Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 35

Wed, 09 May 2012

• 1. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Brit Mila Statute of Limitations (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: bechukoteihem (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Um,...Hello?! RaShB"I Didn't Die on Lag b'Omer (Ken Bloom)
• 5. pulling the plug (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Pulling the Plug (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 7. Aveilus and adoptive parents (rebshr...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Aveilus and adoptive parents (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: Aveilus and adoptive parents (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: what is death- what is life? (Zev Sero)
• 12. forcing a GET (T6...@aol.com)
• 13. Re: forcing a GET (Micha Berger)
• 14. Recording people without their knowledge (Lisa Liel)
• 15. Re: Recording people without their knowledge (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: what is death- what is life? (Micha Berger)

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 10:11:27AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> 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.

I agree with the basic principle that everything is by default mutar
until prohibited, with the added caveat that it is prohibited to be a
menuval birshus haTorah. IOW, I mean "prohibited" not "explicitly
prohibited".

But I don't see the connection to DE. AIUI, DE is natural, intuitive,
ethics, not biology.

Getting back to the original question.... Given the basic choq nature of
most of hilkhos kashrus, I don't see how one can say that HQBH expects
anything out of us but strict and close obedience to the words of the law.

See Bekhoros 1:2 (and the bavli ad loc, mostly 7a if you want to avoid the
complications of bekhorah involving both the mother and the child, sticking
to kashrus), discussing animals born misshapen:

    Behemimah tehorah sheyaldah kemin beheimah temei'ah, mutar ba'akhilah.
    Utemei'ah sheyaldah kemin beheimah teshorah, asur ba'akhilah.
    Shehayotzei meihatamei, tamei;
    veyahotzei min hatahor, tahor.

IOW, the calf (?) is kosher for much the same reason as the cow's milk is.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      results in harmony and balance?

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:09PM +0300, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: What is the halacha if someone doesn't circumcise their son and only
: does teshuva at a later date? Is there an age (bar mitzvah?) where
: the father's obligation to do the brit is fully removed and the only
: remaining obligation is on the son?

The father can't eat from a qorban pesach while the son is a qatan,
but may afterward. Assuming he was not an oneis -- Rava discusses the
case where the parents were incarcerated and freed such that the
father was allowed to shecht the qorban pesach (while in jail), but
not to eat it (once freed)! See Yevamos 71b.

I think that means the father's chiyuv ends with the son's 2 sa'aros.
(Gadol de'oraisa, not 13 years.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      results in harmony and balance?

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:09:35AM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
: I wonder how far Rashi himself took his pshat on the phrase. Did he 
: dress in French style of his time? Was his house built in a manner 
: similar to the French? If he went to a Jewish theater, did they not use 
: French entertainment techniques?

Did he mean French theater? Since he's quoting, I should ask, do
you think he meant to imply that this is also French theater? Or
the taratrios and itztdios of the Rome of chazal's day, which had AZ
overtones with dedications to various gods? Shabbos 150a and AZ 18b
associate the two. (As -- lehavdil elef alfei havdalos -- did Terullian
in De Spectaculis.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 8/05/2012 3:27 AM, Ezra Chwat wrote:

> BIH: in Rav Paalim 11.
> Casts doubt on printed version of Pri Etz Haim "yom Shemet". Doubts are
> substantiated by ms Oxford 1760 and NLI 6720: "Yom simhat".

RZS wrote:

Yes, but what is that simcha?


The Ben Ish Hai says in Da'at u'Tevunah (petichah rishonah) that a possible
explanation of "yom simchat RASHBI" is that it's the day that Rabbi Akiva
started to teach Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (thus making a direct connection
between the two events that we celebrate on Lag LaOmer).

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20123&;st=&pgnum=14
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120508/727da2a3/attachment-0001.htm>

<<I heard a lecture from Prof. Charles Sprung, director of the ICU at
Hadassah Medical Center.
He stated that as we know according to halacha, we cannot disconnect a
ventilator once it has
been connected. However, he said something that sounded amazing to me. He
said that it is
acceptable according to most poskim, to attach the ventilator to a timer
and in that way it would
go off whenever it was set for. Am I the first person in the Avodah group
who has heard this? >>

Rav Zilberstein has mentioned this heter in shiurim to doctors. While in
theory it sounds fine I dont think it is ever used in practice

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120509/e01cac01/attachment-0001.htm>

I received the following response from one of the group privately (hence, I'm omitting the name).
My response follows and this Avodah member's response follows mine. (To me, this seems totally amazing and basically 
flies in the face of everything we've been taught).

> I never heard of a timer as such, I have heard of a device that needs
> to be renewed every 12 hours (as an example).  No matter which patient
> it is, it gets renewed manually... If it isnt renewed the patient is
> essentially taken off the respirator.  It follows from the idea of
> that they hold there is no obligation to actively save someone, but
> there is an obligation to not actively kill.
> Rabbi Tatz was speaking about it a few years ago, I'll see if he has a write up.


This is a phenomenal insight to me since I've been teaching for years that once you hook someone up, you cannot disconnect.
There was never the slightest hint of a renewal every 12 hours.
It seems to me that would change the entire concept substantially and how is it that nobody I know ever mentioned that option.
That is a remarkable option (to be able to inform people that the MOST they would have to be connected would be 12 hours)!
Thanks for the clarification.
I still feel there are poskim who would disagree.

YEah, I am suprised that I only heard about this from Rabbi Tatz.  He has a
number of lectures on medical ethics.	He was a doctor and has spent a
long time discussing and working in this area.	
I believe he came up with the 12 hour machine.... 

Here is a link to many of his lectures:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/authors/a/rabbi-akiva-tatz/
Here is a link to the lecture that I think is the right one:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/one-ventilator/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120509/82624765/attachment-0001.htm>

According to the position that one can or should observe Aveilus for 
adoptive parents, does the Aveil in shiva take precedence as the 
Shaliach Tzibbur to an Aveil in Sheloshim for biological parents? To 
generalize, what are the policies of who takes precedence as a Shaliach 
Tzibur in all the dovening areas in the case of an adopted child 
observing Aveilus for his adopting parents?

Kol Tuv,

Stu Grant

See the Bach, YD 340 s"q 4, quoting the Ramban. One is *chayav* to sit
shiv'ah for a rebbe muvhaq. I do not see how anyone can argue that adoptive
parents do not qualify.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 5/8/2012 2:57 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 10:11:27AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> 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.
...
> But I don't see the connection to DE. AIUI, DE is natural, intuitive,
> ethics, not biology.

It is naturally, intuitively, correct to eat.  You're making a false 
distinction between ethics and biology.  The Maharal says on Avot 3:20 
that derekh eretz includes understanding and dealing with the world of 
nature.  Not just business and not just ethics.  So does RSRH: "Derech 
Eretz includes everything that results from the fact that man's 
existence, mission and social life is conducted on Earth, using earthly 
means and conditions."

> Getting back to the original question.... Given the basic choq nature of
> most of hilkhos kashrus, I don't see how one can say that HQBH expects
> anything out of us but strict and close obedience to the words of the law.

Agreed.

Lisa

3

According to the position that one can or should observe Aveilus for 
adoptive parents, does the Aveil in shiva take precedence as the 
Shaliach Tzibbur to an Aveil in Sheloshim for biological parents? To 
generalize, what are the policies of who takes precedence as a Shaliach 
Tzibur in all the dovening areas in the case of an adopted child 
observing Aveilus for his adopting parents?

Kol Tuv,

Stu Grant
_______________________________________________
In a word, no. See  sh"ut chatam sofer  o"c 1:164
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.

On Areivim, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
> On May 8, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Courts are a branch of the government, and it is the government that
>> killed Ms Schiavo.

> Technically, the government did not kill her.  Killing is actively
> bringing about her death.  The government stopped her from being fed.
> AFAIK the halacha makes a distinction between the two cases, therefore
> so should we.

The halacha distinguishes between direct murder and indirect murder,
but both are murder. See http://mechon-mamre.org/i/b503.htm#11
and http://mechon-mamre.org/i/e509.htm#6


> Again, leaving aside the question of whether the courts correctly
> identified her wishes, the Torah prohibits mercy killing, but does
> not always require continued feeding when the patient is not capable
> of taking food normally.

I do not believe that is the case.  If you have a source, please cite
it.  AFAIK a patient may refuse medical treatment, but not food and
water.  See IM 7, CM 74:3  Further, even if there is no chiyuv to
actively feed someone whose inability to feed themselves is not ones
fault, that doesn't give one a right to forcibly prevent those who
would volunteer to feed her.

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

Letter from R' Dovid Eidensohn warning that certain types of  activity that 
are becoming more common in the US, actions intended to  help agunos -- 
namely, certain kinds of public pressure on husbands to  give a GET (including 
ostracizing and public humiliation) -- may  result in gitten that are 
halachically invalid, may be halachically forbidden,  and also may be damaging to 
the innocent children of the men involved.  He  suggests that other methods 
of applying pressure and persuasion, though more  difficult and 
time-consuming for the rabbanim involved, may ultimately have  better results for all 
concerned.
 
_http://getamarriage.com/HarChoko_of_RabbeinuTam.htm_ 
(http://getamarriage.com/HarChoko_of_RabbeinuTam.htm) 
 

--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/20120509/e682e4d7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 01:02:33PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Letter from R' Dovid Eidensohn warning that certain types of  activity that 
: are becoming more common in the US, actions intended to  help agunos -- 
: namely, certain kinds of public pressure on husbands to  give a GET (including 
: ostracizing and public humiliation) -- may  result in gitten that are 
: halachically invalid, may be halachically forbidden...

But he is at the least pushing a daas yachid against how the entire world
holds, and at the worst totally wrong.

He notes that he is taking on RHS and RMJBroyde, but list rules don't allow
me to go into detail about how he dismisses not only their opinion, but their
entire ability to pasqen and remain loyal to Torah. His opposition alone
should tell you that there is something amiss in his position.

This is also against Israeli norm, where many gittin are given under the
threat of imprisonment.

And as Batmelech noted in a blog comment:
    So what happens if his mother, or worse: mother in law, insists he
    give a get???

    This would be a forced get in any case, because nothing is more
    fearsome than an angry mother, or worse, mother in law!!!

I went through the literature -- Otzar haPosqim and the Bar Ilan web
site. I also asked two friends who are dayanim. Consensus appears to be
variations of what we see in the SA and Rama, EhE 154:21. Yes, there
are some Israeli acharonim, really starting with the CI, who are more
machmir, but as noted above, not to the extent R Dovid E is advocating,
allegedly besheim RMShternbuch (5:344) and RYSE -- not that I think
either say what he thinks they do.

Both the SA and the Rama say that iqar hadin is like the Rambam and
we may use kefiyah even when the gemara doesn't explicitly require a
divorce. However, the SA has a "some say" not to, and the Rama lauds
the minhag of some areas not to allow kofin oso ad sheyomar "rotzeh
ani", and avoid the dispute. Where the gemara *does* require a divorce,
which I am not insisting is our case, there is not even a "yeish omerim"
against the Rambam. So yes, we do hold like the Rambam -- we just
prefer lemaaseh not to rely on him lekhat-chilah for beyond iqar hadin
reasons.

Second, the Rama says that bedi'eved (post facto) the gett is kosher
according to both, since it's only an opinion we try to avoid violating,
it's not going to create eishes ish problems or mamzeirus.

The Rama continues that all (even those who follow his "ra'ui lehachmir")
can implement harchaqos Rabbeinu Tam, and then gives a very broad
definition of what that includes. Including banning all Yisrael from:
doing him any favors, doing any business with him, give his sons a beris,
bury him ... "any chumera which BD desire they can be stringent in this
way, as long as they don't put him in nidui."

Last, the Rama says that anyone who doesn't fulfil "onah" can be put in
nidui until he does, or divorces her.

I would argue that someone who signs onto a civil divorce would qualify
for this last din. But even if not, the rest of the se'if says pretty
much the opposite of RDoE's position.

As for other sources. Supporting kefiyah:

Shu"t BY "Din Mayim sheEin Lahem Sof", siman 1. He explicitly says that
"we are nohagim to hold like the Rambam over the Ramban, all the more
so when dealing with an agunah" (tr. mine), and then procedes to dismiss
the relevency of the Rivash.

The Mabit 1:76 says that if the husband won't support his wife, kofin oso.

And others.

Supporting harchaqos RT, there is also the Gra (Biurim EH 154:67),
the Chakham Tzevi (shu"t #3, who raises RDoE's line of reasoning and
dismisses it) IM, TE (17:51 -- and R' Kulitz and ROY cosign), Yabia Omer
(EhE 7:23 -- ROY's view of the same case), etc...

See also RMJB's essay on "Protestin without Coercing" at
<http://torahmusings.com/2012/04/protesting-without-coercing>.

RDaE (our listmember, RDoE's brother) invoked EhE 77:2 in another forum,
saying that if she initiated the civil divorce, it's more relevent. But
that is in hilkhos kesubos, and therefore unsurprisingly is talking about
losing her kesuvah -- 154 is the last siman in hilkhos gittin. Yes,
someone who says "ma'us alai" and becomes a moredes forfeits her
kesuvah. Does that mean her husband is allowed to keep her married even
after he promised in writing not to provide onah?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 32nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Hod: What type of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 really results in dominating others?

(moved from Areivim)

On 5/9/2012 4:24 AM, Ilana Elzufon wrote:
> Does anyone know why this conversation was recorded on video? Did all 
> the parties to the conversation know they were being recorded?

What issur is involved in recording someone without their knowledge?  I 
can't think of any.

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 01:08:19PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
: What issur is involved in recording someone without their knowledge?  I 
: can't think of any.

I can see arguing that sharing such a recording with others violates the
cheirem deRabbeinu Gershom about reading others' mail. In both cases,
someone's communication is being brought to more people than he intended
and is aware of.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 09:07:35AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> It is naturally, intuitively, correct to eat.  You're making a false  
> distinction between ethics and biology.  The Maharal says on Avot 3:20  
> that derekh eretz includes understanding and dealing with the world of  
> nature.  Not just business and not just ethics.  So does RSRH: "Derech  
> Eretz includes everything that results from the fact that man's  
> existence, mission and social life is conducted on Earth, using earthly  
> means and conditions."

Studying biology teaches "is", not "ought".

DE in the sense of a mandate is an "ought" -- that's what "mandate" means.

The Is-Ought Problem is an old philosophical chestnut by David Hume.
How exactly do we jump from "is" (whether a biologocial statement or a
theological one) to "ought"? Some believe Hume was saying it can't be
cone, and call this Hume's Guillotine, but he never actually says so.

So, one might say that DE includes higher culture and education (as
per RSRH) or science in particular or whatnot, in the statement "yafeh
TT im DE". But not in the usage of "DE" in "DE qodmah ... laTorah" --
that must in particular be talking about the "oughts" one can obtain
from common and uncommon sense, without revelation. The part of the
greater DE which deals with morality.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 32nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Hod: What type of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 really results in dominating others?

On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 03:53:46PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: 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.

I must confess I got two different impressions of RMTendler's position
by hearing his different talks. He is either saying that Ohalos 1:6
and IM YD 3:132 are saying that brain death is inherently death. Another
approach I've heard in his words is that the definition of death is
the final loss of the ability to breathe on one's own. IOW, death
is still breathing, but the brain's role in breathing matters.

1- Ohalos 1:6 says that a headless animal is dead, and any motion is
pirchis be'alma, like the twitching of a sheretz's severed tail.

: 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.

That is intuitive, especially given that the ruach memalela refers to
the power of speech, the MC is among many who define the Tzelem E-lokim
as bechirah, and if not -- the Rambam's notion of da'as also requires
a brain.

OTOH, it would mean that people in comas are dead, or at least, not living
human beings, since there brain isn't doing any of these things. And
what about sleep when not dreaming?

It would seem that souls hang around bodies even when they can't implement
their thoughts on the brain's hardware.

And note that all our terminology for soul is tied to breathing,
"vayipach be'apav nishmas chayim". That neshamah was a Divine Neshimah,
it blew a ruach of ruchnius, until vayinafash as a nefesh within Adam.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 32nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Hod: What type of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 really results in dominating others?


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 35
**************************************

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..."