Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 112

Mon, 13 Aug 2012

• 1. Shomrim Video on Shabbos (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Reasons for Shechitah (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: Glasses look to keep women out of sight (Rafi and Shifra Goldmeier)
• 4. Re: rega = sha`a / 58888 (David Riceman)
• 5. Tzaar Baalei Chayim (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 6. Re: Tzaar Baalei Chayim (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Tzaar Baalei Chayim (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: rega = sha`a / 58888 (David Riceman)
• 9. Canceling Reservations (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Glasses look to keep women out of sight (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Hyphenating the Shaymos (Akiva Miller)
• 12. Re: Shnayim Mikra (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Reasons for Shechitah (Micha Berger)

 From http://tinyurl.com/8s2xopz

    Publicly funded security cameras planned for Brooklyn's heavily
    Orthodox Boro Park neighborhood should not be directly accessible to
    the police, said the leader of the community's influential volunteer
    security patrol...

    Jacob Daskal, coordinator of the Boro Park Shomrim...

Question: Does this mean that people in BP will no longer be able to
walk in the street on Shabbos and Yom Tov since they are being "filmed"
by these cameras?

  From http://tinyurl.com/8pfl7n6

A leading Israeli rabbi has declared the Western Wall off limits to the
faithful on the holiest day of the week because of security cameras that
he says desecrate the Sabbath.

The trouble at the wall is with technology, said Rabbi Yosef Shalom
Eliashiv, a 100-year-old rabbinical authority widely revered among
ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Eliashiv says those coming into view of the closed-circuit surveillance
cameras activate a light inside the devices, violating the prohibition
on operating electronics on Shabbat.

The rabbi overseeing the Western Wall, Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz, said he
and the Jerusalem police were working to fix the problem.

On the other hand, the following is from http://fwd4.me/17RC Halachic
Issues Commonly Encountered During a Hotel Stay on Shabbat and Yom Tov.

Although Rashba's leniency is not the normative opinion, R. Zalman N.
Goldberg (in the journal Ateret Shlomo, Vol. VI) uses it as a mitigating
factor in allowing one to walk in front of a surveillance camera. He
claims that being photographed is not considered a direct action unless
one intends to be photographed. If one merely walks in front of the
camera, the melechet machshevet is lacking and it is not considered a
direct action.

YL

Cantor Wolberg asked:

> So then why isn't there permission to kill in other painless
> ways? Or I should ask, is there any other reasons given other
> than it is a mitzva.

I once heard (sorry, I don't remember where) that a main reason for requiring shechita is the way that it helps drain the body of blood.

I have no idea how accurate that is. To me as a layman, it sure sounds
reasonable that cutting such a major artery would be very effective at
getting rid of a lot of blood. But maybe I'm wrong, or maybe there are even
better drainage options. Or maybe Hashem chose shechita as a good
combination of painlessness and blood drainage, and perhaps other factors
as well.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Mom Lazy Way to Look Young
Doctor Reveals Way to Look Significantly Younger in 17 Seconds
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50271f5a451d31f5941aast03vuc

is the issue really one of pritzus that is "requiring" some people to 
wear these glasses? if the people wearing these glasses are mostly 
located in mea Shearim (or maybe also RBS B), similar to the people 
wearing the burkas and veils, isnt the level of pritzus fairly marginal 
in these areas? We are not really talking about people walking through 
Tel Aviv or downtown Jerusalem with these glasses, where they *might* be 
required by some stretch of an imagination.

So, if the inventor is mass-manufacturing them and selling them in 
stores to people who might need them because they are in such areas, 
perhaps you are right about requiring such a hetter and these glasses 
actually making that possible. If the people using them are limited to a 
few people in mea Shearim, then somehow the issue of pritzus is not 
really the issue.

kol tuv
Rafi Goldmeier

---------
Goldmeier
goldmeier.fam...@gmail.com

Advertise on Life in Israel blog!! See 
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/p/advertise-on-life-in-israel.html for
more information!

http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com
http://rabbirunningamarathon.blogspot.com

On 10/8/2012 4:18 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> [Quotes were taken from an Areivim conversation. -micha]
>
> RDB commenting on:
>>> I dont understand your statement "the hetter to walk in the street".
>>> Since when do we have or
>>> need a hetter to walk in the street. Is there some mitzva to stay
>>> locked up at home that requires us to obtain a hetter to walk in the street
> Answers:
>> I mean when there is peritzus in the street, which I assume the glasses
>> are a reaction to. Otherwise, of course there is no issue.
> I confess I agree with RDB here.
>
> In terms of the heter to walk the streets, this is all based on a gemora
> in Baba Basra 57b:
>

RSM:

<<In Berachot 7a the gemara says that a rega is 1/58888 of an hour. Are 
there any perushim that say where this number comes from?>>

See Ginzberg "Peirushim V'Hidushim B'Yerushalmi" vol. 1 pp. 59-60, 
especially footnote 63.

David Riceman

I don't know who "we" is, since I was never taught this.
So since YOU were never taught this, therefore, it can't be so?
Is it not possible there are m'forshim who taught that the purpose
of shechitah is to cause a painless death to the animal? Are the
musmachim from whom I was taught, all wrong??

Indeed I don't think it was even known that shechitah was painless until
the modern era, when it became possible to attach scanners to animals'
skulls and detect their brain activity.

So assuming it wasn't even known that shechitah was painless, you don't
think HaShem knew? Do you think that was the ONLY thing that wasn't 
known by man? So therefore, what does it prove?  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120812/df96cea1/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/08/2012 7:44 AM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
>> I don't know who "we" is, since I was never taught this.

> So since YOU were never taught this, therefore, it can't be so?

Since I was never taught this, it cannot be true that "we" were taught
it, if that "we" refers to all of us.  And if it doesn't mean all of us,
but all of some other group that includes you but not me, then how can
I possibly know whom it does refer to?


> Is it not possible there are m'forshim who taught that the purpose
> of shechitah is to cause a painless death to the animal? Are the
> musmachim from whom I was taught, all wrong??

No, it is not possible, and yes, if these unnamed "musmachim" taught
you that then they were wrong.


>> Indeed I don't think it was even known that shechitah was painless until
>> the modern era, when it became possible to attach scanners to animals'
>> skulls and detect their brain activity.

> So assuming it wasn't even known that shechitah was painless, you don't
> think HaShem knew? Do you think that was the ONLY thing that wasn't
> known by man? So therefore, what does it prove?

How is it relevant what Hashem knew?  If people didn't know that it was
so, then how could they have known or guessed that this was the reason?


-- 
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 Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:19:05AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Is it not possible there are m'forshim who taught that the purpose
>> of shechitah is to cause a painless death to the animal? Are the
>> musmachim from whom I was taught, all wrong??
>
> No, it is not possible, and yes, if these unnamed "musmachim" taught
> you that then they were wrong.

How can you say this after already being pointed to a Ramban who does
connect shechitah to minimizing pain?

Or is this another case of you being medayeiq in lashon and never bothering
to explain to the rest of us what it is you're referring to? In this case,
are you objecting to CRW's "painless" as opposed to "minimizing pain"?

The following mar'eh meqomos give minimizing pain as at least one of the
reasons for shechitah:
    Tanchuma Shemini 7
    Moreh Nevuchim 3:26,48
    Chinukh 451
    Rmaban Bereishis 1:29 (already cited)
    Shu"t Chasam Sofer, OC 54

The Peri Megadim, end of Hilkhos Shechitah excludes the minimization of pain
as a reason for shechitah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

I wrote:
> <<See Ginzberg "Peirushim V'Hidushim B'Yerushalmi" vol. 1 pp. 59-60, 
> especially footnote 63.>>
And see Lieberman "Hilchot HaYerushalmi", p. 19, siman chet.

David Riceman

R' Meir Orlian wrote the following for The Business Halacha Institute
(run by Dayan R' Chaim Kohn). I saw the article in their weekly sheet, but
I can't find it on http://www.businesshalacha.com/ . This is cut-n-pasted
from The Jewish Press at
http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/halacha-hashkafa/summer-wee
kend/2012/07/27/0/

The set-up: Mr Blank rents a weekend at Mr Zimmer's summer home. Mrs
Blank's sister then offers them their summer home for the same weekend.
Now Mr Blank wants to back out.

    Mr. Blank was troubled. He saw Rabbi Dayan in shul that evening and
    asked: "Is it acceptable to cancel the reservation?

    "Just as a sale requires an act of acquisition, a kinyan, to make
    it legally binding, so, too, a rental agreement requires a kinyan to
    make it legally binding," said Rabbi Dayan. "A verbal agreement alone
    does not carry legal responsibility. Therefore, although you reserved
    the bungalow over the phone, since no kinyan or payment was made you
    have the legal ability to cancel the reservation. To prevent this,
    it is wise for landlords to demand a deposit payment." (195:9; 315:1)

    "The words alone mean nothing?!" Mr. Blank asked astounded.

    "Words are meaningful, and a person has a moral obligation to honor
    his verbal commitments," replied Rabbi Dayan. "One who does not
    uphold his words is called lacking trustworthiness (mechusa amana)
    and, possibly, even wicked." (204:7)

    "So then it is wrong to cancel the reservation?" asked Mr. Blank.

    "It would be if you hadn't received the offer from your
    sister-in-law," replied Rabbi Dayan. "There is a dispute between the
    authorities if a verbal commitment is morally binding when there was
    a change in market conditions. The Rama [204:11] cites both opinions,
    and sides that one should not retract even in this case. However,
    later authorities lean towards the lenient opinion [Pischei Choshen,
    Kinyanim, 1:5].

    "When the rental is no longer needed because another unit was received
    for free, the Chasam Sofer [C.M. #102] writes that this is certainly
    like a change in market conditions, so that it is not considered a
    breach of integrity."

    "What if I wasn't offered the other bungalow for free, but found
    a better deal?" asked Mr. Blank. "Would that also be considered a
    change in market conditions?"

    "The SM"A [333:1] indicates so," answered Rabbi Dayan, "but this is
    questionable unless there was some new development in the market,
    so that one who is scrupulous should be careful." (Emek Hamishpat,
    Sechirus Batim, #8)

    "What if Mr. Zimmer had turned away other potential renters
    meanwhile?" asked Mr. Blank. "Perhaps he might not be able to find
    other renters now?"

    "That's a different story," replied Rabbi Dayan. "If he had other
    potential renters and turned them away on your account, this might be
    considered sufficiently direct damage [garmi] to require compensation
    [333:2; SM"A 333:8]. On the other hand, it is not actual damage,
    only lost profit [grama], so that is proper to compromise." (Ketzos
    333:2; Pischei Choshen, Sechirus 10:10)

I understand this as iqar hadin, and the lease wasn't chal lehalakhah.
But what about Mi Shepara? The case of Mi Shepara where the guy tries
to alter the price in Qiddushin 29a or BM 47b-48 also involves breaking
one's word with no money exhcnanging hands.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Cc: i...@businesshalacha.com

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
mi...@aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RRG writes:

>is the issue really one of pritzus that is "requiring" some people to wear
these glasses? if the people wearing these glasses are mostly located in mea
>Shearim (or maybe also RBS B), similar to the people wearing the burkas and
veils, isnt the level of pritzus fairly marginal in these areas?

Well I suspect what we have here is a disagreement about what constitutes
prizus, not dissimilar to the various disagreements we have about kashrus.  

In kashrus we have situations where there is what everybody agrees is m'ikar
hadin, and then there are situations where there are various shitos that
some holds are chumros and some hold are ikar hadin (eg not having chalav
hacompanies), and then it can get more and more extreme (with fewer and
fewer holding them as necessary).  At the very extreme you no doubt could
(at least in theory) find somebody who was only ever prepared to eat matza
(ie flour and water) from wheat that he harvested himself and ground
himself, and water that he boiled and then recondensed.  Somebody could
easily justify such behaviour by saying that with modern factory methods and
chemicals and technology, that is the only way today to be sure that
everything he eats is totally kosher - and that all the kulos in the
Shulchan Aruch were framed in a society where there were no chemicals and
modern technology. 

Now I have deliberately chosen an example here that I am sure everybody on
this list will regard as a bit nuts, not dissimilar to the burkas and veils
type position.  But there are people on this list who are not so far from
such a position, eg only food prepared in their own home, and not any
processed food, and the number that take this position goes up at pesach.

Similarly you might regard the level of pritzus to be found in Meah Sharim
etc to be fairly marginal, but that is dependent upon your definition of
pritzus.  I might well agree with you, but the reality is that the people
who are buying these glasses do not agree.  You may say they are like the
fellow who will only eat matzah and water, but you still end up with a
situation where people are claiming standards, which they are claiming are
based on halacha, and while we might disagree that indeed this is the
halacha, there is a question of what to do.

Now the biggest difference between questions of kashrus and questions of
pritzus is that, by and large, what people choose to eat or not eat does not
impact on others who hold differently.  That is not entirely true of course,
it may impact on relatives, or friends or workmates or congregants - and it
is in those types of situations that conflict often arises, and those of us
who hold that there are important halachic values in sholom bayis, darchei
shalom, and eiva and the like may be critical of those who insist on what we
regard as chumros in the face of such scenarios.  But by and large, if
somebody wants to go eating matzah and water, and spending time growing
their own wheat and boiling and condensing their own water, it does not
impact on the rest of us.

But that is not the same when it comes to what is defined as pritzus.  By
defining certain things as pritzus, that person is then usually attempting
to constrains the actions (usually) of women.  Somebody pointed to a sign
recently that I  believe has gone up in Meah Shearim which has modified the
old language asking women to refrain from dressing immodestly, or rather,
has added the words including those who dress in the "religious fashion" of
which the author of the sign clearly disapproves.  Here you very clearly
have a clash of religious standards.  If the women are religious, they
clearly do not think that the manner in which they are dressing is
inappropriate, while on the other hand the producer of the sign clearly
does.  The best solution, it seems to me, to this conflict of either
halachic standards, or halacha and chumra, depending on whose side you are
on, would seem to be these glasses.  The people who agree with the sign can
wear these glasses and avoid any problems with these (and any other) women.
The women can continue to dress in the way they hold to be halachically
appropriate.  That is why I said that I think these glasses are a good
solution for those who see the need for them.  It puts the man back into the
same situation as only eating matzah and water, and avoid issues of darchei
shalom and eivah and communal strife.  Ie just like the matzah and water,
those of us who think it is nutty can leave them to their nuttiness, and
those who hold that it is necessary can adopt the practice, without forcing
other people to live their lives according to values and halachic standards
which they hold are wrong.

>kol tuv
>Rafi Goldmeier

Regards

Chana

This thread will be about when we do and do not hyphenate the Names when
written in English. I am very aware the the poskim are not united regarding
when foreign-language Names have kedusha and when they don't, so I'd like
to stipulate at the outset that I do NOT want to discuss the requirements
of halacha. Rather, I'm interested in what is considered appropriate and
customary, which is presumably beyond the actual halachic requirements, at
least of some poskim.

I'd like to begin by pointing out that I am a frequent reader of "Covenant
and Conversation", the Parsha Sheet of British Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan
Sacks, available at http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ I have
noticed that he consistently hyphenates "G-d", but spells "Lord" in full.
This is different than the practice - familiar to me since Hebrew School -
of hyphenating both of these.

Pondering these practices, I asked myself: "Hashem Tzevakos" is also one of
the Shaymos She'aynam Nimchakim, so why do we spell "Hosts" in full? And if
"Shakai" is translated as "Almighty", we should hyphenate that too, right?
(Some do, but it's not as common as "G-d" and "L-rd".)

My current suspicions are along the following lines: There is indeed a real
machlokes haposkim about Shaymos in languages other than Lashon Hakodesh.
Possibly, Amcha are choosing (perhaps unconsciously) to be machmir on
translations of YKVK and closely-related Names, but to be meikal on
less-closely-related Names.

This would explain the practice of spelling "Hosts" and "Almighty" in full.
This could apply even to "Lord", especially when "G-d" appears in the same
phrase. At the same time, it would explain why I have seen some hyphenate
"H-Shem" - a practice I considered foolish until I began formulating this
post.

This idea might also explain why so many people nowadays consider the
Double Yud to be among the Shaymos She'aynam Nimchakim, even though it was
originally designed to be an abbreviation which *could* be erased. Ditto
for "Heh-apostrophe", which contains one of the letters of the YKVK, and is
in the process of being replaced by "Daled-apostrophe".

(Perhaps it's my imagination, but I perceive a sort of "Law of Conservation
of Chumros and Kulos" at work here. Does being super-machmir on the
higher-level Shaymos entitle us to be meikal on the lower-level ones?)

Any comments? Have any of the chevra stopped to analyze their own practices, and the reasons for those practices?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Mom Lazy Way to Look Young
Doctor Reveals Way to Look Significantly Younger in 17 Seconds
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5028fb79db0427b79699cst04vuc

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:44:13PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: The gemara brachot (starting bottom 8a) says "R. Huna b. Judah says in
: the name of R. Ammi: A man should always complete his Parashoth together
: with the congregation, [reading] twice the Hebrew text and once the
: [Aramaic] Targum... for if one completes his Parashoth together with
: the congregation, his days and years are prolonged."

: The Aruch Hashulchan seems to understand this as a takana from Moshe, not
: clear to me how he knew [siman 285 se'if 2]...

Maybe he is being medayeiq in R' Huna bar Yehudah's wording to conclude
that this is part of the taqanah of regular leining.

Tangent: When it says Amar X besheim Y, does that mean the words are
the X's? Notice here I am assuming that RHBY picked the exact words. In
contrast to Amar X amar Y, which I would take to mean it's an exact
quote of Y's words. (One of my givens that I have held on to so long,
I don't recall where I got them from and it they're valid.)

: So if it is a rabbinic takana(granted an early one);
: 1. why was it stated as simply something that is a life extender?

Perhaps the key word is "le'olam". As in the list of early tannaim who are
asked on Megillah 27a what they did to earn long life. R' Each begins,
"Miyamai, lo..." They had very different answers as to what they never
did, but all the answers for long life invoke the notion of constancy
and consistency. I put this more poetically in "My Life as a [Focault]
Pendulum": <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/03/my-life-as-pendulum.shtml>.

: 2. was the life extension an intrinsic result (i.e. learning more
: extends your life) or do the rabbis have the "power" to determine reward
: for listening (and why is this takana different from others)?

Related is the machloqes over heter mekhirah. One of the variables is
whether shemittah derabbanan carries the same berakhah for a double crop
in years 6 and 8 as shemittah deOraisa does. If not, then there is more
room for qulah.

The Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 17:11) says that derabbanan are behaviorally
good ideas, unlike a deOraisa, which describes a spiritual reality. Eg:
Chicken with milk doesn't cause timtum haleiv.

R' Elchanan Wasserman (qunterus Divrei Soferim) argues that even
deRabbanans are revealed wisdom and Ratzon H', and therefore carry
metaphysical reality.

The SA haRav says that yom tov sheini shel goliyos represent a rabbinic
connection to the same lemaalah min hazeman spiritual essence of the
Yom Tov as HQBH connects us to on Yom Tov rishon.

So REW's and SAhR's shitos would explain how a derabbanan can carry
a reward, because they alter the metaphysics that cause the physical
reality.

Alternatively, many dinim derabbanan are implementations of deOraisa
ideas. Pirsumei nisa is deOraisa, even if Qerias Megillah and Neir
Chanukah are not. Now, if Pirsumei Nisa causes some metaphysical effect,
then LAD, Miqra Megillah would even if one holds like the MC.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/safeiq-derabbanan.shtml>, where I
discuss this issue at more length (including more acharonim). The title
question: If one holds that dinim derabbanan have metaphysical reality,
how does one explain safeiq derabbanan lequlah? It's just as precarious
as playing the odds with deOraisos!

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 04:06:24PM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: R' Micha wrote:
:> Besides, if shechitah were really in order to cause little or no pain, to 
:> the exclusion of other meanings in the mitzvah, there would be permission 
:> to kill in other painless ways. 

: So then why isn't there permission to kill in other painless ways? Or
: I should ask, is there any other reasons given other than it is a mitzva.

Not that I know of. But then, every mitzvah has some element of choq.
In fact, the Ramban says that notion of the value of simply obeying the
law (detached from reasons) is itself part of the reason for shechitah.
He mentions the minimization of pain, but also adds that part of the
point of shechitah is to remember the concept of law when killing,
an act so primal it triggers a different part of our selves.

Taamei hamitzvos are usually things we derive post-facto from the law. The
number of cases where they're given, such as in tzitzis (ure'isem osam,
velo sasuru) or Shabbos (ki sheishes yamim asah H'...) are the vast
minority.

:-)BBii!
-Micha


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 112
***************************************

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..."