Avodah Mailing List

Volume 29: Number 21

Thu, 16 Feb 2012

• 1. Re: Halacha is about sources. Lo BaShamayim hi. (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Re: destroying idols (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Re: Should we be davening for R' Elyashiv to live? (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Re: strange names in Hebrew (Ilana Elzufon)
• 5. Re: destroying idols (Ilana Elzufon)
• 6. christmas responsa (menucha)
• 7. Asking your own shailas (Liron Kopinsky)
• 8. Re: Should we be davening for R' Elyashiv to live? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 9. Re: Should we be davening for R' Elyashiv to live? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Terumos Umaaseros (Ilana Elzufon)
• 11. Re: Tahara (T6...@aol.com)
• 12. Re: Tahara (Freda B Birnbaum)
• 13. Tahara (Harry Maryles)
• 14. Re: destroying idols (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Should we be davening for R' Elyashiv to live? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Should we be davening for R' Elyashiv to live? (Akiva Blum)

On 2/15/2012 12:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 15/02/2012 11:09 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
>> Regarding the construction of the Masoretic Text, I wrote:

>>> The story (assuming I remember it correctly) is not only
>>> illogical, but with all due respect, it borders on absurd. But
>>> because it was the valid result of a legal process, it has more
>>> authority, and is followed even today.

>> R' Zev Sero asked:

>>> What's absurd about it?  They were trying to reconstruct the
>>> original text, from three independent sources, *each* of which
>>> was subject to the usual problem of ...

>> First of all, I tried to be respectful, and wrote merely that it 
>> *borders* on absurd, not that it actually *is* absurd.

> Yes, but I don't see anything even slightly absurd about it; on the
> contrary, it seems to me perfectly logical and muchrach.

<facepalm> Yes, it's logical if you think it through.  But on the 
surface, it seems kind of counter-intuitive that a check for a valid 
source would leave you with something that didn't match *any* of your 
source material exactly.  And anyway, "absurd" doesn't mean illogical or 
wrong.  It deals with apparent oddness on the surface.

> The oddity that you seem to see in the result comes from assuming that
> we're relying on the three original sefarim as our source.  That isn't
> so.  Rather, we're using them as *witnesses* to the original text, and
> like all witnesses they're not 100% reliable.

That's a good comparison.  But it doesn't do to ignore the way something 
looks on the surface, even if we know the truth underlying it.

[Email #2. -micha]

R' Micha Berger wrote:
>> So our current mesoretic text doesn't match any of the sefarim
>> they found in the azarah upon the return from Bavel.

R' Joel Rich responded:
>> I vaguely remember a shiur quoting someone as saying it was the
>> hashgacha that this result matched the original version at Sinai.

On 2/15/2012 1:37 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Alternatively, it did NOT match the original, but rather hashgacha made
> it reflect another of the valid Shivim Panim which was appropriate for
> the latter generations. This is similar to our Sifrei Torah, which are
> not identical to Rashi's, or of other rishonim.

Are you sure that's what shivim panim means? Actual textual differences
in the Torah? I don't think that's what it means.

> I recall hearing this logic invoked in the Torah Codes discussions, when
> it was pointed out that the codes found today would not have been found
> in the ancient seforim. The retort was that these code were not relevant
> to them, and perhaps they'd have found other codes which were relevant.

Well, that's far from the only problem with the Torah Codes, as they
were eventually implemented (weird transliterations and all). But I don't
know about that excuse. Back in the 1990s (I think it was), Rabbi David
Bar Hayim and Rabbi Shlomo Riskin had a debate, during which R' Riskin
claimed that "Lo Tirtzach" applied to killing anyone, Jewish or not. He
supported his claim by reading from the Rambam's Hilchot Rotzeiach,
where he says ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????, ????? ?? ????. R' Bar
Hayim got up and took out a copy of the Rambam based on manuscripts of
the Rambam himself and read ?? ???? ??? ?i ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????,
????? ?? ???? (and you can see that girsa on the Mechon Mamre site as
well). He suggested that we'd do better going according to what the
Rambam wrote with his own hand, rather than the official version of the
Polish Catholic Church. Note, btw, that he wasn't saying it's okay to
kill non-Jews, only that it doesn't come from that pasuk. R' Riskin's
reply was that we pasken by the version in our hands. I didn't think
that was a kosher answer at the time, and I don't think the answer of
the Torah Codes folks was any better.

Lisa

On 2/15/2012 12:39 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> interesting that on Prager show they are talking about whether there is a
> chiyuv to destroy idols in a jewish state, and the caller claims that
> it's secularity of the State that prevents it; Prager saying that if
> the messiah wants to destroy the native history , that's fine , but not in
> the meantime--and no haredi jews are going around destroying museum
> pieces [ this is about moslem Talibanic destruction of other
> religions' icons, even in museums ]

It's a legitimate question. Speaking even as someone who has learned
a lot from ancient inscriptions and materials, I've always wondered
whether there's an obligation to destroy them. I mean, you walk through
a museum in Jerusalem and there are mamash Ashtoret idols in cases.
It doesn't seem right.

Lisa

From: Marty Bluke <_marty.bluke@gmail.com_ (mailto:marty.bl...@gmail.com) >

R'  Benny Lau wrote...that maybe we should be davening
for R' Elyashiv to be  freed from the yisurim that are affecting his body
(in other words to die). 
 

>>>>>
 
 
I don't think it's a Jewish thing to daven for the death of someone who is  
suffering. In fact, this suggestion is shocking to me.  We daven for his  
refuah and we daven that Hashem will ease his suffering, and leave it up to  
Hashem to decide how to ease the suffering. I knew someone who at one point 
was  in a coma and had only "hours to live" -- dying of cancer -- yet he 
came  out of it, went home, went back to learning, made a siyum with his 
friends,  lived a year after he was "supposed" to die -- a year which his wife 
believes  was given to him because of the intensity of her davening.



--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


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







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120215/52c687ae/attachment-0001.htm>

For us, usually the DN is either as in Dani*el* or or Yirmi*yahu*.

Although there are a few examples that are more problematic, like Eshbaal
ben Shaul (Divrei Hayamim A, 8:33 and 9:39), referred to in Sefer Shmuel as
Ish Boshet.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120216/50107d5e/attachment-0001.htm>

RSZN: no haredi jews are going around destroying  museum pieces...

I don't know where the source is, but I was under the impression that an
idol could lose its AZ status if a worshipper of that religion is
deliberately mevatel it, or if the religion itself has become extinct and
no one worships such idols any more. I believe that museum pieces from the
ancient Middle East generally represent extinct religions.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120216/0fa482cb/attachment-0001.htm>

Does anyone know of contemporary responsa about christian holidays today 
and halachot of yom ideyhen?
thanks
menucha

We recently purchased a particular dietary supplement which did not have a
hechsher on it, because my wife had spoken to another frum woman who said
that she had asked her Rav the shaila and was told that this particular
item, unflavored and pure, does not need a hechsher.

We were then informed by someone else that R" Eidlitz requires a hechsher
on this item.

My question is not really about the item at hand - we'll now do more
research and figure out what the story is with the particular product we
bought - but whether it was OK to rely on the other woman's shaila. At what
point is one allowed to say "his or her Rav says it's ok so I'm going to do
it" versus personally asking (and bothering) your Rav about every shaila
you might have? For example, if you go to someone's house on Shabbat and
you see them doing something that you think might be assur and they assure
you that they asked this exact shaila and was told that it's fine, are you
now allowed to do that as well, relying on the shaila they asked, or do you
always need to find out how your particular LOR paskens?

Kol Tuv,

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120216/45a772bb/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Marty Bluke:
R' Benny Lau wrote (http://bit.ly/wl25Tr) that maybe we should be davening
for R' Elyashiv to be freed from the yisurim that are affecting his body (in
other words to die). He based this on the Gemara Kesubos 104 where Rebbe's
shifcha sees the talmidim davening for him to recover while he is suffering
and therefore she davens for him to die and distracts the talmidim. He
points out that R' Moshe (Igros Moshe Choshen Mishpat 2:73
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=921&;st=&pgnum=301) paskens like
Rebbe's shifcha and R' moshe quotes a Ran in Nedarimn as well in support of
this. As expected this did not go over well with the crowd at Kika
Hashabbat. 
------------------------


unwise to say it, anyway.

KT,
MYG

On 15/02/2012 9:28 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> I don't think it's a Jewish thing to daven for the death of someone who is suffering. In fact, this suggestion is shocking to me.

And yet, what of Rebbi's slave?

Come to think of it, how is it that all the great chachamim below
who were praying for Rebbi to live were wrong, and davka his slave
hit on the correct idea?  Were none of them wise enough to come up
with the same idea?!

It seems to me that the difference lies in the fact that a slave is
completely batel to her master, and has no metzius of her own.  Thus
all that mattered to her was her master's interest.  So long as she
thought it was in his interest to live, she prayed for that; as soon
as it seemed to her that he would be better off dying, she gave no
thought for herself, or for the whole generation that was benefiting
from his zechus, and changed her prayers.  In some ways an eved is
even closer to a person than a son, and certainly than a talmid;
"eved melech melech".  A son may not see his father naked, but a slave
may see his master naked.  A slave doesn't knock when he enters a room,
because he has no metzius.  A person expects his son or his talmid to
surpass him, and has nachas when that happens, whereas an eved never
surpasses his master.  So she was able to make this decision with no
peniyos, and she had the right to do so, while all the chachamim did not.

-- 
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

RLK: Doesn't the keviut of fruit for terumot and maasrot go after chanata
and not lekita? As such, it would be squarely on the shoulders of the
farmer to make sure to properly label which fruit are from which year
should any be blossoming around this time.

I'm not a farmer, but it seems to me that the only trees blossoming at tu
bishvat (at least here in EY) are almond trees (hashkediah porachat....)
and that they are still pre-chanata. That is why tu bishvat is a good
cut-off, because there isn't much to get confused about. But I am open to
correction by those with greater botanical/agricultural/halachic knowledge.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120216/4d33f75d/attachment-0001.htm>

In a message dated 2/16/2012 , hmary...@yahoo.com writes:

I have  always wondered how the Avi Avos HaTumah - a human corpse - can be 
ritually  purified.
 
>>>>>
 
 
I've asked the same question and the answers I've received have to do with  
something more cosmic or kabbalistic -- preparing the person for the next 
world  and/or for techiyas hameisim. Although it is the body that is cleaned 
and  dressed (and as you say, the body remains tamei), it is the neshama of 
the  deceased person that somehow benefits. The neshama is there in the 
tahara room  and I assume derives some kind of comfort from seeing its body 
treated  respectfully and taken care of by Jews.
 
Sometimes we can't do a tahara -- dipping in the mikva or pouring buckets  
of water over the person -- because there is just too much bleeding or open  
wounds.  We still clean and dress the person and loosely refer to the whole 
 process as a tahara even though we weren't able to actually do the tahara. 
  I don't think the actual dipping is that critical, but the cleaning and 
dressing  -- and tefillos along the way -- are the final chessed to the 
deceased  person.
 
I've seen funeral home employees at work, how they talk, how they behave,  
and there is no comparison with the kind of dignity and honor that we accord 
 to our people who have passed away.


--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


------------------------------------------------------------------- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120216/5b2631e3/attachment-0001.htm>

As a chevra kadisha member, I can affirm what Toby said.

It seems to me that a great deal of it is treating the person with 
respect.  The difference between just dumping a body in the ground and 
washing it and dressing it is HUGE.

> I've seen funeral home employees at work, how they talk, how they 
> behave, and there is no comparison with the kind of dignity and honor 
> that we accord to our people who have passed away.

I've been spared those sights, but you are right on target here.

Freda

--- On Wed, 2/15/12, T6...@aol.com <T6...@aol.com> wrote:






?I once?tried very hard to persuade a man to let his deceased mother have a
tahara, even though she hadn't put a tahara in her funeral arrangement
papers.? She was a very old lady (in her 90's) whom I and other bikur
cholim volunteers used to sometimes visit.? Her 70-year-old son?shouted so
loud and used so many four-letter words that I had to hold the phone away
from my ear.? He thought I had something monetary to gain out of it even
though I?offered to pay for the tahara myself.? But his main point was that
I was an interfering busybody and had no right to say anything about his
mother's funeral arrangements.? I didn't and don't feel guilty for trying.?
She didn't have a tahara.? I do feel bad about that.
--------------------------
?
One of the things we associate with a Chesed Shel Emes is a Tahara - the
ritual washing of a corpse before it is buried. It is considered the
ultimate form of kindness?since one does it knowing that the kindness can
never be returned. 
?
(K'tzas Kasha: By doing Taharos they benefit the loved ones who can return
the favor. Also people doing Tahros will no doubt be more assured of their
own eventual Tahara by doing them for others when they were still alive. So
I'm not sure why it is always cited as the ultimate Chesed with no expected
return benefit. But I digress.)
?
In light of RTK's story, I have always wondered how the Avi Avos HaTumah -
a human corpse - can be ritually purified.? The fact is that it cannot be
purified at all. If a corpse is touched by a human being - even after a
Tahara - he or she?becomes an Av HaTumah anyway.
?
I therefore assume it is only a custom. I do not recall seeing it quoted in
the Shulchan Aruch. (Perhaps it is - but I can't recall seeing it.) Was
this always the custom in Klal Yisroel? If not - when did the Minahg start
and more importantly - Why? Frankly I never understood it.
?
(I think this is 'Avodah' territory so I am cc'ing it there too.)
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120216/475720af/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:41:06AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote:
: I don't know where the source is, but I was under the impression that an
: idol could lose its AZ status if a worshipper of that religion is
: deliberately mevatel it, or if the religion itself has become extinct and
: no one worships such idols any more...

I believe it requires deliberate bitul (and that the owner and mivatel
be nakhriim). Like the discussion in AZ 52b if bitul would have to entail
breaking it.

BTW, according to the Minchas Chinukh #436, there is no issur in leaving
AZ intact. Rather, it is the lack of fulfillment of an asei.

There might be an issur in passing up an asei for no good reason. Okeir
mitzvos beyadayim is mentioned by hilkhos tzitzis. As RAM quoted in
private email from me from back in 2001 (that I can't remember anything
else about), I only found mention within hilkhos tzitzis. I also compared
it to "mitzvah habas beyadekha al tachmitzenah."
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n068.shtml#11

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

This discussion reminds me of Chizqiyahu getting tokhachah from Yeshaiah
for not having more children. (Berakhos 10a, based on Yeshaiah 38:1)
Chizkiyahu saw through nevuah that he would have evil children. Yeshaiah
said, basically, that it's your job to do your job, and let such
computation be Hashem's.

Similarly, li nir'eh:
It is our job to pray for life. Any further cheshbonos are Someone
Else's problem.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org On Behalf Of Zev Sero
> Sent: Thursday 16 February 2012 5:26 AM

> And yet, what of Rebbi's slave?

> Come to think of it, how is it that all the great chachamim below
> who were praying for Rebbi to live were wrong, and davka his slave
> hit on the correct idea?  Were none of them wise enough to come up
> with the same idea?!

I understood from the gemora that she alone saw how much he was actually
suffering. The chachamim weren't aware.

Akiva



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 21
**************************************

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..."