Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 137

Tue, 19 Jul 2011

• 1. Re: Rabbi Meir Chayesh l'meutei versus Rav Meir in relation to separating terumah on shabbas (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Avraham and Nimrod (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 3. Rabbi Meir Chayesh l'meutei versus Rav Meir in relation to separating terumah on shabbas (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Insanity (Rich, Joel)
• 5. abortion (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Insanity (Joseph Kaplan)
• 7. insanity (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: Reincarnation (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Insanity (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Should you go to the best surgeon? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Consumer alert:minhog scams on the rise! (Micha Berger)
• 12. Avodah (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Women and Tefillin (Meir Shinnar)
• 14. Rinsing Your Mouth & Brushing Teeth On A Taanis (Prof. Levine)
• 15. is this muttar? (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 16. Re: is this muttar? (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: is this muttar? (Micha Berger)

On Chullin 14b the sugya discussing breira is brought, including the
machlokus between Rabbi Meir and others regarding whether one can drink
wine on shabbas from which one had only designated the wine which will
remain after shabbas as the trumos and ma'asros.  And the others object to
Rabbi Meir's solution to use breira on the grounds that the wine cask may
break, and then it will result that no trumos and ma'asros ended up being
taken, while Rabbi Meir is not concerned for this possibility.

But how does that reconcile with Rabbi Meir's other famous position, namely
that he is chayesh l'meutei - ie concerned for minority cases (brought most
recently on daf 11b).

Why is the barrel breaking not a minority case, just like a katan or katana
turning out to be an ailanis? And surely both are cases where it is
possible to be mevarer, if you wait long enough, so the exception to the
rule brought on daf 11b doesn't help.

Thanks and Shabbat Shalom

Chana
===========================================
You might find this shiur of interest -


http://download.yutorah.org/2011/1109
/762440/Chulling%20Daf%2011%20-%20Source%20for%20Following%20Rov.MP3

http://www.yutorah.org/lectu
res/lecture.cfm/762440/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Chulling_Daf_11_-_Source_for_Fo
llowing_Rov

Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -hulling Daf 11 - Source for Following Rov



Perhaps the miyut in this case is a miyut bmiyuta or 1/1000 that even R' Meir wouldn't worry about?

Just a thought.

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/20110715/a59cb732/attachment-0001.htm>

After reading the interesting post at
http://www.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-god-chose-abraham.html
I looked into the BR 38:13, which appears as 38:19 at this link:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9658&;st=&pgnum=300
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9658&;st=&pgnum=301

After a shakla ve-tarya with Nimrod about the legitimacy of various 
gods, N says, "Ve-yavo eloah she-atah tishtachaveh lo, ve-yatzilcha 
heimenu."

My question is: does this mean, "Let whatever god you do bow down to, 
save you," implying that A had not professed a particular creed, and 
more like the blog's peshat; or, "Let that G-d to whom you bow down [and 
are always on about] save you?"

--
Yitzchak Schaffer

RMB wrote:

>Perhaps the miyut in this case is a miyut bmiyuta or 1/1000 that even R'
Meir wouldn't worry about?

But if that were the case, why would Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi
Shimon all be concerned for it as stated on daf 14b?

>Joel Rich

Regards

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110715/ce5cc38f/attachment-0001.htm>

To bring this back to Avodah relevance, I have never heard of a case in Torah in which a murderer has been set free because they were insane.

*** Rena

My guess is if this is true, it would be because of the power of a melech
to run a civil society, I can't imagine how one could give valid hatrah to
one who is incapable of understanding it (iiuc hatrah is a din in the
recipient not the givers -e.g. if the recipient was warned in a language
that he did not understand)
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/20110715/f65f87ee/attachment-0001.htm>

moved from Areivim: discussion (again) about the prohibition of abortion

Zev said
<<It's certainly retzicha for Bnei Noach, and it makes no sense for the
same act to be retzicha when done by one person and not-retzicha when
done by another.>>

It may not make sense to Zeev but the Ramban (nidah 41a), Yad Ramah
(Sanhedrin 57b), Radvaz (vol 2 #695), Drisha EH 13:4, Sma CM 425:8,
Sridei Esh  (vol
3:127) and many others
see also Tosafot Sotah 26a all disagree and say abortion is not
retzicha (courtesy of Encylopedia Hilchatit Refuit by Dr. Steinberg)



-- 
Eli Turkel

"I could recast the question: We repeatedly encounter the "cheireish,
shoteh veqatan" when it comes to maaseh; what about oneshim?"

I would kick the question back one step: what is the definition of 'shoteh" and how does that definition relate to insanity?

Joseph Kaplan

<<To bring this back to Avodah relevance, I have never heard of a case in
Torah in which a murderer has been set free because they were insane.>>

It is clear that a shoteh is not subject to punishments similar to a
minor. The gemara lists several characteristics of a shoteh eg sleeps
in the cemetery, can't handle money etc. Then there is a discussion
whether one needs all of them or just one.

There is a machloket whether one requires exactly the cases in the
gemara or they are examples of levels of insanity. The general
consensus is that these are examples. R Zilberstein in a recent shiur
gave examples of these translations. Recen Torah tibdits (OU) have a
column from the Puah institute which also translates these into
psychiatric terms.

The famous cases were all the achronim were involved is the get from Clevels

shabbat shallom


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 01:30:53PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
: RSRH writes the following in his commentary on Bamidbar 25:13
...
: Pinchas himself was granted a very long life. As late as the time of
: pelegish b'givah  (Shoftim 20:28) we find Pinchas ben Elazar ben 
: Aharon serving as the
: Kohein Godol before the Ark of God's Covenant. Moreover, according to one
: opinion, Pinchas was identical with Eliyahu (Yalkut Shimoni ad loc.),
: whose zeal for God's Word was imbued with the spirit of Pinchas...
...
: Note that Rav Hirsch says that Pinchas being identical with Eliyahu 
: is according to *one* opinion.   YL

To quote the Yalqut (771):
    Amar R' Shim'on ben Laqish: Pinechas hu Eliyahu...

    Rabbi Eliezer omeir: Heiseiv HQBH shemo shel Pinechas bishemo shel
    Eliyahu za"l...

Note also that RSRH doesn't leave even Reish Laqish's identification
as literal physically the same person, rather, "only" that Eliyahu's
"zeal for God's Word was imbued with the spirit of Pinchas..."

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 15/07/2011 2:28 AM, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
> There's been some discussion of insanity pleas on Areivim.  I'm just wondering, is there any basis in halacha for such a plea?

"Cheresh, shoteh, veKatan, pegi`atam ra`ah."  They are not liable for
their actions even in a civil case, kol shekein in a criminal case.
The definition of shoteh is very much discussed in the ShUT, with reference
to agunot, where the rabbanim tried hard to find that a man was competent
to give a get or chalitzah.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 03:03:17PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> By this line of reasoning, going to work every day is too much hishtadlus.
:> Instead, I should shnorr a dollar a week and buy a lottery ticket.

: Isn't that exactly what the michtav meliyahu says (for a true baal
: bitachon)? [minus the scnorr part]

I took REED as referring to an idealized archetypal ba'al bitachon,
a hypothetical someone whose bitachon even exceeded Avraham. Avraham
survived the kivshan ha'eish, but the avos worked for their money. The day
Moshe was holy enough to see the seneh, he too had a day job. I therefore
assumed this "baal bitachon" of the MmE is a theoretical person used to
the high edge of the spectrum.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 06:47:27PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
:> : I don't understand "mechuyavei ham'tzius" to mean "necessities
:> : of existence." I believe it means "must necessarily have happened."...
...
:> I really doubt that, in general, and moreso in the Rambam in particular.
:> To use classical philosophical terms, you're saying "mechuyavei hametzius"
:> are non-contingent events. However, leshitaso, all of metzi'us is
:> contingent.

:> IMHO,
:> ? ?mechuyavei: necessitated by
:> ? ?metzi'us: empirical existence
...
: While RMB and I finally agree on something in the rambam, in the
: particular phrase that REMT has chosen, I think REMT is closer to the
: truth.  The rambam is contrasting the fool, who views every impossible
: story as not being merely true - but Mechuyav hametziyut - non
: contingent events...

Define "metzi'us". To me it implies empiricism, and thus "mechuyavei
hametzi'us" are things empirically compelled. Not "non-contingent"
(as REMT wrote) but compelled by physics..

Thus my translation that the Rambam is ridiculing people who believe
aggadic stories that defy the laws of nature.

BTW, he doesn't talk about the fool who believes the event is
non-contingent, but the fool who believes something that defies the
non-contingent, or as I'm reading it, defies empirical law. And thus
the same point R' Dr Shinnar pointed us to in Maamar Techiyas haMeisim.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:28:15 -0400
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Subject: [Avodah] True Peace

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar 25:12

12 Therefore proclaim it: Lo! I give to him My covenant: Peace.

Here, the realization of the supreme harmony of peace is entrusted by God
precisely to that spirit and to that activism which thoughtless people
anxious to mask their passivity and neglect of duty as love of peace like
to brand and condemn as disturbances of the peace. Peace is a precious
thing for which one is obligated to sacrifice everything, all of ones own
rights and possessions, but one may never sacrifice for it the rights of
others, and one may never sacrifice for it what God has declared to be good
and true. There can be true peace among men only if they all are at peace
with God. One who dares to struggle against the enemies of what is good and
true in the eyes of God is by this very struggle one of the fighters for
the bris sholom on earth. Conversely, one who, for the sake of what he
imagines to be peace with his fellow men, cedes the field without protest
and allows them to stir up strife with God makes common cause by his very
love of peace with the enemies of t
 he bris sholom on earth. What saved the people was not the apathy of the
 masses, nor even the tears of sorrow shed by those who stood idly at the
 entrance to the Tent of Appointed Meeting. It was the brave act of Pinchas
 that saved the people and restored to them peace with God and His Law,
 thereby restoring the basis for true peace.

____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:51:25 +0100
From: Chana Luntz <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Subject: [Avodah] Rabbi Meir Chayesh l'meutei versus Rav Meir in relation to

Something on the recent daf yomi at the moment, that I am sure somebody
discusses somewhere (and I may even have come across it somewhere so any
pointers would be appreciated):

On Chullin 14b the sugya discussing breira is brought, including the
machlokus between Rabbi Meir and others regarding whether one can drink
wine on shabbas from which one had only designated the wine which will
remain after shabbas as the trumos and ma'asros. And the others object to
Rabbi Meir's solution to use breira on the grounds that the wine cask may
break, and then it will result that no trumos and ma'asros ended up being
taken, while Rabbi Meir is not concerned for this possibility.

But how does that reconcile with Rabbi Meir's other famous position, namely
that he is chayesh l'meutei - ie concerned for minority cases (brought most
recently on daf 11b).

Why is the barrel breaking not a minority case, just like a katan or katana
turning out to be an ailanis? And surely both are cases where it is
possible to be mevarer, if you wait long enough, so the exception to the
rule brought on daf 11b doesn't help.
____________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:55:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rabbi Meir Chayesh l'meutei versus Rav Meir in

> On Chullin 14b the sugya discussing breira is brought, including the
...

You might find this shiur of interest -
http://download.yutorah.org/2011/1109
/762440/Chulling%20Daf%2011%20-%20Source%20for%20Following%20Rov.MP3

http://www.yutorah.org/lectu
res/lecture.cfm/762440/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Chulling_Daf_11_-_Source_for_Fo
llowing_Rov

Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -hulling Daf 11 - Source for Following Rov

Perhaps the miyut in this case is a miyut bmiyuta or 1/1000 that even R' Meir wouldn't worry about?
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:12:03 +0100
From: Chana Luntz <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Subject: [Avodah] Rabbi Meir Chayesh l'meutei versus Rav Meir in relation to

> Perhaps the miyut in this case is a miyut bmiyuta or 1/1000 that even R' Meir wouldn't worry about?

But if that were the case, why would Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon all be concerned for it as stated on daf 14b?

> 
> 
> R' MS:
> Several issues with RMB's point:
> 1) First, my understanding is that kli gever and kli isha only applies
> to what is visible - eg, does not apply to undergarments, etc - the
> essence of kli gever and kli isha is the public appearance as the
> other sex.
> <SNIP>
> -------------------
> RMYG
> I would disagree, seeing as how one of the Beged Ishah issues is for a man
> to shave his body hair in an area in which it's a feminine thing to do, and
> that, presumably, is even though he keeps his body covered in public.
> 
> 
Actually, RMYG's point is a proof text for my point.  
Shaving certain areas is brought as assur, but from divre sofrim.
The bet yosef (and the taz following him) (yore deah 182) ask why isn't
shaving in areas that normally only women do assur midoraita from beged
ishah - and they answer that the issur d'oraita doesn't apply to something
that is hidden, and one therefore requires a takkana to prohibit shaving.
(there is no one that I know that holds that this takana is for all hidden
issues rather than the specific one of shaving).
The bach does disagree, as this distinction is not explicit in hazal  - but the bet yosef and taz are rauy lismoch...
Furthermore, both the taz and the bach seem explicit that the issue is in
trying to appear as a man (or as a woman) - and that if one has a
legitimate reason to wear clothing of the opposite sex rather than trying
to appear as they are, the issur does not apply.

Lastly, it was held by some that no one since Michal put on tefilin.

Tashma brings down (in halacha, minhag umetsiut beashkenaz 1100-1350, p
322) from Kovetz perushim upesakim lerav avigdor hatzorfati (published
1996, he lived early 13th century), page 172 - umita'am ze nahagu nashim
tsadkaniot lehaniach tefillin ulevarech ulehitatef betsitstit

Meir Shinnar

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=4252

Piskei Tshuvos: Rinsing Your Mouth & Brushing Teeth On A Taanis

With regard to rinsing your mouth on a Taanis Tzibur, the Michaber 
(567:3) says you should not do so.  The Mishna Brura says that if 
this causes you Tzaar, you may rinse your mouth but you should be 
sure to keep your head bent over so you don't swallow.  On Tisha 
B'Av, the Mishna Brura says you may only do so if your are in great 
Tzaar.  On Yom Kippur you must totally refrain from this.

Similarly, says the Piskei Tshuvos based on the Minchas Yitzchok 
(4:109), L'Chatchila you should not brush your teeth on a Taanis 
Tzibur, even without water, unless you are in Tzaar.  If you are in 
Tzaar, you may do so even with water.  And again he cautions if you 
do so, make sure to bend your head down when rinsing so that you 
don't swallow any water.

----------


breath of someone who has not rinsed his or her mouth with mouthwash 
or brushed his/her teeth.  I can only wonder why this is not a 
consideration in the above discussion.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110718/8399addd/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.haaretz.
com/jewish-world/fbi-u-s-couple-kidnapped-israeli-to-force-him-to-grant-his
-wife-jewish-divorce-1.373910 


while halacha allows  physical persuation, does dina dmalchuta override 
that practice?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110718/b22a12e3/attachment-0001.htm>

On 18/07/2011 5:44 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> _http://w
> ww.haaretz.com/jewish-world/fbi-u-s-couple-kidnapped-israeli-to-force-
> him-to-grant-his-wife-jewish-divorce-1.373910_
>
> while halacha allows physical persuation, does dina dmalchuta override that practice?

How could it?   What has this got to do with "dina", that you should even
have a question?   *If* this couple was operating on the legitimate orders
of a BD then it was muttar; if they were not, i.e. either they acted on
their own, or the orders they received were illegitimate, as the husband's
web site alleges,then it was assur.

I renew my objection to those who casually step from Shmuel's statement
that "dina demalchusa dina" to a conclusion that there is an obligation
to obey the law, or a prohibition on breaking the law; how do you get
from step A to step C?   Nobody has yet even attempted to demonstrate
step B; every time I raise the issue I'm answered by obfuscation and
assertion and arguments from dubious authority.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:04:19PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> while halacha allows physical persuation, does dina dmalchuta override that practice?
>
> How could it?   What has this got to do with "dina", that you should even
> have a question? ...
...
> I renew my objection to those who casually step from Shmuel's statement
> that "dina demalchusa dina" to a conclusion that there is an obligation
> to obey the law, or a prohibition on breaking the law; how do you get
> from step A to step C?   Nobody has yet even attempted to demonstrate....

I thought we would be done with this claim of lack of sources after
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n155.shtml#10
(Which was the end of the thread; RZS didn't challenge the list of
shitos at the time.)

Does Rashi's shitah about dina demalkhusa dina (DDD) /not/ include any law
passed by a court fulfilling the function required in the 7 mitzvos benei
Noach? What about the Maharshal? The Rashbam, invoking social contract?

See also the Rashba as quoted in the Beis Yoseif (CM 308:12), who
pasqened lemaaseh that DDD includes an order for the Jewish community
to investigate a crime before possible gov't sentencing, even if the
case was a capital one. His reasoning is much like the Maharshal's,
already lited in the previous post.

The Maharam Shick (CM 50) has a similar case, of a woman who was accused
of mudering her husband, and writes that DDD obligates us to turn her in
even though there was no eidus, hasraah, or even certainty of her guilt.
(Which I think has relevence to today's reporting abuse cases.)

Hopefuly we can now fully put the topic to rest, that those who take
opinions contrary to RZS's minimalist interpretation do so with sufficient
reason.


That said, I would agree that if this kidnapping (1) actually occured,
and (2) was a BD-ordered "kofin oso ad sheyomar rotzeh ani", DDD wouldn't
trump halakhah.


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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 137
***************************************

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..."