Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 33

Mon, 07 May 2012

• 1. Re: tzar baalei chayim?? (Lisa Liel)
• 2. nach numbers (Harvey Benton)
• 3. Re: nach numbers (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: what is death- what is life? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: tzar baalei chayim?? (T6...@aol.com)
• 6. Um,...Hello?! RaShB"I Didn't Die on Lag b'Omer (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Um,...Hello?! RaShB"I Didn't Die on Lag b'Omer (Simon Montagu)
• 8. Re: Um,...Hello?! RaShB"I Didn't Die on Lag b'Omer (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Um,...Hello?! RaShB"I Didn't Die on Lag b'Omer (Akiva Blum)
• 10. Rav Moshe Shternbuch: Do Adopted Children Sit Shiva For Their Step Parents? (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: Rav Moshe Shternbuch: Do Adopted Children Sit Shiva For Their Step Parents? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Um,...Hello?! RaShB"I Didn't Die on Lag b'Omer (Akiva Blum)
• 13. Subject: oven timer (David Wacholder)

On 5/4/2012 2:05 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> shimshon and the foxes setting fire to the philistines wheat...
> was that allowed?

You're not allowed to cause animals unnecessary pain.  Are you 
contending that this was unnecessary?

numbers in nach don't always add up... how do we explain this??
?
hmz

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 01:47:09PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: numbers in nach don't always add up... how do we explain this??

Casewize.

BH that's what a mesorah is for. We don't claim the TSBK speaks for
itself. (Tanakh is far more robused than the "OT" that way.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

(Note: Somehow, the title of this thread got changed to "Kashrus and genetic manipulation". I'm using the original title.)

R' Chaim Manaster wondered about a case where a decapitated human is attached to a special heart-lung machine which restores or sustains life in that body:

> Thus, the survival of the body on the (special) heart-lung
> machine might still be considered a techias hameisim of the
> body from which it might still be assur to harvest organs
> from, if that "kills" him now as it would in harvesting the
> heart and lungs etc.

I was unfamiliar with this concept of "techias hameisim of the body", and RCM clarified it to me offline, writing:

> What I meant was that the attaching of the heart-lung machine
> was in lieu of and the equivalent of reattaching the head both
> achieving the same result of keeping the now reattached body
> "alive." How do you know that there is something more special
> about the head than any other "device" that would keep the rest
> of the body alive?

I think that the answer to RCM's question (what is more special about the
head) is this, according to the Igros Moshe: If an arm or a leg would be
severed, no one would suggest the person is already dead, though it is of
course a very serious medical problem. But I think the whole point of the
Igros Moshe is to show that this is NOT the case regarding the head: If the
*head* is severed, then the person *is* dead, and this is true even if we
would have the ability to reattach the head, so it is certainly true where
we do *not* have the ability to reattach the head.

But, to be honest, I think there is still room for disagreement. One could
still ask what is so special about the head. What makes the head different
than an arm or leg?

RCM seems to suggest that the main function of the head is to make
breathing possible, and therefore a breathing machine might be an
acceptable alternative. Or perhaps the importance of the head is because
decapitation causes such a severe loss of blood that it was considered
immediate death, and this too is perhaps something that your hypothetical
machine might solve.

But my view -- which I absolutely canNOT prove in any way -- is that the
head is an "interface" between the body and the neshama, and the severing
of that interface is the very definition of death.

It is noteworthy to see the context of the Igros Moshe that I quoted. The
paragraph I cited (Y"D 2:174, bottom right paragraph on page 288) concerns
a decapitation, but the greater context of the teshuva concerns heart
transplants. The view of that Igros Moshe is that a heart transplant
operation constitutes murder of the *recipient*, because until the point
that the surgeons remove his sick heart, at least he *has* a heart; but
after they remove his sick heart, he is dead by definition (despite the
heart-lung machine!), and subsequent revival by implanting a new heart is
not sufficient to justify the murder.

The parallels to RCM's case are obvious: If a patient on a heart-lung
machine is considered a murder victim because his heart was removed, so too
for one who had his head removed.

But it seems to me that other poskim do not agree with this Igros Moshe.
Whenever I read of a posek who writes on the topic, they seem to say that
Rav Moshe's REAL objection to heart transplants was the low success rate in
that generation, and they seem to feel that with improved longevity of such
patients, he wouldn't object nowadays. For an example of evidence that he
did in fact change his view on this, see footnote #12 at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/HeartTransplants.p
df

Such an argument seems to ignore everything that I've quoted about the
decapitation case. But I'm not privy to Rav Moshe's thoughts, and I only
know what he published in his Igros Moshe, and that seems to be something
which defines death for all generations, as he himself wrote: "even if the
doctor would have the ability".

But if there are other poskim who do allow a person to be a heart
transplant recipient -- and indeed there are -- and who do not consider
such a patient to be dead while his heart has been removed and the new
heart has not yet been implanted, then perhaps the same could be said of a
person who has no head, yet has been attached to such a machine.

According to those other poskim, I imagine that two critical questions
would be: (1) Am I correct about the head being a connection between the
body and the neshama? (2) Am I correct that severing the connection between
the body and the neshama is the very definition of death? -- If I am wrong
on *either* of those points, then I would imagine that the body in RCM's
case might be considered alive, and so it would be assur to harvest
transplant organs therefrom.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fa69eabcd00ee6d693st03vuc

 
From: Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>
"

shimshon  and the foxes
setting fire to the philistines' wheat.........
was that  allowed?


hmz

 
>>>>>
 
I had the same question when I learned that perek but did not find any  
meforshim that addressed that question (admittedly I did not make a very  
extensive search).  We don't find anything in the sefer indicating that  Shimshon 
was ever criticized or punished for setting fire to the foxes' tails,  so I 
guess it was mutar.  I speculate that tzaar baalei chayim is assur  only 
when one hurts an animal needlessly, and that in this case there was an  
overarching, and acceptable, reason that this action needed to be taken.   But it 
still was somewhat disturbing to me.  Even lacking a tail, I can  imagine 
that being burned alive would be very painful.  Certainly it makes  Shimshon 
sound like a hard and frightening man -- which of course is how he  wanted 
the Plishtim to think of him, so we come back to, in this case,  the strategy 
was justified because of a greater need in terms of ultimately  saving the 
Jews from the Plishtim.  Others in this forum have speculated  that animals 
lack true consciousness and therefore lack the actual capacity to  feel pain 
-- and that the issur of tzaar baalei chayim is only to sensitize US  not 
to be cruel -- but personally I don't buy that line of reasoning at  all.
 
 
 


--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/20120506/d89ebac6/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/d7b583

Last year in a set of courageous newspaper interviews, Rav Avraham 
Kosman revealed his research demonstrating that Rabbi Shimon 
Bar-YoHai [RaShB"I] did not actually die on 18 Iyyar, the 33rd day of 
S'firath haOmer (counting of the Omer, See Lev. 23:15-16).

The <http://www.shofar.net/site/ARDetile.asp?id=8159>article in the 
<http://www.shofar.net/>Shofar newspaper is in Hebrew, so I will give 
you the highlights:


1. One of the bases for believing that RaShB"I died on "Lag b'Omer" 
comes from a manuscript of 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayyim_ben_Joseph_Vital>Rabbi Hayim 
Vital. Rabbi Vital ZTz"L, talmid muvhaq of 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Luria>Rabbi Yitzhaq Luria ZTz"L, 
the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Luria>AR"I, supposedly 
mentions this date as the day of death of RaShB"I. Yet, an 
examination of the original reveals the abbreviation "shin-mem" for 
"shemeth" haRaShB"I (died), to be a scribal error. The original reads 
"simhath" haRaShB"I (happiness, festive day).

2. Leading Qabbalist of modern times, 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Ish_Chai>Rabbi Yosef 
H<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Ish_Chai>ayim meBagdad, the 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Ish_Chai>Ben Ish 
H<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Ish_Chai>ai, confirms this notion 
that RaShB"I did not die on this date,...

3. ...as does 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Joseph_David_Azulai>Rabbi 
H<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Joseph_David_Azulai>ayim Yosef 
David Azulai ZTz"L, the 
<http://en.wik
ipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Joseph_David_Azulai>"H<http://en.wik
ipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Joseph_David_Azulai>ID"A." 


4. And, even if this were the anniversary of death of RaShB"I, the 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/Moses_Sofer>H<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/Moses_Sofer>atham 
Sofer was very much against the idea of celebrating on such a day. 
"Do we celebrate on Moshe Rabbeinu's anniversary of death?"

5. A little known event also occurred on this date in the year 4123 
(363 CE). The Byzantine emperor of the time had granted permission 
for Jews to rebuild the Temple and to re-institute the sacrificial 
service. Yet the night they were to lay the foundation, Jerusalem was 
hit by an earthquake, a day of sorrow.

<Snip>

Unfortunately, "Lag b'Omer" is not the only manifestation of confused 
priorities amongst the Jewish People.

See the above URL for the entire article.   YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120506/752d703b/attachment-0001.htm>

So if the Hatam Sofer says that we *shouldn't* be celebrating the
anniversary of Rashbi's death; and the Hida, the Ben Ish Hai, and the
corrected text of the Ari as reported by RHV all say that LBO is *not*
the anniversary of the Rashbi's death, then everything is fine, no?

On 6/05/2012 12:44 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:

> From http://tinyurl.com/d7b583

The link is to a blog by Ya'aqov Ben-Yehudah, who is a friend of mine,
but is IMHO somewhat naive, and under the influence of R David Bar-Haim.
The article he quotes is full of holes.


> 1. One of the bases for believing that RaShB"I died on "Lag b'Omer" comes
> from a manuscript of Rabbi Hayim Vital, talmid muvhaq of  the AR"I,
>supposedly mentions this date as the day of death of RaShB"I. Yet,
> an examination of the original reveals the abbreviation "shin-mem"
> for "shemeth" haRaShB"I (died), to be a scribal error. The original
> reads "sim_h_ath" haRaShB"I (happiness, festive day).

So?  What sort of proof is that?  What is "yom simchas Rashbi"?  The Zohar
(Idra Zuta) tells us that it was "the day that R Shimon sought to leave
the world", the day on which his neshama became "united, grasped passionately,
and bound" to Hashem.
http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%90_%D7%96%D
7%95%D7%98%D7%90


> 2. Leading Qabbalist of modern times, the Ben Ish Hai confirms this notion
> that RaShB"I did not die on this date,...
> 3. ...as does the HID"A.

So claims the article the blog cites, but it gives no reference to be
checked, and I'm not about to take the author's word for it.


> 4. And, even if this were the anniversary of death of RaShB"I,  the Hatham
> Sofer was very much against the idea of celebrating on such a day. "Do we
> celebrate on Moshe Rabbeinu's anniversary of death?"

What kind of argument is this?  The Idra Zuta says that it's a hilulah,
a day of simcha, and this is the precedent for celebrating the yartzeits
of tzadikim.  If the ChS was unfamiliar with it, we are not.

At any event, yartzeit or not, and the Pri Etz Chaim (even in the
"correct" version) says explicitly that it is the day of Rashbi's simcha,
and that when someone said Nachem on this day Rashbi was angry at him,
with tragic consequences.

-- 
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 06-May-12 10:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 6/05/2012 12:44 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>
>
>> 2. Leading Qabbalist of modern times, the Ben Ish Hai confirms this 
>> notion
>> that RaShB"I did not die on this date,...
>> 3. ...as does the HID"A.
>
> So claims the article the blog cites, but it gives no reference to be
> checked, and I'm not about to take the author's word for it.
>
>
It's in the Chid"a's sefer Maris Haayin siman 7:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24637&;st=&pgnum=156 
<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24637&;st=&pgnum=156&hilite=>

Akiva

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120507/86743d8a/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=1529

Although they are technically not related or considered family, Rav 
Moshe Shternbuch says (3:374) that if an adopted child grew up with 
his step parents and considered them to be his parents he should sit 
Shiva and keep all halachos of Aveilus upon their death.  While in 
Aveilus there is a concept of showing your sadness by keeping some 
rules of aveilus, Rav Shternbuch says that in this case one should 
keep all the details of aveilus exactly like an Aveil.

He learns this from Rabban Gamliel in the Mishna who sat Shiva for 
his slave, Tavi.  The Rashba says that Rabban Gamliel sat shiva 
because he felt towards Tavi like a father would towards his 
son.  Rav Shternbuch reasons that if feelings of closeness caused 
Rabban Gamliel to sit shiva for an Eved who has no Din of Aveilus 
than certainly for the people who raised you and do have a Din of Aveilus.

He adds that this is a Mitzva not a Chiyuv.  Therefore you should not 
be Meikil when it comes to the Din of Aninus of not putting on 
Tefilin or excusing you before the Kevurah of any other 
mitzva.  Lastly he says if you don't feel like a son to your step 
parents then you should just keep some halachos of Aveilus to share 
the pain but do not keep all the halachos like and aveil would.

On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:54:47AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://revach.net/article.php?id=1529
>
> Although they are technically not related or considered family, Rav  
> Moshe Shternbuch says (3:374) that if an adopted child grew up with his 
> step parents and considered them to be his parents he should sit Shiva 
> and keep all halachos of Aveilus upon their death...

Linguistic issue: An adoptive parent is (usually) not a step parent. An
adoptive parent is a parent, just as parents by C Section are. A step
parent is a parent's spouse, where they did not adopt their spouse's
children. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stepparent> A similar
mistake is also made about foster parenting, which is parenting someone
else's child just so that they can get their act back together. An
adoptive parent is as permanent as any other parent, and thus not a
foster parent.

The adjective is instead put on the genetic parents who do not raise the
child. These are "birth parents", to distinguish them from the adoptive,
ie real parents, the ones who raise the child.

To quote R' Meir Simcha haKohen miDvinsk, MC Devarim 28:61 (tr mine):
    Even his creation on the physical level, we find in the Torah
    that it is for the intent of his preserving the species on a
    spiritual level. As Hashem (blessed be He) said [of His selection
    of Abraham], "For I know him, that he will teach his children after
    him..." (Bereishis 18:19) Similarly, it says in "Yeish Nochalin"
    [Bava Basra 116a, quoting Yirmiyahu 22:10] "'Weep for the one who
    goes...' Rav Yehudah said that Rav said: the one who goes with no
    male children. Rav Yehoshua ben Levi said: it is one who goes without
    a student." Both preserve the species and to the same effect.

For similar reasons, I do not believe RMS is quoted here as giving a
chiddush. One sits shiv'ah for a rebbe muvhaq, and certainly an adoptive
parent qualifies.

On a tangent, I think some of you might enjoy the three posts I wrote
translating and gilding the lilly of that MC.
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2012/04/torah-sefer-torah.shtml
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2012/04/learning-and-teaching-1.shtml
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2012/04/learning-and-teaching-2.shtml

In it he makes a powerful argument against Nefesh haChaim cheileq
4, and (thus) much of the philosophical underpinning of the Yeshiva
Movement. (IOW, I wouldn't call RMShKmD "yeshivish" in the contemporary
sense of the word, but no one thought all acharonim held identically
anyway.)

To quote (still my translation):
    It was explained in the beginning that a person exists in his
    intellectual soul, like all the lofty people and like the heavenly
    causes. Before he was created, a person was also a seikhel nivdal
    [separated intellect; i.e. a pure intellect with no body, like
    angels; metaphysical] which grasped its Creator. As it says in Niddah
    pg. 30. [The soul] had personal existence and descended into the
    lower world in order to do mitzvos maasios which require material
    substance. Like Moshe's answer to the angels [when they asked
    that Hashem leave the Torah with them rather than give it to us at
    Sinai], "Do theft etc... have meaning for you?" Therefore they said,
    "One who learns but not in order to do, would have been pleasanter
    that his umbilical cord would have prolapsed in front of his face
    [and he never came into the world." (Yerushalmi ch. "Hayah Qorei"
    [I found it elsewhere -- Shabbos 1:2, vilna 7b -- micha]) Because then
    [before birth] too he was a seikhel nivdal who grasped his Creator,
    may He be blessed. (Qorban Aharon, introduction) Similarly if he
    teaches others then his learning has a purpose, which is to preserve
    the species on a spiritual level. Therefore also, the one who learns
    but not for the sake of teaching they thus said, "it would have been
    pleasanter for him not to have been created."

The MC argues against the concept of "Torah lishmah" as advocated by RCV
because someone can learn for its own sake or the pure joy of learning
more easily without a body than with. If that's the goal of life, why
be born?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?

On 07-May-12 9:56 AM, Akiva Blum wrote:
>>
> It's in the Chid"a's sefer Maris Haayin siman 7:
>
> http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24637&;st=&pgnum=156 
> <http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24637&;st=&pgnum=156&hilite=>
>

Sorry. It's in likutim siman 7, at the end of the sefer.

Akiva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120507/d0cb64a2/attachment-0001.htm>

The Star K instructions for their Shabbos ovens discuss these things .


Once the timer is off - it is not heating actively - will never go back on
- I would put in the Challos to warm


I would also put the food back freely - if  somebody will come late.


IMHO it is Hatmana in davar she'eino mosif hevel -


SHAVUOS - ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED THERMOSTAT - LEAVING IT ON ENTIRE YOM
TOV - PUTTING THINGS IN AND OUT


The practice is to forbid it and I cannot recommend it - it is too close to
the border.


ON THE OTHER HAND See Kontresei Shi'urim - Rav Gustman in Ksuvos on Psik
Reisha - i


If a candle is cut from the bottome- Machlokes Rosn and Tos - the machmir
stringent says you are "extinguishing" future burning.


My reading - check if you agree - that an indirect cause extrinsic side
action - either  lighting it or putting it out would be permitted.


Therefore - contrary to the Strictest Standards - opening a refrigerator -
even when the thermostat is off causes no problem.


FOLKLORE HAS IT -  a "brilliant" student piped up -  "BUT IN CHAZON ISH IT
SAYS IT IS FORBIDDEN"


THE RAV G answered:   Those [overly stringent] Eretz Yisrael Rabbanim - if
they could they would forbid drinking water!!


To which someone added:  Three things now of necessity to be a Jew -
Gefiltered water, Gefitered internet, and Gefiltered fish! [smile icon]



f outside cause creates the Mlacha - it is not psik reisha.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120507/3c7c1f67/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 33
**************************************

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..."