Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 58

Mon, 11 Jun 2012

• 1. bitter waters (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Istinis (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Abuse and Halakhah (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. distilled fruit juice (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: bitter waters (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re; bitter waters (Doron Beckerman)
• 7. Re: Abuse and Halakhah (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Abuse and halakhah (Doron Beckerman)
• 9. Re: distilled fruit juice (Doron Beckerman)
• 10. r reisman's question (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 11. Re: Istinis (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: [Areivim] Asifa - Lose Olam Haba (Chana Luntz)
• 13. Re: LITTER ON SHABBOS (Chana Luntz)
• 14. Re: r reisman's question (Doron Beckerman)
• 15. Exchange of the Levi'im for the bechorim in last week's parsha. (hankman)
• 16. Re: SYMMETRY OF BIRKAT KOHANIM (Poppers, Michael)
• 17. v'ha'ish moshe anav . . . (Sholom Simon)

1. in the absence of the "bitter waters" if one warns his wife (in
front of witnesses) what does one do??? given that there is no "official
rectification (as prescribed in the chumash)

if there is a warning given, is there a way to take it back (eg in front
of a bes din? <<

There is a story with R. Chaim Soloveitchik that he told his wife he didnt
want someone in his house (because he disliked the person not because he
suspected his wife). He once returned home to find the gentleman there. He
was afraid that his wife would be prohibited because of Soteh. He asked a
queation and was told that since the reason had nothing to do with his wife
she was mutar.

However otherwise the wife would need to be divorced

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120607/3ce14a1d/attachment-0001.htm>

Is there any current day psychological category (or combination thereof)
that define istinis?   Any meta reason or halachic source as to why it
should outweigh baatla daato, at least in certain cases?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120607/1b24c315/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> I'm thinking of the way the death of my daughter was and still
> is earth-shatering, but just a couple of generations ago, when
> infant mortality was more commmon, people apparently managed.

Harchinam responded:
> I don't think that this is accurate. It is more accurate to say
> that this tzaar was just not discussed and written about ...
> ... In the early 1920's there were many people who lost children
> to disease and other things and it did not seem to have made it
> any easier according to elderly relatives that I heard stories
> from. It just wasn't dwelt upon and people didn't have
> therapists or social workers to run to for every trauma in life,
> so they just "dealt". Or not.

Yes, but how do you understand the lack of aveilus for an infant who dies
before 30 days? I cannot understand it in any way other than to say that
the family's pain was not as great in such cases, similar to how even
nowadays a stillborn causes less pain than when a living baby passes on.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fd0f78256514373d9fst03vuc

My son asked me the following question: if you produce water by 
distilling fruit juice, which does not machshir zeraim, does the water 
thus obtained machshir zeraim?

David Riceman

On 7/06/2012 1:14 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> There is a story with R. Chaim Soloveitchik that he told his wife he
> didnt want someone in his house (because he disliked the person not
> because he suspected his wife). He once returned home to find the
> gentleman there. He was afraid that his wife would be prohibited
> because of Soteh. He asked a queation and was told that since the
> reason had nothing to do with his wife she was mutar.

I don't see the shayla in the first place.  He never told his wife not
to be alone with that man.  She was free to see him anywhere except in
their home. She could visit him at his home.  So why would he even think
that this was a "kin'ah"?   He was merely exercising his right to bar a
visitor from his home; the Rambam rules in Hilchos Ishus that both spouses
have this right (except when the other spouse is sick and can't go out to
see his or her relatives and friends, so they must come to visit him or
her).

-- 
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

Rema Even Haezer 178:7 - "Nowadays we do not have Sotah waters and if she
secludes herself after warning she is prohibited to him forever. If he
forgot and warned her he should waive the warning right away, as will be
explained later in this chapter, passage 12."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120607/31802587/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 06:31:16PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: I really don't think hilchos eidus are relevant here. Ask any rav you can
: think of and I am sure he would say that if you have personal, credible
: knowledge of someone who is currently being a rodef -- specifically,
: that someone is molesting children....

I think hilkhos eidus do apply, which is why chashdeihu vekhabdeihu --
even though we take the report seriously WRT considering it as reflecting
a real risk to protect future victims from, we do not accept it as eidus
WRT treating the man as a criminal.

We separate the halakhos of lo saamod from those of eidus and LH, and
end up with an ambivalent stance about accepting the story as fact.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

> If you follow that logic you would also have to say that the Torah sees no
> difference between rape and seduction.

Yes there is. A mefateh only pays if he doesn't marry the girl.

> Isn't boshes and pegam, certainly boshes, precisely about the emotional
> devastation?

Not really. Pegam is the actual loss of value because she is not a
besulah. According to the Rambam (Chovel Umazik 5:7), Raavad (ibid. 2;2),
Shulchan Aruch (CM 420:7) and Rema (ibid. 8) Boshes is only paid if the
act is done in front of others (or if it is a visible wound). So it isn't
about the emotional devastation, it is about the shame of others knowing
about it. I don't think we want to open that Pandora's box. (What do you
do where the parents insist on hushing it up, does the one who leaked
the story pay them boshes?) ... [Tosafos to Kesuvos 65b maintains that
Boshes applies in private as well, but it isn't clear he would expand
that to emotional devastation.]

> Now, it may be true, that in terms of the perpetrator, and absent a victim,
> the sin of loshen hora is worse than that of sexual relations (that it seems
> to me is also the thrust of the next portion of the gemora in Arachin) 

This I might agree with, that it is about the perpetrator - the Iyyun
Yaakov to Arachin says that a rapist fell prey to his Yetzer, and a
Motzee Shem Ra has no Hanaah. That sits well? How do you isolate it? Like
I said, it seems that Hashem expresses less outrage at falling prey to
one's Yetzer (the Gemara calls it "for Hanaas Shechivah") in such a way
that tears someone's life apart than for spreading false rumors that
one's wife was guilty of consensual infidelity.

>> but nobody appears to be suggesting giving a victim of loshen hora monetary
>> damages for boshes and pegam at the level that we are talking about for
>> rape.

I dunno. Nowadays, we don't collect boshes at all me'ikar hadin, since
there are no mumchim. But, the license to collect Boshes todayfor any
act involving boshes is from the Takanas HaGeonim that we collect for
Biyush Bedevarim, particularly Motzee Shem Ra (CM 420:38). If we assume,
as above, that Boshes is the public humiliation involved - I would think
Hotza'as Shem Ra on an innocent person as a sexual predator ranks pretty
darned high.

The Sugya is Mei Chalav Kechalav (Machshirin 6:5). See also Chullin 114 and
Aruch Hashulchan OC 168:27 and YD 81:16.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120608/a3c07805/attachment-0001.htm>

Rashi says a second Pshat. (??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? 
?????, ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????). Nobody should think that Moshe 
Rabbeinu Davens more for his sister than he Davens for anybody else. 
Therefore, Moshe Rabbeinu chose to Daven a short Tefilla for his sister. 
I don?t understand this. The Halacha is Hakorov Koreiv Kodem, one is 
obligated to help a person closest to him first. You may know many people 
who have an illness, if Chalila your sibling has an illness you are 
obligated to do more for her more than for strangers. Kol Hakorov Koreiv 
Kodem, whoever is closest is first to receiving Chesed. Therefore, Moshe 
Rabbeinu should have Davened a longer Shemoneh Esrei to teach Klal Yisrael 
that for your relatives we have to Daven more. Here Moshe Rabbeinu did the 
opposite he Davened a shorter Tefilla. Tzorech Iyun Gadol!



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120608/17b59988/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 01:28:45PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Is there any current day psychological category (or combination thereof)
: that define istinis? Any meta reason or halachic source as to why it
: should outweigh baatla daato, at least in certain cases?

Aveilus, for example, is to refrain from certain pleasures. Self
mortification in mourning is assur -- "lo sisgodedu". If someone
is so bothered by skipping his daily shower that it feels like
mortification rather than ommitting a pleasure, the fact that this
might not be true for the majority doesn't change the fact for him
it is assur.

And similarly whenever the chiyuv is a lack of pleasure rather than
causing inui.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RMB writes:

>This you yourself write, this is an idea one finds in choshein mishpat in
particular. How do you decide how to allocate communal funds when you can't
>sit down every potential taxpayer and reach consensus?

>Here in the US, it would be an executive branch question, not Judicial or
Legislative. My point was about the word "pesaq", which is interpretation of
>law.

>I don't see in this a template for pesaq, but a rule about taxation and
semi-random surveys. How would someone apply it to a ruling (if it was
>such) about EhE?

Well but one of the "halachic" requirements, as set out in the Chatam
Sofer's teshuva, was that the Rav of the town needs to be consulted and give
his consent to whatever the proposal is.  That is not just executive branch,
but a halachic requirement for the executive branch to seek out the
Judicial/legislative part.  Now if this Rav gives his consent, what would
you call it?  I don't know that we have another name for it other than psak.
When a shochet shows his knives to the Rav before shechting, what do you
call that?  This is like the executive branch showing their takanot to the
Rav before instituting them, and, as the Chatam Sofer makes clear, without
the approval of the Rav, halachically, there is no takana.

In a different post RMB wrote:

>I don't think a real taqanah or gezeirah is possible without a Sanhedrin.
>The Rambam seems to say so in Mamrim 2:2, when he asks how you can have a
beis din that is gedolah beminyan, since every BD has 71 -- "zeh minyan
>chakhmei hador". So his disacussion of taganos is THE beis din of the 71
top gedolim of the generation. Not just stam a poseiq, or even "stam" a
>collection of gedolimn. The Sanhedrin.

>I've suggested in the past that this is why Rabbainu Gershom accomplished
his "taqanos" (in the loose, colloquial, sense of the word) through a
>different mechanism -- the cheirem.

Well I think we need to differentiate between full fledged takanot and
takanot hakahal.

The latter are, I think, almost always technically enforced via cherem - the
one real mention of Takanot HaKahal in the Shulchan Aruch is in Yoreh Deah
Siman 228 si'if 33 which says:

"If one swears not to enter into takanot hakahal behold his oath is a shvua
shav and against his will the takana hakahal is chal upon him and if he does
not act like them nichshal b'cherem takanatem."

Of course the ultimate source for these takanot is from Baba Basra 8b "the
people of the city can make takanot on the weights and on the prices and on
the wages of workers and to fine those who do not follow them".

The question then becomes, are you part of the kahal, that binds you into
the takana or not?  The Sanhedrin (and only the Sanhedrin) it seems to me,
can bind all of Israel, wherever they are.  These other forms of takana are
much more limited.  But to the extent that all of Ashkenaz could be
considered a unified kahal, I would have thought that this was indeed the
mechanism for Rabbanu Gershom's takanot.

As I said, arguably, if you heed a call to gather, then you are part of the
kahal to whom the gathering is addressed.  EXCEPT, that if you heed a call
based on false pretences, because you thought you were gathering for a
different purpose, then you have been duped into being part of that kahal,
and any such takanot should not be chal upon you.

Shavuah Tov

Chana

RMB wrote:

>Then I stopped and thought: Is it muqtzah? Not only is it trash, but it's
now a sack that was nolad on Shabbos.

>More detail: When I was a child fewer people were aware of this, but snack
packets start out as flat sheets. The product is dropped on it in distinct
>piles, and then the plastic or foil is cut, folded and sealed -- all the
sides at once. The first time the packed becomes a sack is when you tear
open >one side. This raises problems with the "you can tear for food for
immediate consumption" rule I was raised with. CYLR. And thus, the litter
was likely >nolad on Shabbos.

I don't understand this concern.

The usual heter for opening such a snack pack is based on it either being a
mustaki - ie a less than perfect form of kli, that because of its throw-away
nature you will not be concerned with being metaken kli, but are only
focussing on getting at the contents (the classic form being a previously
broken barrel held together by pitch as per Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman
114 si'if 1) or, more strongly, like the date baskets which in turn are
likened to the nut shells in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim Siman 114 si'if 8.

And most hold, as you have suggested, that you can tear (or open a tin can)
for food for immediate consumption (although some, like Rav Moshe appear to
hold that while that is true theoretically, you shouldn't do so l'ma'ase,
because it will confuse people) and this is even though the container itself
will continue to "contain" until used, because your mind is not on the
container, but what it contains, given its throw away nature.  

But this is precisely because you are not concerned with the container, it
merely being like a skin (or a shell) for the contents.  A nut shell in
particular, grows on the nut, and hardens on it, and there is no concern
that there is nolad when you shell your nut, precisely because you have no
use for the nut shell once the contents are removed.  If you are going to
use the container afterwards (eg you will use the tin can to store nails, as
was apparently the practice at one point in Eretz Yisrael) then it does
become a problem according to many.

Now even if you do not hold like these opinions, but follow the more
stringent opinions that forbid tearing such packets or containers on shabbas
(whether or not they start out a flat sheets seem to me to be irrelevant, if
you hold that the Chachamim agree to Rabbi Eliezer regarding mustaki, and
hence that is how we posken, and if you do not hold that the snack packs
fall within the definition of mustaki, and of course if you hold that the
Chachamim don't actually agree with Rabbi Eliezer, then you can open a kli
shalem, without even needing to go through the mustaki question, so long as
you are not actually concerned for the kli), given that the owner of the
packet clearly did not posken like you, and the packet was not mukza to them
- then surely once the packet has been used and thrown away, it would have
the same din vis a vis you as if you had found nut shells scattered in the
street (or perhaps, saw somebody obviously Jewish scattering such nutshells
in the street), since I would have thought they would take on the status
allocated them by the owners.  Not that that is so straightforward, but I
don't see whether or not snack packs start out as flat sheets onto which the
contents are dropped, or open sacks which are then sealed as making any
difference.

>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha

Shavuah Tov

Chana

V'shinantam Levanecha - Eilu Hatalmidim. How could a Rebbe not consider his
Talmidim kerovei kerovim? And Klal Yisrael were Moshe Rabbeinu's Talmidim.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120609/dea1c7dc/attachment-0001.htm>

I am trying to understand the procedures involved in last weeks parsha
regarding the exchange of the levi?im for the bechorim. Is it possible to
understand this al pi teva or must we invoke the idea that this could only
have happened al pi nes. As this occurred reasonably close to the equinox
we can assume that the daylight was approx. 12 X 60 X 60 = 43,200 seconds.
I further assume this all happened in one day.

1) Did each of 600,000 Yisraelim have to do semicha on each of the 22,000
Levi?im (all numbers approx.) or was it enough that some Yisroel was
someich on some Levi?

2) Then there were the 22,000 tenufos by Aharon Hacohen. (time and strength)

3) Then there were 22,000 semichos by the Levi?im on the two parim (I assume there was but one such pair for all the Levi?im).

4) Then there were another 22,000 tenufos by Moshe Rabbeinu.

Anyone see some discussion of this?

I have a similar problem with the first korban Pesach of the 2nd year
bamidbar. You have approx. 3,000,000 people who were mechuyav in the korban
divided by however many you assume per chabura, will still leave you with
an number in 5 or 6 digits for the number of korbanos Pesach plus all the
Chagigos etc. But you only had 3 kohanim to do all this avoda (even if
shechita was done bezor, they still had to do all the kabala and zerika).
Again, I imagine this all had to be done bederech nes. (Without getting
into the issue of enough space as chazal already told us this was one of
the nissim in the Bais HaMikdash and I would assume this would apply to the
Mishkan as well).

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster

PS:
I discussed this (Levi?im) with someone at the local kollel who told me
that R. Chaim Shmulevitz discusses this and quotes a Chezkuni that this was
all all pi nes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120610/ad7807a9/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V30n53, RCRW wrote:
> Interestingly there is a numerical symmetry to the birkat kohanim
> which we all have learned the progression of each of the three verses:
> 3 words, 5 words, 7 words. <
A progression which is mimiced in the davening: E'v'A' bar'chainu 
-- bab'rachah hamshuleshes baTorah (3)
-- hak'suvah al y'dei Moshe avdecha (5)
-- ha'amurah mipi Aharon uvanav kohanim am q'doshecha (7)
ka'amur....

> I noticed something
for the first time today and wonder if any of you have ever realized the
symmetry in the number of letters?	Verse 1: 15 letters   Verse 2: 20
letters  Verse 3: 25 letters <
See the comments of Ba'al haTurim on these p'suqim. 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

(is this something that ought to be in Mesorah?  If so, can you forward there?)

This has probably come up before, as it's not particularly uncommon . . . .

In yesterday's parsha, at 12:3, we read "h'ha'ish moshe anav . . . 
"  Anav is spelled ayin-nun-vav.

In about half of the chumashim (and tikkunim) I saw yeterday, there's 
a note that the kriah is ayin-nun-yud-vav.

So, the obvious question:

1.  For _kria_, what difference does it make? Isn't it pronounced the 
same?  (Further, grammatically, it's too confusing to me . . . plural?)

2.  Why is this kria-note missing in half the sources I looked at 
(including, e.g., Artscroll tikkun, Hirsch chumash, etc.)?

-- Sholom



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 58
**************************************

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..."