Avodah Mailing List

Volume 29: Number 5

Wed, 11 Jan 2012

• 1. Re: Vayechi - Judge every person favorably (hankman)
• 2. Re: Do we Owe Respect to Old Bones? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Vayechi - Judge every person favorably (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Vayechi - Judge every person favorably (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Vayechi - Judge every person favorably (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Vayechi - Judge every person favorably (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Do we Owe Respect to Old Bones? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Do we Owe Respect to Old Bones? (Micha Berger)
• 9. international dateline (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Balancing needs (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: Balancing needs (Micha Berger)
• 12. Cholov Stam (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: Cholov Stam (Rafi Hecht)
• 14. Re: Cholov Stam (Micha Berger)

RZS wrote:

The Qaraim of the Rambam's day were hardly first-generation! How did he
relate to them? Certainly not as the article we'd discussing suggests.

CM notes:

Well, the Ramban felt sufficiently comfortable with the Samaritans to have
one of them read the inscription on the Machatsis haShekel he found when he
arrived in Israel that was written in kesav Ivri which is similar to the
kesav of the Samaritans. Perhaps that is not ?relating? to them in the
sense you meant, (perhaps just credibility derived from a meisiach lifnei
tumo situation?)

Kol tuv

Chaiam Manaster

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120110/c989ab69/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:40:34AM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: Finally, if you subscribe to what I call the programmer's model of
: creation, i.e. that the world is a virtual reality in G"d's "mind" and
: that the individual creations of the Six Days of Creation are kind of
: subroutines (works perfectly with Rashi who speaks of everything being
: created before the first day, but put in place on its day, and it all
: only coming into function on day six, when Adam was made to come
: alive), then the first answer above would fit, too.

I think more the Rambam. The Moreh 2:30 says something similar to what
you quote from Rashi (Bereishis 1:1 d"h "Berieshis bara", the "kepishuto"
given 2nd).

But the Rambam suggests this for a different reason than Rashi. Rashi
needs a sun in order for "erev" and "boqer" to make sense. The Rambam
raises the problem that time itself requires motion. (The Greeks believed
that time was the property of a process, not visualizing it as an axis,
the way science has since Galileo.)

Therefore, the particular Rashi you quote might suggest that a creation
yom is a length of time other than one "trip of the sun around the earth"
(revolution of the earth) as we have them, since the galgal wasn't in
place yet.

But the Rambam, saying the same thing, would suggest that yom isn't
a span of time altogether. And AFAIK, this is the commonly accepted
understanding of the Rambam. (Although if RZL sees this, he'll post
his counterargument.) That the 6 yamim are stages of a process, not
temporal at all.

Where Rashi does suggest that maaseh bereishis isn't within linear time
is more what you pointed to in November -- the combination of 1:1 and
2:4. But it is far from muchrakh. It could be (as you suggested) that
Rashi simply explains each narrative al pi peshuto without trying to
reconcile the two.

This "subroutine" notion might also explain the Ramban's pairing of
creation yamim with historical-era millenia.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 10/01/2012 5:40 PM, hankman wrote:
> RZS wrote:
>> The Qaraim of the Rambam's day were hardly first-generation! How did he
>> relate to them? Certainly not as the article we'd discussing suggests.

> Well, the Ramban felt sufficiently comfortable with the Samaritans
> to have one of them read the inscription on the Machatsis haShekel he
> found when he arrived in Israel that was written in kesav Ivri which is
> similar to the kesav of the Samaritans. Perhaps that is not "relating"
> to them in the sense you meant, (perhaps just credibility derived from
> a meisiach lifnei tumo situation?)

What is this supposed to show?  How is it relevant?  Samaritans are
goyim gemurim, no different from Arabs.

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

Bekhol zos... Mamrim 3:3 limits condemntation of Tzeduqim and Baisusim to
the generations that created and joined the movement. It's the classical
source for invoking tinoq shenishba in relating to those who weren't
raised O. Also, the source for kiruv. And even if the person learns about
Rabbinates and Yahadus, a Qarai isn't accountable for not overturning
his upbringing.

The Mishneh leMelekh Hil' Malveh veLoveh 5:2 says shitas haRambam based
on Peirush haMishnayos (Chullin 1:1) would turn this ts"n status into
an issur of lending on ribis, a chiyuv on hashavas aveidah, should be
treated with compassion, etc... And our relevent snippet (MlM quoting PhM)
"ulemishkan bedivrei shalom", with aspirations of kiruv.

They aren't removed from "achikha", being very consistent with RAL's
statement that dan lekaf zekhus would apply, and thus we should assume
they mean well, want to serve G-d, but are very mistaken about what
He wants.

But you haven't justified your own opening remarks. You said RAL
isn't consistent with the Rambam. What does the Rambam say that is
inconsistent with the following quote?

    This idea has ramifications for our relations with secular Jews, as
    well as Reform and Conservative groups. Along with the justified and
    necessary opposition to their views, is it not proper that we refrain
    from rejecting outright the possibility that they are truly motivated
    "for the sake of Heaven"? Must we always insist on accusing all of
    them of acting out of personal interests, and viewing only ourselves
    as acting "for the sake of Heaven"? This approach is neither true
    nor healthy. "Judge every person favorably" (Avot 1:6).

I am also amazed that you can make such judgments in conflict with a RY
who is a real "Sinai" -- RYBS, an "oqeir harim", relied on him in shiur
-- without bothering to cite sources. You write, "That didn't change
how we were supposed to relate to them." Which is how? How DO Chazal
tell us to treat n-th generation minim? Where the Ba'al worshippers
in Eliyahu's day n-th generation? R' Saadia Gaon a generation after
Anan ben David founded the Qaraim, so in his day most Qaraim were first
generation. Not our topic. But where does the Rambam tell you to treat
Qaraim as reshaim? What you did was invite people to disagree with someone
far more learned than any of us with only a list of rhetorical questions
in "support".

Until RCH took your earlier post to further discussion, I didn't think
it worth rebutting, there was no meat on the bones to address.



BTW  the original Hebrew is at
<http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/archive/15-sichot/12vayechi.rtf>,
but I don't see much difference between that and the English I
shared last time.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On 10/01/2012 7:36 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But you haven't justified your own opening remarks. You said RAL
> isn't consistent with the Rambam. What does the Rambam say that is
> inconsistent with the following quote?
>
>      This idea has ramifications for our relations with secular Jews, as
>      well as Reform and Conservative groups. Along with the justified and
>      necessary opposition to their views, is it not proper that we refrain
>      from rejecting outright the possibility that they are truly motivated
>      "for the sake of Heaven"? Must we always insist on accusing all of
>      them of acting out of personal interests, and viewing only ourselves
>      as acting "for the sake of Heaven"? This approach is neither true
>      nor healthy. "Judge every person favorably" (Avot 1:6).

The Rambam famously fought against the Karaim.  He did not recognise
them as equals in any sense; as being "leshem shamayim" and worthy of
respect.   All he said was that it's not their fault that they're so
wrong, and if they want to come back they should be welcomed.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 07:42:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> The Rambam famously fought against the Karaim.  He did not recognise
> them as equals in any sense; as being "leshem shamayim" and worthy of
> respect.   All he said was that it's not their fault that they're so
> wrong, and if they want to come back they should be welcomed.

He debated Qarai ideas and thereby fought the spread of Qaraism.
Substantiate a claim about Qaraim and how we treat other people.

And recall, I consider anyone taking on RAL's position to be carrying
a large burden of proof. So enough handwaving and get with mar'eh
meqomos!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Arie Folger wrote:

> If, on the other hand, you are inclined to read the six days
> of creations as six aeons, then the fossils did come from actual
> homo sapiens sapiens, but I posit that even then, the account of
> creation of man is halakhically meaningful, and bones coming from
> before adam would not yet be endowed with tzelem E-lohim, which
> many Rishonim take as relating to man's creative and, more
> importantly, moral faculties. Thus, older bones would still not
> convey tum'a.

How would you respond to R' Micha Berger's question, which was:

> What about the bones of ... Adnei hasadeh -- which it is a
> violation of retzhichah to kill?

My -- probably mistaken -- understanding is that Adnei Hasadeh are
precisely those homo sapiens who were not endowed with Tzelem Elokim. Is it
possible for there to be a being which is assur to murder, yet not be
metameh?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f0cfa149d6ca13774e9st04vuc

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 02:54:10AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: My -- probably mistaken -- understanding is that Adnei Hasadeh are
: precisely those homo sapiens who were not endowed with Tzelem Elokim. Is
: it possible for there to be a being which is assur to murder, yet not
: be metameh?

My own pet theory:

In the 19th cent, the gorilla was only known to westerners by rumor. In
1846 a missionary was shown a skull and found other remains, and in 1860
the first European, Paul du Chaillu encountered a living gorilla. During
this rumor period, fantastic stories grew about them. US newspapers
carried stories of local gorilla sightings much like bigfoot today.

But I don't think adnei hasadeh were gorillas.

However "forest men" were known in Malysia and Indonesia, where they
are called by the Malay and Indonesian equivalent -- orang hutan. The
Sassanid Empire, which ruled the Bavel of Chazal's era, had regular trade
routes as far as China and Japan. So the idea that rumors reached Chazal
of these "forest men", orangutans, could very well have reached them.

Adnei hasadeh have a stem running from their umbilica down to roots in the
ground, and if you cut it, they die. This doesn't fit teva as we know it.

Which is why I prepped this post with the gorilla mashal. Chazal might
be a poetic or rumor-based description of an ape that lives in trees
and tends to stop eating when taken out of their habitat. The gap from
"forest people" to "masters of the field" is real, but to my mind
suggestive of common origin.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

<< This is a false description of the views.  For one thing, R Kasher was
not present at the conference in 1941 where the various shitos were
laid out.  His idea was not one of the the ones discussed, and it did
not play a part in the decision.  Much later, he published a sefer with
maps explaining all the options (and he lists at least a dozen), and
then offers his own "no fixed line" opinion. >>

No one claimed he was in the conference in 1941 and it is irrelevant.

<< For another thing, it lists the BR and CI separately when they're
really variations of the same view;  >>

Basically they agree that the halachic dateline is 90 degrees east of EY.
However, in practical application they disagree. In particular according to
the BT
Melbourne, Sydney and other major Australian cities should keep their
shabbat on sunday.

<< Getting back to R Kasher's opinion, the source quoted misrepresents it >>
ie anyone who disagrees is misrepresenting his view. I strongly object to
Zev's categorizing anyone who disagrees with him as "ridiculous" and I dont
understand how the moderators allow such language.

from the chabad site
http://www.chabad.org/l
ibrary/article_cdo/aid/1736567/jewish/The-Sabbath-the-International-Date-Li
ne-and-Jewish-Law.htm


According to Rabbi Menachem Kasher, since there is no clear tradition or
Talmudic source, one should observe the Sabbath when the locals do. Since
we, as individuals, are commanded to count six days and rest on the seventh
12<http://www.chabad.org/l
ibrary/article_cdo/aid/1736567/jewish/The-Sabbath-the-International-Date-Li
ne-and-Jewish-Law.htm>,
when the first Jews settled in remote areas (over a long period of time),
they simply continued counting six days and resting on the seventh. It was
only later, when travel became more frequent, that the question of changing
the dates arose.13<http://www.chabad.org/l
ibrary/article_cdo/aid/1736567/jewish/The-Sabbath-the-International-Date-Li
ne-and-Jewish-Law.htm>

As such, there is no need for any community to change dates from their
established custom (which is basically the same as following the
International Date Line). However, travelers continue counting six days
from the last Sabbath they observed, and the seventh day is the Sabbath.
Only once the travelers arrive at their destination would they follow the
local Jewish community?s
Sabbath.14<http://www.chabad.org/l
ibrary/article_cdo/aid/1736567/jewish/The-Sabbath-the-International-Date-Li
ne-and-Jewish-Law.htm>


<<> As I previously wrote in actual fact all communities that I know
essentially
follow Rav Kasher
<<They could not be doing so, since their practises were established
long before R Kasher was born, let alone before he came up with his shita.>>

Rav Kasher did not invent his opinion he just gave it a strong halachic
basis. I again assert hat the practice in every Jewish community I know is
to keep shabbat on the local Saturday. As SBA has confirmed that even the
machmirim who go from Melbourne to New Zealand keep shabbat on sunday only
le-chumra for a de-oraisa and put on tefillin on sunday ie they are nor
paskening like CI or BR.
If you dont want to call what they do as Rav Kasher I dont care what name
it is called, but as the main halacha they keep shabbat on the local
Saturday both in Melbourne and in Tazmani, New Zealand or Hawaii

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120111/b168f38d/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 10:50:29AM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: On a more philosophical note, is not this debate reminiscent of the
: debates over utilitarianism...

>I think halakhah reflects a greater concern over deontological ethics
>rather than consequentialist ones. IOW, we care more about minimizing
>the number of murderers than minimizing the number of murdered. I'm
>not utilitarianism fits, if I am correct.

>This is why, when a group of Jews is told to pick one to be killed or
>all will, they may not choose. (Unless one if chayav misah, or named
>in the threat, and then machloqes abounds.) Even though whomever they
>pick out is one of the "all" would would get killed anyway. Because
>deontologically, by choosing one of their number to turn over to the
>killers, they participate in the murder.

I agree with the analysis in this case.  And my instincts are that halacha
is generally not utilitarian - but I would be loathe at this stage to say
that it is *never* utilitarian, and certainly that it is never
consequentialist.  After all, the definition of wisdom in pirkei avos
relates to being able to identify consequences.  Is one not to apply wisdom,
or is wisdom irrelevant to the application of halacha? 

>-Micha

Regards

Chana

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:12:57PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: I agree with the analysis in this case.  And my instincts are that halacha
: is generally not utilitarian - but I would be loathe at this stage to say
: that it is *never* utilitarian, and certainly that it is never
: consequentialist.  After all, the definition of wisdom in pirkei avos
: relates to being able to identify consequences.  Is one not to apply wisdom,
: or is wisdom irrelevant to the application of halacha? 

Defining terms, just to minimize misunderstanding as well as to help
readers who aren't used to them (borrowing from wikipedia):

consequentialism: the moral worth of an action is determined only by
its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an
action after knowing all its consequences.

utilitarianism: the proper course of action is the one that maximizes
the overall happiness.

deontological ethics: from the greek word meeting chiyuv + logia. Rules
bind you to your duties.





I am not sure what utilitarian but not consequentialist ethics would look
like. Whomever wrote the utilitarianism page on wikipedia also doesn't,
because they write that utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism.

In any case, wisdeom is relevent to deontological ethics, as is knowing
consequences. The difference is which consequences are most relevent: who
becomes the victim and how badly (consequentialism) or who becomes corrupted
and how badly (deontologism)

Deontology makes sense from the context of many resolutions of
hashgachah peratis and bechirah chafshis. Bechirah is a question of
how I act, what my intended target actually receives is orchestrated
by the Almighty. (Including utilizing my choices, or whatever else the
particular resolution involves.) Therefore, the consequences to others
is His problem; it's only the corrupting action on the actor (ha'adim
nif'al lefi pe'ulaso) that is mine.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

 From http://tinyurl.com/8xonx58

In light of this current state of affairs, such that the farms are
indeed uniformly inspected for non-kosher animals, and the dairy plants
inspectors work with the farm inspectors data, Rav Belsky ruled that
the heter of cholov stam applies for those who wish to rely on it,
albeit based principally on farm inspections rather than on dairy
inspections. The correlation of data between the farm and dairy
inspections extends the farm inspections efficacy to the dairies, from
which point the milk is bo lyad Yisroel and retains its permissibility.

It should be noted that the above, newly-formulated position on cholov
stam is actually the total reverse of Reb Moshes heter: Reb Moshe
was mattir cholov stam based on dairy plants being inspected by the
government, and government inspection of farms was a non-issue due to
the concept of bo lyad Yisroel. Now, in contradistinction, government
inspection of farms plays the central role, and dairy plant inspection
is no longer central for the heter. It is also important to note that
the new position does not rely on bo lyad Yisroel and may appeal to
those who were not comfortable using this rationale in this case.

As evidenced by the above psak and research, the OU continues to pave
the way in kashrus technical data and to service those in Klal Yisroel
who wish to rely on Rav Moshes heter concerning cholov stam.

See the above URL for the rest of this article.

And from http://tinyurl.com/6mwcf58

In a recent issue of Daf HaKashrus, we presented information
about the contemporary controls and regulations that pertain
to government inspection of milk, demonstrating (with the
concurrence of Rav Belsky, shlita) that the Igros Moshes
heter for cholov stam is alive and even stronger than
before<http://www.oukosher.org
/index.php/common/article/cholov_stam_an_update_from_the_farm_and_lab/#fn11
355876464f0dca1291a27>1.


In brief, we noted that current protocol includes government inspection
of farms (which was not always the case in prior days see Igros Moshe YD
1:49), which precludes milk from non-kosher species from entering the
commercial milk chain. We described how milk used in commercial dairy
plants can only be provided by government-approved source farms, and
how government inspectors track documentation for all milk shipped to
commercial dairies to assure that it indeed originates from exclusively
government-inspected farms.

After discussion with a high-ranking senior dairy farm inspector
in upstate New York, as well as with administrative officials at
departments of agriculture of several states, the following additional
points of information were determined to be worthy of publication for
the readership:

Goat and sheep milk farms must be licensed specifically for these
types of milk. Otherwise, all milk licensing applies only to cow milk.
Farms which have animals other than cows (most notably Amish farms)
must either keep the other animals in different quarters from the cows,
or if this is not feasible a partition must be erected to physically
prevent the other animals from contacting the cows. Animals other than
cows (or goats and sheep, as per the farms license) are never permitted
in farms milking parlors or in milking areas of barns. The presence of
such animals in these milking areas would be a red flag violation. Dairy
farms are strictly prohibited from adding milk from any other species to
cow milk. Milk from all dairy farms that provide the commercial market
must be sent to laboratories for analysis. Unlike the laboratory analysis
conducted on milk samples taken from dairy processing plants, the analysis
of dairy farm milk tests for protein, fat and cell levels, all of which
indicate whether the milk is from cows or other species. Even one pail of
milk from other species intermingled in a silo sample of cow milk would
show up in the results and indicate that the milk is not pure cow milk.
The state routinely reviews the laboratory analyses of milk from all
dairy farms which supply the commercial milk chain.

[Email #2. -micha]

Rabbi A. Teitlebaum, the Nirbator Rov, comes to conclusions on this 
issue that differ from those of the OU.  See
<http://tinyurl.com/7gh3dgs>http://tinyurl.com/7gh3dgs

[Email #3. -micha]

Please see http://matzav.com/video-cholov-akum-nowadays

"Chalav Akum Nowadays" was presented by Rav Yisroel Belsky, OU Posek; 
Rav Menachem Genack, CEO OU Kosher; and Rav Aharon Teitelbaum, 
Nirbatur Rov, with an introduction by Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer, OU 
Rabbinic Coordinator for Dairy Industry, at the 2011 AKO Conference 
on November 10, 2011 in New York.

Check these links out:
http://www.mywesternwall.n
et/2010/12/06/rabbi-moses-feinstein-and-what-he-really-said-about-cholov-yi
sroel-milk.html
http://www.mywesternwall.net/2010/11/14/harav-moshe-feins
tein-milk-bottles-story.html

Best Regards,
Rafi Hecht

[I bit.ly-ed them to 
http://bit.ly/wMMG3T 
and
http://bit.ly/znhven
respectively -mi]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 04:31:20PM -0500, Rafi Hecht wrote:
...
: http://www.mywesternwall.net/2010/11/14/harav-moshe-f
: einstein-milk-bottles-story.html
...
: [ http://bit.ly/znhven ]

I heard the story from his nephew, and while the basic drift is right, the details
aren't.

    A story is told about where Reb Moshe was at a certain convention
    and two different brands of bottles of milk were in front of him. He
    reportedly picked up one bottle, looked at it, then put it down and
    used the other bottle of milk. Word spread that R' Moshe didn't
    consider one of the brands to be kosher, and therefore he put it
    down. Needless to say, many followers boycotted the said brand.

    ... "Oh that? I honestly don't know why people are making such
    a fuss. I picked up one bottle, which happened to be your brand,
    and saw that it was empty...."


It was a milk carton, at a beris. The milk was J&J and Golden Flow,
respectively. (Last point thrown in to show quality of my source's
memory.)

The relevent point is that "carton" implies a different decade than
"bottle" would.

Since people can draw different conclusions from RFM's different
teshuvos, placing the story in relation to the dates on the teshuvos
might be significant.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 5
*************************************

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..."