Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 4

Sun, 25 Mar 2012

• 1. Re: I am calling for ... (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Tikkun Olam (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: baal tosif? (Ken Bloom)
• 4. Re: Tikkun Olam (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: I am calling for ... (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: I am calling for ... (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 7. Re: I am calling for ... (Ben Waxman)
• 8. Re: I am calling for ... (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: A Solution in Sight For The Matzah Sensitive (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 10. Re: baal tosif? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: baal tosif? (Ben Waxman)
• 12. characterizing our era (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: Dayan ha'emes (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: A Solution in Sight For The Matzah Sensitive (Micha Berger)
• 15. Pesach bread (Lisa Liel)
• 16. Re: Pesach bread (Dorron Katzin)
• 17. costa concordia (Eli Turkel)

Indeed, is it really appropriate and halachicly proper for a 
non-local organization that is not national to appeal for funds when 
the local mosdos are in need?  YL

_______________________________________________
AIUI R'HS has  said 2/3 local, 1/3 other with local defined by your relationship not just geography.
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.

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> The goal is not to help "the downtrodden" but to make the whole
> system work as it was designed to.

I do not disagree. But I do consider it noteworthy that in the unusual
cases, where "the system" supposedly does *not* "work as it was designed
to", it is most frequently (not always, but most frequently) "the
downtrodden" who would lose out if the system doesn't get improved.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f6bbb62e7c3624fba17st03vuc

On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 21:56 +0000, Allan Engel wrote:
> Not sure that the Korban Pesach had a vegetarian option.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:15 PM,  <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote:
> >
> > is adding something to the k'aara for added symbolism that some interest
> > groups advocate [peace issues, gender issues,etc]  assur?

It would mess up the way in which the sefirot are represented by the
plate. (But to say whether it's symbolism or whether it has an actual
effect on the sefirot is way beyond me.)

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:52:44PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I do not disagree. But I do consider it noteworthy that in the
: unusual cases, where "the system" supposedly does *not* "work as it was
: designed to", it is most frequently (not always, but most frequently)
: "the downtrodden" who would lose out if the system doesn't get improved.

Not always? Bar Ilan and I found only one exception, and I would argue
that a taqanah to aid someone who lost an aveidah, while only in the
gray area when speaking of aiding the "downtrodden", is still about
social justice.

I was convinced last iteration that RnCL is correct. Which I took to
mean: Liberal Judaisms' "Tikkun Olam" is not an abuse of the term by
referring to social justice, although they could be when speaking of
ecology. But they do go awry when not using a Judaism-based definition of
"justice" in how to define what needs repairing.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

R' Yitzchok Levine asked:

> The point is, "Why should anyone expect local residents of
> a community that has needy people to support needy people
> anywhere else?"

Many times I have seen halachos which point out certain priorities in
tzedakah, descriptions of which tzedakos should get preference of which
other tzedakos. But I don't recall ever seeing that one tzedaka should get
*all* of one's support to the *exclusion* of other tzedakos.

For example, RYL wrote:

> A friend of mine who lives in Washington Heights has complained
> to me that he regularly receives requests from yeshivas in
> Lakewood (not BMG which he considers a national Mosad and hence
> worthy of nationwide support) ) asking for donations.  "Why
> should I donate to a yeshiva in Lakewood when Washington Heights
> has so many needs?" he asks.

It seems to me that this friend gives first priority to the needy of
Washington Heights. But he also donates to national mosdos which are worthy
of nationwide support.

I suppose the friend's logic is something like, "I give primarily to
Washington Heights because that is my neighborhood. My second preference is
America, because I live in America." It seems to me that it would be very
consistent to continue that logic with: "And I also give to Jews, because I
am a Jew."

> I am not implying that Hatzala in EY is not a worthy cause.
> However, shouldn't my support be focused on organizations
> where I live?

Focused? Fine! But are the others still in your peripheral view, or are you shutting your wallet to them entirely?

I am **NOT** saying that everyone has to give to everything. And those with
more limited means will of course give to fewer tzedakos than those of
greater means. All I'm saying is that "priorities" are not intended to be
"exclusions".

For example, Aruch Hashulchan YD 251:4 writes:

"If we take this simply, that 'these come before those, and those before
others', that it means that one does not have to give at all to the level
after this one, - well, then, it is common knowledge that every wealthy
person has many poor relatives, and all the more so for a balabos whose
tzedaka is limited. And if so, then those poor people who have no wealthy
relatives will die of hunger. How is it possible to say such a thing??? And
so, in my humble opinion the explanation is like this: Certainly, every
balabos or wealthy person is obligated to give a portion to the distant
paupers, but he must give more to those who are close than to those who are
not close, and so too to all of them, like those on this level."

(Translation note: One should read the above in the original. I'm rather
fuzzy on what he meant each time he used the words "kerovim" and
"rechokim". "Kerovim" can refer either to family relatives, or nearby
residents. Perhaps he intended for one meaning, or the other, or perhaps he
was even deliberately ambiguous. But I really don't think it matters,
because the logic applies across the board, to ALL of the levels of
preference specified.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f6bd7a59482f2509a5cst04vuc

R'n YL:
The phone rang not long ago and after I answered a woman told me that 
she was calling for an organization that I have never heard of, that 
is headed by a rabbi I have never heard of,  that gives out money and 
food to needy people all over the country.

I pointed out to her that there were plenty of needy people living in 
Flatbush where I live and suggested that she send in a donation to 
the Young Israel of Avenue J Chesed Fund.  That ended the call.
-----------------


probably paid on commission and possibly hates her job, would have
appreciated that you just cut her off with a polite, "No, thank you." Or,
"My maaser is pledged elsewhere."

KT,
MYG

The phrase is "aniyei ircha KODEM" not "ONLY aniyei ircha"

Ben
On 3/22/2012 4:16 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>
>
> Indeed, is it really appropriate and halachicly proper for a non-local 
> organization that is not national to appeal for funds when the local 
> mosdos are in need?  YL

The following was sent to me by
    Dr. med. J. Sternbuch
    Switzerland
who is on my email list.  He has given me permission to send this out.

Dear Prof. Levine

I remember that years ago I approached our Godol here in Zurich, R. Moshe
Soloveitchik ztl (a cousin of the Bostoner Rav) about this problem. In
Zurich much more money is leaving the city than is given to local mosdos
(also due to the proximity to Israel). Local mosdos suffer greatly.

I asked him to issue, with all local Rabbonim, a recommendation (not a
psak) that everyone in Zurich should donate at least as much locally as
for out-of-place zedokos.

His answer was unexpected and showed his insight into the human psyche. He
told me that the local Rabbonim should not do that. Because this will
give people a pretext not to give to either place, neither locally nor
abroad. My interpretation: if you get used to say NO to Zedoko requests,
you will use this word also locally. And then you will use such a
recommendation as pretext to say no. You should always give, but with a
very clear preference to local and known causes. That's what Chazal meant
by Anijei Ircho Kodmim - only Kodmim, but not taking over everything.

Joshua Sternbuch

R' Micha Berger asked:

> But what I'm wondering is why wheat is preferable over spelt.

I expected the answer to be similar to precedence in brachos, namely, that preference is given to what comes first in the pasuk "Eretz chitah us'orah..."

But I was wrong.

MB 453:2 explains: "Because it is chaviv to a person, and it constitutes
hidur mitzvah. If he has no wheat for matzos, he should take one of the
four [other] species, whichever is most chashuv to him, so that he will eat
it with te'avon."

(I am very intrigued. It seems that the MB has given three different
criteria - chaviv, chashuv, and te'avon - and I can easily see cases where
they might yield different choices.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Botox Doctors Hate Her
This Unbelievable Skincare Trick Has Doctors Everywhere Amazed.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f6be83361c9f25115f7st04vuc

> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:15 PM,<Saul.Z.New...@kp.org>  wrote:

> is adding  something  to the k'aara for added  symbolism that some
> interest groups advocate [peace issues, gender issues,etc]   assur?

Surely not under any extension of bal tosif.  There is no requirement
for a kaarah at all, it's just a minhag; and there are various different
minhagim on what goes on it and how it's arranged; so how could there be
bal tosif?  If there is any shemetz issur, it might be under the rubric
of al titosh toras imecha.


>  what  about vegetarians  substituting a non-meat symbol for  zro'a?

That has a makor directly in the gemara.  One example it gives for the
two tavshilin are rice and beet.  (Even Ashkenazim can use rice, since
that tavshil is not usually eaten.)   And if you're having a milchige
seudah then perhaps it's best not to have a z'roa on the table, even
though it will be removed before the milchigs are brought out.



-- 
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

The seder plate is a mitzvah? How does ba'al tosif even apply here?

Ben

<< We're using era in two different ways. I'm thinking more like the line
between ge'onim and rishonim. It had no characterizing text, but did
happen at a cultural rupture.

And what looks to us like a broad transition era looks like a line
with a few centuries hindsight. Rav tanna hu upalig. The mishnah was
a kind of line, but there was blurriness around it. >>

In fact the line between rishonim and achronim is quite blurry. Some have
considered the writing of the Tur as a dividing line though most would see
Ritva, Ran and even Rivash as rishonim. Abarbanel is at the time of the
expulksion from Spain and might be a transition era. I seem to recall a
Radvaz (1479-1573) that says that his era cant disagree with early rishonim
but can disagree with later rishonim (divided by the Tur). Note that Rav
Yosef Karo  (1488 ? 1575) was a younger contemporary of the Radvaz (that
sat on the same bet din in Safed. It is not clear that the Shulchan Arukh
was the division to the next era.

However, in Eastern Europe the era of achronim started much earlier.
Thus, for example the Maharil who most would consider an achron lived 1365
? 1427, The Ran lived  a little earlier 1290?1376 and the Maharil was a
younger contemporary of the Rivash  (1328?1408)  and the Nimukei Yosef
(dates uncertain).

Whether achronim can disagree with rishonim is more a matter of practice
than halacha, e.g. Gra and Shaagas Aryeh

Disclaimer: all dates are approximate


As to the claim that present gedolim are not on the level of those who grew
up before the Holocaust, I completely agree. However, we can't know if this
is a long term trend and what the reasons for this are
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120323/91624ee5/attachment.htm>

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:15:52PM GMT, REMT wrote to Areivim on a thread
that turned into asking about "Dayan Emes" vs "Dayan haEmes":

: I believe "Baruch Dayan Emes," without the hei, is the most common
: form used when people hear bad news.

: In any event, the phrase appears as well in Tziduk haDin, together
: with the form "Ha'emes": "Dayan emes, shofeit tzedek ve'emes, baruch
: Dayan ha'emes."

I personally tend to say "Dayan haEmes" ever since learning Pachad
Yitzchaq, maamar 11. The thesis of the maamar in PY is the difference
between Melukhah in the sense of
    Adon olam, asher malakh beterem kol yetzir nivra
-- rule that is inherent in the Divine, even before there is anything to
rule over -- and Melukhah in the sense of
    Ein Melekh belo am.

RYH concludes that qabbalas ol malkhus Shamayom of Shema doesn't
involve the word "melekh" because it is inherent in HQBH. In contrast,
the Malkhios of Rosh haShanah is about accepting Him as Melekh -- ie
Melukhah in the second sense. This is why the gemara has to ask whether
the opening pasuq of Shema is sufficiently close to the topic of Malkhios
to be one of the 10 prooftexts, why it's not self-evident that a pasuq
good enough for daily qabbalas ol would be good for Malkhios too.

Rashi explains Shema as saying, "Listen and accept Israel, Hashem, Who
is our G-d now, in this world, will be, in the World to Come, One G-d
[accepted by all]." In what way is G-d's presence in this world not
unified? We do not perceive Him as One. As we learn in Pesachim (50a),
it is because we do not perceive Hashem as one that we have two distinct
blessings. When something good happens, we say "haTov vehaMeitiv --
the Good and the Bestower of good", but when something bad happens
we say a berakhah that calls Him "Dayan haEmes -- the Judge of truth".
In the perfected world, we will not see haTov vehaMeitiv and Dayan haEmes
as disparate, and therefore "bayom hahu yihyeh H' echad ushmo echad".
That is what we mean by "vehayah H' leMelekh al kol ha'aretz."

Every time something happens that we do not see the "gam zu letovah",
Hashem is hiding some of that Truth. "Dayan haEmes" doesn't refer to
Hashem as the True Judge, but Hashem as the Judge of which Truths we
are ready for Him to reveal.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:03:13AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger asked:
:> But what I'm wondering is why wheat is preferable over spelt.

: I expected the answer to be similar to precedence in brachos, namely,
: that preference is given to what comes first in the pasuk "Eretz chitah
: us'orah..."

: But I was wrong.

A primary point in my post was that "chitah" in that pasuq refers to
wheat, spelt and rye. All 5 minim for matzah are subtypes of the two
in the berakhah, and spelt is a kind of chitah. Neither is first.

: MB 453:2 explains: "Because it is chaviv to a person, and it constitutes
: hidur mitzvah...."
: (I am very intrigued. It seems that the MB has given three different
: criteria - chaviv, chashuv, and te'avon - and I can easily see cases
: where they might yield different choices.)

QSA siman 55, when reordered in descending priority:
    1- Chavivus
    2- HaMotzi
    3- Mezonos
    4- haGafen/haGefen
    5- the 7 minim only when fully ripe and eaten in the way one fully
       enjoys it (as opposed to chewing raw wheat) other than the above:
       starting with whichever are closer to the word "eretz" (eg dates
       before grapes)
    6- whole fruit/vegetables over pieces
    7- ha'eitz before ha'adamah
    8- Last, shehakol

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

I was talking to a woman in the grocery store on Friday, and she 
mentioned that she makes Pesach bread using matzah cake meal.  Bagels, 
too, though she doesn't boil them because they fall apart when she tries.

My question is, is this legit?  It sounds like the kind of thing gebroks 
avoidance was invented to prevent, but since I don't keep gebroks, is 
there any reason I shouldn't try doing this?

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120325/d1f8fd63/attachment.htm>

My mother a"h used to make things like that for me to take to school.

If you are going to be home most of the time, I don't think it's worth the
trouble.

I will leave the Halachic discussion to those more qualified.

Dorron Katzin


On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:50, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:

> **
> I was talking to a woman in the grocery store on Friday, and she mentioned
> that she makes Pesach bread using matzah cake meal.  Bagels, too, though
> she doesn't boil them because they fall apart when she tries.
>
> My question is, is this legit?  It sounds like the kind of thing gebroks
> avoidance was invented to prevent, but since I don't keep gebroks, is there
> any reason I shouldn't try doing this?
>
> Lisa
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120325/25472943/attachment.htm>

We had discussed in the past the Costa Concordia sinking and the Captain
leaving the ship.  The halachot of this case where discussed in a recent
shiur of Rav Zilberstein.

His concluions were
1) The captain and crew have special obligations to rescue the passengers
beyond the normal requirement to help people in danger. This is considered
as part of their job and they receive part of the salary for knowing what
to do in emergency situations. Thus, the captain and crew must remain
aboard until the last moment before the boat sinks. If the captain leaves
earlier he is considered a "rodef" as he causes a loss of morale among the
passengers. Of course once the deck is close to the waterline they have no
obligation to search for passengers still trapped as that would be suicide.
An ordinary passenger should take the first lifeboat available and need not
worry about the safety of others as the danger involved is too large,
Nevertheless even they did this they would be considered holy and not
sinners as most suicides would be.

He further stated that he saw no justification for someone to hire himself
as a guard for mob figures as part of their job is to protect the mob
leader no matter what and the risks don't justify any salary. OTOH
guearding a political person is legitimate as the chances of an attack on a
leading politician is slim compared to gang attacks.

He discussed cases where towns were under attack and teshuva by Chatam
Sofer whether the rabbi should stay with the last remnants or flee the
town. From stories in the Holocaust we know of rabbis who refused to leave
their flock though given the opportunity and they again are considered
holy. In the terror attack on the Merkaz haRav yeshiva the teachers
remained to help the boys hide and went themselves into hiding only at the
last minute. They were not required to do this but again it is considered a
holy act.
Rav Elyashiv concurred with these rulings.

As to the order of saving people the Mishna is not applicable. Everyone had
bought tickets and so had rights to be saved as soon as feasible and there
is no preference for a Cohen etc. R. Elyashiv points to a Rashi that says
the Mishna only applied if everything else is equal. Hence, in this case it
would apply only if a bystander were rescuing people not if the crew is
rescuing passengers. R. Zilberstein thought the concept of first saving
women and children was valid as they are the weakest and need the most help.





-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120325/11d9bece/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 4
*************************************

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..."