Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 31

Thu, 03 May 2012

• 1. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (hankman)
• 2. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (Zev Sero)
• 3. THE WHOLE WORLD GOES WHITE (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 4. Mashiach Kan? (Ben Waxman)
• 5. changing names (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: changing names (Zev Sero)
• 7. Yomtov Sheni (Zev Sero)
• 8. Since Moshe received the Torah, didn't he know that God would punish him for hitting the rock? (Yaacov Shulman)
• 9. Re: Since Moshe received the Torah, didn't he know that God would punish him for hitting the rock? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 10. Re: Since Moshe received the Torah, didn't he know that God would punish him for hitting the rock? (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: Since Moshe received the Torah, didn't he know that God would punish him for hitting the rock? (Micha Berger)
• 12. A carrot named Peng Peng? (hankman)
• 13. Re: A carrot named Peng Peng? (Zev Sero)
• 14. what is death- what is life? (hankman)
• 15. bechukoteihem (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 16. govt requirements for doctors (Eli Turkel)

On 1/05/2012 9:47 AM, hankman wrote:
> You assume that all is mutar unless the Torah specifically forbids it. Is 
> that really so? Is it not just the opposite?

> If you look at Bereishis 1:29 and 8:3 we find that initially all would 
> have been asur to eat and thus the Torah needed to write the permit of 
> plants for Adam as food. Then the heter achila was expanded for Noach. The 
> Sifsei Chachomim explains that initially there was no reason to assume one 
> creation of G-d had any more "rights" than any other creation of G-d 
> therefore the explicit permission to use plants for food was necessary. 
> But after Noach, since it was through his mediation and effort that they 
> all survived the Mabul, Noach received the expanded heter. One may 
> therefore logically speculate that a new beriah that did not exist yet at 
> that time was not included in the heter to Noach and therefore remained 
> under the original isur to mankind for use as food.

R'nLL responded:
> I don't see that all would have been assur to eat.  On the contrary,
> nothing is forbidden -- ever -- without a prohibition.  Derekh eretz
> kadma l'Torah 26 dorot.  Hashem created all living things with a need to
> eat, so we eat.

Your response "that all would [not] have  been assur to eat" is but an 
assertion on your part and one that ignores the reiyah I provided that all 
was assur as shown by the need for the permission granted in Bereishis 1:29. 
Furthermore, of course "Hashem created all living things with a need to eat, 
so we eat," and that was why Hashem granted Adam permission to eat plants 
(which otherwise would have been assur).


> But after Noach, since it was through his mediation and effort that they ...
[See above.]

RZS responded:
> On the contrary, the same exact logic says that since this creature
> exists only through the efforts of man, we have the right to eat it.
> Besides which, Hashem permitted Noach to eat "all living things".
> Is this living?  Then it is permitted.

I hear your argument but the response is fairly obvious. While you are 
right - the logic is quite similar - but the difference is that with Noach 
the logic was put into force and made binding through a direct command from 
Hashem (Bereishis 8:23), whereas the extended logic to creatures "created" 
by man you suggest is not similarly supported by a direct command from G-d.

You further argue, 'Hashem permitted Noach to eat "all living things."' My 
response is this might mean "all living things" then existing. There was no 
provision to include future creatures (species) yet to come into existence. 
while my arguments may not have proven my point beyond a reasonable doubt, I 
think there is clearly enough room to at least raise the question without 
getting shut down with such certainty.

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

> You further argue, 'Hashem permitted Noach to eat "all living things."'
> My response is this might mean "all living things" then existing.

That's not what the words say.

In any case, you have still to produce an issur on eating things that are
not chayos, offos, dagim, or shratzim.   If something is not expressly
forbidden then *of course* it is permitted; there's simply no basis on
which to forbid it.  Who are you to tell someone not to do something?
Nor can you forbid things on the basis of some nice pshetel in Sifsei
Chachamim.  An azhara must be explicit or it doesn't exist.

-- 
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 Ritva RH 16b asks how the gemara could possibly let someone sin."

The gemara is not "letting" someone sin. The gemara is realistic and acknowledges that 
it is human nature to sin. And therefore, if one is compelled to sin, then at least it should
be done in a way so as not to bring shame and cause a chillul haShem. Therefore, if someone
has such a strong yetzer to eat treif, let him at least eat in a neighborhood that is not Jewish and
that he isn't wearing his tzitzis out. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s7YWmptcbRLPwoVDx7HIcp
5i4tliTNeV0u-nyv4wixs/edit

Rav Vitman (long I), a member of Tzohar and the head of kashrut of Tnuva 
(I think), wrote an article in which he asks if we not in the Messianic 
Period itself (meaning not just itchalta d'geula or ikvata d'meshicha). 
Rav Vitman tries to show that according to the Rambam, the ikkar of  
Yemot HaMashiach is kibbutz galiyot, return of Jewish sovereignty, and  
the ability to defend ourselves.

The Rav feels that if this indeed true, than we have to start dealing 
with questions such as what type of government does the Torah want, 
should we build the Beit HaMiqdash, and more.

I scanned the article (in Hebrew), which is an examination of the 
relevant Rambams, and uploaded it to Google. Hopefully it will be clear 
enough for you to read.

Ben

> never change a name, only add to it. Except if it is a name of a
> Rasha, "such as Herzl or Nimrod."

As an aside Herzl is a last name.

However, I was asked a question today of a person who has multiple
first.middle names some of which they can't stand
(ie unusual names in Yiddish which sound very strange). They wanted to know
whether for an aliyah (male) or a
mi-sherberach (for a woman or man) one could leave out the names these
people found objectional and just use
the name they are commonly called

Thus, the question is basically whether the names used for an aliyah or
mi-sheberach have any special meaning.
We are NOT talking about a get or even a ketubah.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120501/934b85eb/attachment-0001.htm>

On 1/05/2012 3:33 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> As an aside Herzl is a last name.

Not really.  He had it as a last name, but be'etzem it's a first name,
presumably that of his grandfather or great-grandfather when German Jews
took surnames; and some people today give it as a first name to honour him.

-- 
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 another list we've been discussing yomtov sheni, and a theory
was advanced that the Sanhedrin's takanah applies only to Bavel
and not to other countries.

Someone wrote:

> It is not comparable to the Chacham Tzevi's view.  He argues that the
> decree of Yom Tov Sheini, *from its inception*, was made on places,
> not on people.  He did not suggest that subsequent events should change
> the original takkana; he argued about what that original takkana was,
> and sought to maintain what he considered it to be.

He doesn't even say that.  Let it be on people; but *what* shall those
people do?  What they used to do when there was no cheshbon, and they
had to keep two days misafek.  What did they do in those days?  When
they were at home they kept two days but when they went to EY they kept
one.  So now after the takana that's what they should keep doing.
Similarly the takana *applies to Bnei EY too*, and they should keep
doing what *they* used to do before the cheshbon, which was to keep one
day at home but two days if they visited chu"l.

This is *exactly* the reason why we keep RH different from other YT.
Why is it that beitza shenolda barishon te'achel basheni?  After all,
we have no sfeika deyoma, and we know *both* days are yomtov, the first
mid'oraita and the second mid'rabanan.  So how can we eat the egg on
the second day, when today is vadai yomtov and it was prepared on
vadai yomtov.  Further, how can we make an eruv tavshilin on the first
day of yomtov that falls on a Thursday, saying "if today is kodesh and
tomorrow is chol, then I don't need an eruv at all, but if today is chol
and tomorrow is kodesh then let this be my eruv"?  We know for sure that
both days are kodesh, and one may not make an eruv!  So how does this
work?  The gemara's answer is that even though both days are kodesh, we
keep them as our ancestors kept them back in the day, when only one was
kodesh but they didn't know which one.  We do so because that was the
takanah.  If the takanah had been "keep two days" then we would not be
allowed to eat the egg or make the eruv, just as we can't on Rosh Hashana;
we can only because the takanah was "keep doing what your ancestors did",
i.e. act *as if* there were still a safek.

So why is RH different?  After all, wasn't RH also sfeka deyoma?  The
gemara's answer is that while this was usually the case, it sometimes
happened that BD would decide at nooon on the first day that it would
definitely *not* be the first of Tishri but the thirtieth of Elul, and
that it was nevertheless to be kept as a yomtov mid'rabanan.  In other
words the situation was the same as ours is today, but reversed: the
first day was mid'rabanan and the second mid'oraita.  And since in such
a case both days were kodesh, one could not on the second day eat an
egg laid on the first, and one could not make an eruv tavshilin al tnai
on the first day.  Since our ancestors could not know for sure that one
day was chol, they kept both days as if they were vadai kodesh, and so
the takanah was to continue to do so today.

Note that none of this is my chidush; this is the pshat in the gemara.
There is no other.  The takanah is to do as our ancestors did, even if
it contradicts the reality as we know it today, and is *more lenient*
than the reality would seem to dictate.  We act as if we had a safek
when in fact it is vadai, because that is what the takanah said to do.
The same chachamim who said it was vadai yomtov said we could treat it
as if it were not.  Hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir.   So the Chacham
Tzvi applies exactly the same principle.  If we are to do as our
ancestors did, then we should do *exactly* as they did, including
switching when we cross from EY to chul"l or vice versa.

And now that I've typed all that I realise that here lies the true
answer to the theory that was proposed.  In trying to refute it I've
been missing the forest for the trees.  The true answer is that this
theory that the takanah applied only to Bavel is plainly false, because
it applies also to EY, as we witness every Rosh Hashana!  Nowadays there
is no sfeka deyoma on RH, any more than on any other yomtov.  We *know*
that the first day is the 1st of Tishri and the second is the 2nd.
So why do we keep both days?  If the proposed theory were correct we
would keep them only in Bavel, where the Sanhedrin decreed to do so;
why do we do so even in EY? The obvious answer, the *only possible*
answer, is that the takanah did *not* apply only to Bavel, or even only
to chu"l, but to the whole world; everybody was to continue doing as
our ancestors had done.  And what did they do?  When they were in EY
they kept two days for RH and one day for all other yomim tovim, and
when they were in chu"l they kept two days for all yomim tovim.   And
thus it makes no difference where any individual's ancestors were
living at the time of the takanah.  They may well have been Bnei EY,
as the theory goes; they must still do as those ancestors did, which
is to keep two days when in chu"l.  QED.


-- 
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

Since Moshe received the Torah, didn't he know that God would punish him
for hitting the rock?

How would you answer this question, please...?

-- 
Yaacov David Shulman
Translator; Editor; Ghostwriter
Specializing in Torah and literary texts
shulman-writer.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120502/ce3a0aa6/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Yaacov Shulman <yacovda...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Since Moshe received the Torah, didn't he know that God would punish him
> for hitting the rock?
>
> How would you answer this question, please...?
>

The same question could be asked for many things. "How could Moshe have
sent the spies?"

The Torah as a written document was given over the duration of the travels
in the desert. The actual halachot were given to Moshe on Har Sinai.

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120502/f9256852/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/2/2012 3:06 AM, Yaacov Shulman wrote:
> Since Moshe received the Torah, didn't he know that God would punish 
> him for hitting the rock?
>
> How would you answer this question, please...?

There's a view that the Torah was given piecemeal over the 40 years we 
were in the desert.  He may not have received that piece until after the 
fact.

Lisa

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:07:02AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
: There's a view that the Torah was given piecemeal over the 40 years we 
: were in the desert.  He may not have received that piece until after the 
: fact.

This machloqes comes up more than once.

On Gittin 60a, the disputants are R' Yochanan and Reish Laqish:
    R' Yochanan said in the name of R' Benaiah, "The Torah was given
    scroll by scroll. As it says (Tehillim 40), 'Az amarti: hinei
    basi bemegilas sefer'."
    R' Shimon ben Laqish said, "The Torah was given sealed. As it says,
    (Devarim 31) 'Laqoach es sefer haTorah hazos'."

I recall this because I think there is something else going on in the
discussion. R' Yochanan, who spent a lifetime learning, holds the Torah
was given gradually. Reish Laqish, who goes from highway robber to R'
Yochanan's chavrusah in a remarkably short time, says the Torah was given
once, complete. I don't think their primary dispute is really about how
the Torah was given.

The machloqes about who wrote the last 8 pesuqim (Menachos 30a) appears
to be identical. Yehoshua could only have tacked on the last 8 pesuqim
as part of a gradual writing of the Torah. If the whole Torah was given
in advance, why would the last 8 pesuqim pose more of a "midevar sheqer
tirchaq" than all of Vayiqra through Devarim? OTOH, R' Shimon's proof-text
for saying it was all written by Moshe is the same as Reish Laqish's that
it was also in existence when Moshe took the scroll and put it next to
the aron immediately before his his petirah.

(BTW, the Meshekh Chokhmah says these 8 pesuqim, if not written by Moshe,
would be a part of the sefer Torah which is not actually part of the
Torah. Thus removing the "what about iqarei emunah?" question. And then he
proceeds to explain why HQBH requires that the Torah be written only as
part of a longer text, what these pesuqim add to how we view the Torah.
See MC on Dev 28:61. This doesn't impact our discussion, because Devarim
31:26 refers to "seifer haTorah", not Torah, which includes the last 8
pesuqim either way.)

Anway... RYS's original question:
> Since Moshe received the Torah, didn't he know that God would punish 
> him for hitting the rock?

isn't a problem according to Reish Laqish (and presumably neither the R'
Shimon in Menachos, ie Rashbi, either).

See Rashi on Gittin (d"h "chasumah nitenah", quoting Reish Laqish).
According to Reish Laqish, it was all given at once, it was all given
at the end of the 40 years. During the midbar, all of Torah except the
diberos were TSBP. There is no reason to believe Moshe had the narratives.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?
the initial question doesn't exist. But we still have a question according
to the two Rabbis Shimon (Rashbi and Reish Laqish).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/first-plant-made-drug-on-the
-market.html

First plant-made drug on the market

We are seeing stories like this and Peng Peng every day now in the
literature. Genetic manipulation is becoming common in the lab and moving
rapidly into commerce. I suspect that these will be issues that halacha
will need to be concerned with, even if not with the first minor genetic
changes.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120502/784ea014/attachment-0001.htm>

On 2/05/2012 12:05 PM, hankman wrote:
> I suspect that these will be issues that halacha will need to be
> concerned with

Could you suggest how?  It seems to me that drug-bearing plants are
plants.  Drug-bearing milk is milk, and has the same din that milk
always did, etc.  We've already discussed animals.  Vat-grown meat,
it seems to me, is a kind of fungus.  What else is there?

-- 
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

RMB wrote [on an Areivim thread, in which R' Dr Noam Stadlan, and
R Moshe Shmuel Svarc are debating]:
> RDNS and RMSS differ one step ahead of what they're discussing explicitly:
> Do chazal mean that any body that doesn't breathe have a soul in it and
> those that can do? Perhaps we should note that the words for soul are
> all ones for breath: uach, nefesh and neshamah/neshimah all. Or do chazal
> mean to give us a diagnostic tool -- any body so far gone as to not have
> breath doesn't have a soul in it, but those that do have breath may or
> may not have the unstated criterion necessary to be able to house a soul?

> RMSS assumes chazal are saying that whether or not a person is breathing
> is the very physical change that causes the soul to leave.

> RDNS assumes that chazal are giving a diagnostic tool, and do not specify
> what the physical change is. And so, to quote, he is still left asking:
>: what exact quality makes you a human being, and, more specifically, makes
>: you the unique human being that you are?

> And this issue is implicitly raised by RnTK's point, that in the case of
> pesiq reishei, we don't need to check. Now the question is, why not? I
> can think of a variety of answers:

> 1- Headlessness is a second valid diagnostic tool for knowing that the
> body lost that unnamed quality needed to hold a soul.

> 2- Because we can assume that a headless body isn't breathing, so there
> isn't even piquach nefesh justification for violating Shabbos to check
> for breathing.

> 3- Because when Chazal speak of breathing, they don't bother telling
> you it needs to be breathing instigated by the brain stem since the
> technology for artificial breathing wouldn't exist for another 1,500
> years. But that was really what was meant -- a body in which the moach
> isn't telling the reichayim to breathe can't house a soul. And so we have
> a gemara pointing to breathing, and another talking about a lack of moach.

CM raises a hypothetical:

What if we have a case of psik reisha that is breathing and whose heart
is beating -- would all agree that this person is indeed dead?

So for our hypothetical, we have a skilled medical team standing by at
the guillotine for the execution of a prisoner, who immediately and
before any serious loss of blood is allowed to happen attach the now
open vascular system and trachea at the neck to a heart-lung machine
specially designed for this purpose and treat the open wound to prevent
infection. The now headless person is on "life support" and the body from
the neck down survives the ravages of "death" and decay and continues
its metabolic processes -- I assume this is possible and not too far
beyond our current technology, though I am not really sure (can anyone
with a medical degree venture an opinion if just basic tissue metabolism
can actually continue under these conditions -- simple tissue and cells
clearly can do this in a petri dish so why not our hypothetical?). I
imagine we would also have to feed him intravenously etc.

Would anyone still consider this person (body?) alive, or would all
agree he is dead? Did Chazal mean even this case too?

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster

http://choppingwood.blogspot.com/2012/05/what-is-jewish-cultu
re-does-it-even.html 


what defines their's , making  it  their's enough that it's not ours', and 

therefore forbidden.....

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120502/340ad9b8/attachment-0001.htm>

In his monthly shiur to doctors R. Zilberstein got into an argument with a
number of the doctors.
The question was from an American doctor who wanted to administer a drug.
The US rules are such that the medicine is permitted only on condition that
the woman use anti-pregnancy pills and the husband agrees to use a condom.
The medicine could cause problems to a fetus. The pills have 98% efficiency
and the condom gives the extra 2% of preventing a pregnancy.

The doctor personally felt the pills were enough and wanted to have the
husband lie on the form about using the condom. He went to Rav Elyashiv who
got very upset at the idea of lying on a form. The doctor tried to argue
that lying is permitted for "shalom bayit" but R. Elyashiv refused to
permit it. R. Zilberstein was the intermediary and explained the psak of R.
Elyashiv that a doctor can practice medicine only with the permission of a
bet din. In modern society that means the permission of the
health authorities.  Since they didnt allow use of the drug without these
conditions which are reasonable, thus the doctor can't use his own
reasoning against the authority that gives him permission to do medicine.
In the end R. Zilberstein suggested a compromise which was to put a hole in
the condom.  In this case the husband is not lying, in addition the condom
still offers protection against pregnancy though no longer 100% and it
would now be allowed by halacha.

In summary R. Zilberstein was very insistent that a doctor cannot violate
any rules of the health ministry based on his own experience as long as the
rules are reasonable and not simply anti-Jewish. A number of doctors tried
arguing that doctors frequently "don't go by the book" but R. Zilberstein
insisted that they had no right to do this.

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


if someone lights shabbat or chanukah candles in a hotel room or in a plane
against the explicit rules of the owner that they are considered stealing
and the candle lighting is a mitzvah done through an averah.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120503/3916fff3/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 31
**************************************

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..."