some passengers could possibly have survived the crash
> (not likely in hindsight but a possibility that could have been possible
> without the benefit of hindsight) or they could have missed their target
> (the inexperienced novice terrorist pilot was piloting the plane).

You are absolutely correct and I addressed that issue in my response
to R' Micha. I was speaking theoretically and hypothetically. However,
let me ask you THIS scenario. There were two planes that crashed into
the WTC. (Again theoretically) if it was established after the first
plane crashed that a second one was following (and through radio contact,
etc.) there was no doubt the second was going to do the same, would you
have a problem with shooting it down prior to the crash? Or I'll even
make it easier. They see the plane headed right toward the Towers and we
have advanced technology to push a button which will blow up the plane
prior to the crash -- would you say that is issur also?

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 06:48:03PM -0400, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: R' Micha wrote: (IOW,
: "...it is about how people act more than outcomes.)
: 
: I totally agree; however, outcomes indicate how people act. So that if
: someone willingly allows two thousand people to die because they refuse
: to shoot down a plane that they know is going into a building and it is
: certain everyone in that plane will be killed, then IMHO the people have
: acted irresponsibly and the blood of the two thousand are on their hands.

My "IOW" was an attempt to quickly translate consequentialism vs
deontologism.

As I had hoped the example in the gemara would show -- and if not, that
you would skim the article I pointed to to see more about -- these are
two fundamentally different ways of viewing ethics:

Is the most ethical decision that one that minimizes the number murdered,
or the number of murderers? The gemara, in saying it's better for all to
die than for them to pick one of their number to be killed, appears to
be deontological. After all, whomever they turned over would die anyway
if all get killed. However, by selecting a victim, they join the number
of murderers.

Really, unlike R' Michael J Harris's paper, I could see two difference
ethical theories that could fit the machloqes R' Yochanan and Reish
Laqish.

Deontological ethics is really about each person doing their duty. Making
sure I do not violate "thou shalt not murder."

Virtue ethics is about each person decelopping themseves as moral
beings. By taking part in killing, one can more readily delve into that
pit again.

I might say that Brisk sees halakhah in deontological terms, Telzh,
in virtue ethical ones.

Neither, though, would say that halakhah takes a consequentialist
approach to interpersonal mitzvos. Crimes of ommission are not as bad
as ones of commission that yeild the same outcome. Outcome is not the
primary moral measure, being good is.

Probably a conseqence of the conflict brtween Providence and free will.
It creates a disconnect between my choice of action and its impact
on others. I must do what I must do; it's Hashem's job to script
how that changes others' lives, whether I succeed or fail, unintended
consequences, etc...

: OTOH, if the scenario were that the people were not going to die and by
: killing them you saved a million others, then I fully concur with the
: rest of the logic, even though others would disagree.
: 
: I know the argument you may use is that HOW DO YOU KNOW THOSE IN THE PLANE
: WERE GOING TO BE KILLED ANYWAY? We are talking hypothetically. But if you
: didn't know, then I would take your position. I'm saying if you know 100%
: that the innocent victims in the plane are going to all be killed (via
: the plane crashing into the WTC) and thousands of more innocent victims
: will be killed, then the responsible action would be to destroy that
: plane before it does a lot more damage. If there were a plane with
: innocent people piloted by terrorists were going to drop a bomb on the
: White House, there is no question it would be shot down ASAP. Is the
: president's blood any redder?
: 
: R' CM wrote: 
: > Of course you are right, they were all doomed. But we only know that with
: > certainty with 20/20 hindsight. Prior to these events we had no certainty
: > that the passengers were all doomed. The air force might have talked the
: > hijackers down or some passengers could possibly have survived the crash
: > (not likely in hindsight but a possibility that could have been possible
: > without the benefit of hindsight) or they could have missed their target
: > (the inexperienced novice terrorist pilot was piloting the plane).
: 
: You are absolutely correct and I addressed that issue in my response
: to R' Micha. I was speaking theoretically and hypothetically. However,
: let me ask you THIS scenario. There were two planes that crashed into
: the WTC. (Again theoretically) if it was established after the first
: plane crashed that a second one was following (and through radio contact,
: etc.) there was no doubt the second was going to do the same, would you
: have a problem with shooting it down prior to the crash? Or I'll even
: make it easier. They see the plane headed right toward the Towers and we
: have advanced technology to push a button which will blow up the plane
: prior to the crash -- would you say that is issur also?
: _______________________________________________
: Avodah mailing list
: Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
: http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
: 

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Richard Wolberg asked:

> ... If humans can make meatless meatballs that taste like meat
> and the manna could taste like anything you wanted it to taste
> like, then the above statement lacks logic. Don't you think
> HaShem could have given them meatless meat which would have
> satisfied their craving for meat?

I offer two very different responses:

1) I have met many, many people to whom the word "meat" is synonymous with
"beef". According to that point of view, when Hashem responded to their
complaints by giving them poultry (quail), He *DID* give them meatless
meat, *exactly* as you suggest. (Or so it seems to me.)

2) I don't know why you are making an issue of vegetarianism. They had
several specific complaints about the manna. One was that it wasn't meat,
and another was that it wasn't melon or garlic. What would have been gained
by giving them meatless meat?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4df56ecc8e27b201ef5st05vuc

On 12/06/2011 3:59 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:

> To add to what R' BW is saying, I think that in the context of a plane
> flying towards a collision course with a city, everyone in the plane -
> however unwilling their participation - is considered a rodef relative to
> the people in the city whose lives would be saved should the plane be shot
> down.

Yes, if it is already flying that course.  What if it isn't, but we know
there are hijackers on board whose current intention is to turn it onto
such a course?  The hijackers themselves are, of course, rodfim.  Are
the passengers *currently* rodfim, or do they become so only when the
plane is on course for the collision?  And what of the people on the
ground, who will be killed if you shoot the plane down, but will live if
you don't?  Their death is "psik reishe delo nicha leih", and also
perhaps grama; is that enough (or even necessary) to justify taking
action to save the many more people in the target buildings or city?

Where the bad guys' bechira, and ability to do teshuvah, really makes a
difference is in the classic (and tragically true) case of the people
who were rounded up in a Selektzia, or whose children were rounded up,
and asked shaylos on whether they're allowed to escape, or to help their
children escape, or to bribe the Nazis to let them escape, knowing that
someone else will be taken in their place.  IMHO the key to solving this
problem is to recognise that escaping does *not* cause another yid to be
harmed; just because the Nazis said they will kill someone else in your
place doesn't mean they will do so.  They're probably not bluffing, but
they're moral agents, and nothing you do compels them to fulfil their
threat.  They might do teshuva and decide not to; if they don't do
teshuva, and they do fulfil their threat, that's the result of their
bad bechira, not of your actions.

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

<<Or the hijackers might have done teshuvah.  They were not robots, they
were
moral agents, fully responsible for their actions, and thus capable of
changing them.  Therefore nothing was inevitable.>>

True nothing is inevitable but Halacha works with probabilities. Thus, the
whole discussion
about Sheva ben Bichri that Micha brings revolves around questions about
committing murder
in order to save everyone and assumes those facts. I dont think anyone takes
into consideration
that may be the enemy will change his mind (or Yoav in the original case)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110613/3eaf47e0/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote about the 9/11 scenario in Halachah here:

http://bariveshema.blogspot.com/2006/10/911-scenario-in-halachah.html

In terms of the passive Rodef angle, there was a debate about this between
the author of "Mishnas Pikuach Nefesh" and the author of "B'chol Nafshecha".
The latter author convincingly asserted:
"There is no greater "he is beinf pursued by heaven" than this. Even if a
Rodef B'oness is a Rodef, that is only if he has some possibility of
preventing it, but here when they were taken hostage against their will and
they have no way or possibility of preventing it, how can they be considered
Rodfim?  It is worse than someone who is being thrown from the rooftop,
where he has some possibility of preventing it, only he get killed then, but
here where he had no possibility of preventing it, it is precisely 'Mishmaya
ka M'radfei Lah".

In a later letter he elaborates:
"The simple scenario of a Rodef is one who is chasing after his fellow to
kill him; there is a Chiddush that even if he is not literally chasing after
him, so long as his body is endangering his friend, he is also considered a
Rodef as per the Rambam regarding a fetus where we need to employ the rule
of Mishmaya etc. Similar to this is one being thrown off the roof, where his
body is endangering his friend's life. All this is irrelevant in the case of
the plane where the passengers are doing no act of Redifah at all, and their
bodies are not endangering the tower, but the danger is only from the plane
itself and the terrorists in it, and there is no significance to the
passengers. It is also not comparable to Yichaduhu, since there the danger
to all the inhabitants is due to him, but here the danger is not because of
the passengers at all. All this is simple."

(He goes on to refute a tzushtell the former author made to a Maharashdam,
where someone was refusing to throw his baggage overboard to save the ship.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110613/37d32719/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Richard Wolberg _cantorwolberg@cox.net_ 
(mailto:cantorwolb...@cox.net) 


>> Don't you think HaShem could have given them meatless meat  which would 
have satisfied their craving for meat? <<
 

>>>>>
 
To some extent their complaints were made up or exaggerated, because they  
did have animals.  True, they could only eat meat if they brought a korban,  
so they didn't have meat that often, but it wasn't as if they never had  
meat.
 
One thing they did not have in the desert was fish, and elsewhere they  
complained about that too.
 
The mon had a very light texture and resembled vegetarian food in not  
being very filling.  No one went hungry and all their nutritional needs  were 
met, but my understanding of "lechem kelokel" is that it was very light,  
insubstantial -- it didn't stick around in their stomachs and keep them  feeling 
stuffed for a while, the way a good hearty meat dish does.
 
I'm not much of a meat eater myself but I would probably have been one  of 
the complainers in the desert, just being tired of eating the same thing  
every day.
 

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




_____________________  









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110612/8f925fc8/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 94
**************************************

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..."