Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 132

Sun, 23 Sep 2012

• 1. Metz on Shabbos for hypospadias, but not otherwise (Meir Rabi)
• 2. HaYashar vehaTov (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Metz is required via Divine Revelation (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Re: Metz on Shabbos for hypospadias, but not otherwise (Meir Rabi)
• 5. Re: Metz is fine but not on Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Metz on Shabbos for hypospadias, but not otherwise (Arie Folger)
• 7. Burying suicides (SBA)
• 8. Re: honoring the deceased's wish (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Junk DNA (Liron Kopinsky)
• 10. Re: Mitochondrial DNA and the Mabul (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Mitochondrial DNA and the Mabul (T6...@aol.com)
• 12. Re: honoring the deceased's wish (Liron Kopinsky)
• 13. Re: Mitochondrial DNA and the Mabul (T6...@aol.com)

I thank R Ariel Folger for his clarifications.

R Arie also informs us that R' Dr. Mordechai Halpern discovered that a
properly applied metzitzah is medically indicated in the case of babies
with hypospadias (an incompletely formed urethra, with an incomplete
 orla), as in such kids there may be a smaller blood flow to the glans,
which metzitza prevents from being constricted by the sudden trauma of
circumcision.

That is excellent. I hear the Halachic argument to permit Metz on Shabbos
in such a case.

But that is almost a concession that in all other cases, where there is no
medical benefit, Metz is not to be performed on Shabbos.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120922/fed2ae84/attachment-0001.htm>

One of my pet topics is the paradox of the "QYT" mitzvos -- Qedoshim
tihyu and ve'asisa haYashar vehaTov. These are mitzvos that obligate us
to go beyond the limits of black letter halachic obligation. The Ramban's
"qadeish es atzmekha bemah shemutar lakh" means that it's not *really*
"mutar lakh" after all.

The gemara most often cited WRT haYashar vehaTov is BM 83a (end of "HaSocheir
es haUmnin"): 
    [In the course of transporting it,] some porters broke a barrel of
    alcoholic drink belonging to Rabbah b"R Chanan. So he seized their
    shirts. Rav said to him, "Let them have their shirts!" [RBRC] said to
    [Rav], "Is this the din?" He said to him, "Yes -- 'so that you may
    walk in the way of good [people]' (Mishlei 11:21)".

    [RBBC] let them have their shirts. [The workmen] said to him, "we are
    poor, and we worked hard all day. We are in need and we have nothing!"
    [Rav] said to him, "Let them have their pay." [RBBC] said to [Rav],
    "Is this the din?" He said to him, "Yes -- 'and the ways of the
    righteous [people] you shall guard.' (ibid 2:20)"

I encountered a Y-mi on the topic, Kesuvos 4:8 (vilna 28b):
    R Shimon ben Laqish in the name of R' Yehudah b' Channayah: They
    counted [the votes] in Usha, [and concluded] that a person is
    obligated to feed his young sons [or: young children; but the
    previous sentence was talking about which gender gets priority].

    R' Yochanan said, "Do we know who was in the count?"

    Uqva came before R Yochanan [note: the same person who just dismissed
    the report that it was deemed obligatory]. [R Yochanan] said to him,
    "Uqva! Feed your children!" [Uqvah] said to [R Yochanan], "From where
    do you know this [that I have to feed my children]?" [R Yochanan]
    said to him, "Rasha! go feed your children!"

    R' Ula said a mishnah tells us this, that a person must feed his
    minor children, as the beraisa says over there...

R' Yochanan attacks Uqva for asking why he had to do something that was
hayashar vehatov, given that there was no specific black-letter chiyuv
to do so.

Someone who thinks that our obligations are defined by halakhah to the
exclusion of self-evident moral dicta is a deemed rasha.

Gut Voch and a GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

R' Meir G. Rabi asked:

> Regarding the suggestion that, Chazal's belief in the need for
> metzitzah came not via any sort of scientific or empirical
> research or observation, but via revelation or ruach hakodesh.
>
> I dont understand what is to be gained by this assertion and I
> dont see how it can be justified.
>
> Please provide some more information to support this remarkable
> contention.

What I actually wrote (and appeared in Avodah Digest 30:130, in the thread titled "Re: [Avodah] Beris Milah with Metzitza 6 days of the week") was:

> For all I know ... Chazal's belief in the need for metzitzah
> came not via any sort of scientific or empirical research or
> observation, but via revelation or ruach hakodesh.

Apparently, the idiom "for all I know" is not as widely understood as I had thought. It really means "I have no idea whether..."

In other words, I am aware of the requirement of metzitzah, and I am also
aware that the reason for metzitza is health-related. But I am totally
unaware how Chazal came to the belief that a milah without metzitzah is
dangerous. They may have gotten this belief through their own medical
research and observation, or simply by relying on the medical research of
others.

But I am unaware of anyone who ever explicitly wrote that Chazal learned
about this danger in a scientific manner. Therefore I cannot rule out the
*possibility* that at some point in our history, this information was
acquired by some navi via nevua, or by some gadol via ruach hakodesh, in a
manner similar to how we know about the ruach raah which is on our hands in
the morning.

> I dont understand what is to be gained by this assertion ...

There is a very big nafka mina involved, as I see it.

If we know about the danger because of a revelation of some sort, then we
must be EXTREMELY careful regarding any developments on how we deal with
it. But if the only knowledge of the danger comes from ancient medical
research, and it is at odds with current medical research, then there is
much more room for flexibility.

I am not nearly knowledgeable enough to pasken on how strict we'd need to
be in the former case, or on what leniencies we could allow in the latter
case. But I do think that I'm knowledgeable enough to see that there could
be real differences between the two.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/505e7a3e273887a3d5cabst04vuc

excellent, I did not know that  minor hypospadias is not necessarily
diagnosed well, tradition made this a blanket procedure. thank you very
much, Rabbiner.

But you are conceding that the reason is NOT because Metz is an Asei or a
part of the Mitzvah of Beris. You are proceeding exclusively upon the
medical considerations. I am fairly sure that Reb Micha is in strong
disagreement.

I can hear now the debate - as I dont think there are any other medical
risks of such negligible magnitude that Halacha deems to be legitimate
reasons to be Mechalel Shabbos. Take heating water for the Rach HaNimol as
an example. I am confident and have verified this with a few doctors here
that hot water may have some benefits in promoting blood circulation and
comforting the baby, but unless a medical reason is mandated by a doctor,
we are not Mechallel Shabbos for this. And I hear echoes of this in your
argument that  it saves the baby from lifelong sexual dysfunction, which is
not a legitimate reason to be Mechallel Shabbos, "or worse" which might be.
BTW, can it be that proper Metz will restore proper sexual function?

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120923/337024a1/attachment-0001.htm>

On 22/09/2012 9:23 AM, Meir Rabi wrote:

> *My question is quite simple: performing Metz is Chillul Shabbos.
> It is permitted by the Mishnah and Gemara, only because it is
> medically valuable for the baby.
  

This is absolutely not true. Where did you see such a thing?  It is
permitted becuase it is part of the mitzvah.  This is *clear* from the
fact that when doing a bris on Shabbos, if the mohel notices tzitzin
she'einan me'akvin before the metzitzah, he may remove them, but if he
notices them after metzitzah he may not, because the mitzvah is over.
If your position were correct, how do you explain this?

-- 
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 Sep 23, 2012 5:13 AM, "Meir Rabi" <meir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> excellent, I did not know this thank you very much, Rabbiner.
>
> But you are conceding that the reason is NOT because Metz is an Asei or a
part of the Mitzvah of Beris. You are proceeding exclusively upon the
medical considerations.

First of all, yes, indeed, but more to the point, in my first post in this
thread I merely wanted to point out that it is not a slam dunk to claim
that MbF has no medical benefits. I intentionally stayed out of the other
issue.

> I can hear now the debate - as I dont think there are any other medical
risks of such negligible magnitude that Halacha deems to be legitimate
reasons to be Mechalel Shabbos. Take heating water for the Rach HaNimol as
an example. I am confident and have verified this with a few doctors here
that hot water may have some benefits in promoting blood circulation and
comforting the baby, but unless a medical reason is mandated by a doctor,
we are not Mechallel Shabbos for this.

The difference is that some issues only involve professionals, while others
involve laymen. Mohalim can make errors in missing. Minor hypospadias
(where the orla is not so small, but nonetheless there is less blood
flowing to the glans), and parents may only spot gangrene when it is too
late. Since the baby won't be staying in the hospital for three days,
prudence is justified.

> And I hear echoes of this in your argument that  it saves the baby from
lifelong sexual dysfunction, which is not a legitimate reason to be
Mechallel Shabbos, "or worse" which might be.
> BTW, can it be that proper Metz will restore proper sexual function?

Sexual dysfunction is so grave that it might be considered piquach nefesh,
but even lacking such sevarah, untreated gangrene is a piquach nefesh.

--Arie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120923/7eb90475/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Micha Berger < >
> Rav Schwarz: We have a halacha in the SA which can and frankly should 
> be applied, even if the application is difficult for social reasons...

> Rav Meidan: First of all the cost of applying this halacha is simply 
> too high and secondly we have no way what so ever of deciding anything 
> in these matters in this day and age.

Burying suicides is the very related issue, if it isn't even a prior case of
the same issue. And lemaaseh, I don't know of a beis olam that excludes the
typical suicide from the main burial area.
==

Our cemetery (which was established around 1960) has a number of graves at
the far edge - where several suicides are buried.
All these were -TTBOMK- from the 60s and maybe 70s. 
I don't think this minhag/halacha is still practiced today.
Presumably because virtually all suicides are considered to have done so
through illness - depression  etc.

But it would be interesting to know why and when this 'hetter' was
introduced.
Does anyone know of othe rplaces where suiides are buried 'chutz lamachneh'?

 

From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>

>> I seem  to recall someone posting here years ago the notion that we 
ignore
requests  that violate minhagim of aveilus on the grounds that we can
assume that the  niftar's wishes have changed now that they are niftar.

Maybe it was  during our discussion of the survivor who wanted to be
buried in their  striped uniform. He wanted to defend himself before the
beis din shel maalah  by being able to point to his garment and declare
that he already served his  time in gehenom, and thus there was only
one place to send him. (In that  case, RMF pasqened that that particular
request should be met, despite the  practice since Rabban Gamliel's day
of burying in white linen.)  <<







>>>>>>
 
The request to be buried in concentration camp clothes strikes me as akin  
to the common minhag of burying murder victims who were killed because they 
were  Jews in the bloody clothes they were wearing when they died.  These 
clothes  are said to arouse Heavenly compassion.
 

--Toby  Katz
GCT
=============



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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120923/ec77b5dd/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
>
>
> Our DNA has a tremendous amount of information that we understand to be
> "junk DNA".  We don't know what it does.  We don't know if it once did
> something and no longer does.  We don't know if it's done multiple things
> throughout history.  It's a gaping hole in our knowledge.  To draw
> conclusions of this sort about our DNA when we still know so little about
> so much of it is irresponsible.  Junk science to match the junk DNA.


See
http://www.chiefrabbi.org/2012/09/14/thought-for
-the-day-what-today-you-dismiss-as-98-per-cent-junk-might-tomorrow-turn-out
-to-be-vitally-necessary-to-life-after-all/and
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/

From Chief Rabbi Sachs:
"Twelve years ago scientists decoded the human genome. Many people at the
time used Rosh Hashanah language. They said, we?ve learned how to read ?the
book of life.? But there was one astonishing finding. Only 2 per cent of
the genome seemed to do anything. Only 2 per cent coded for proteins which
is what DNA is supposed to do. The other ninety eight per cent seemed
useless. It was given a name. Junk DNA.

Well it?s just emerged that it isn?t junk after all. After one of the
biggest ever scientific experiments, involving 1,600 experiments, 450
scientists and thirty two different institutions, we now know that not only
is it not junk. It?s absolutely crucial for life."
-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120923/8bd3385e/attachment-0001.htm>

On 21/09/2012 4:16 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
> Our DNA has a tremendous amount of information that we understand to
> be "junk DNA".  We don't know what it does.  We don't know if it once
> did something and no longer does.	We don't know if it's done multiple
> things throughout history.  It's a gaping hole in our knowledge.  To
> draw conclusions of this sort about our DNA when we still know so
> little about so much of it is irresponsible.  Junk science to match
> the junk DNA.

And recent discoveries indicate that this DNA isn't junk after all.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hidden-treasures
-in-junk-dna

-- 
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

 
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>

>>  Our  DNA has a tremendous amount of information that we understand to 
be 
"junk  DNA".  We don't know what it does.  We don't know if it once did  
something and no longer does.  We don't know if it's done multiple  
things throughout history.  It's a gaping hole in our knowledge.   To 
draw conclusions of this sort about our DNA when we still know so little  
about so much of it is irresponsible.  Junk science to match the junk  DNA. 
<<



Lisa





>>>>>
 
It turns out that a lot of the "junk" DNA actually determines when and  
whether and under what conditions the "known" DNA will be expressed or will be  
suppressed.
 
 


--Toby Katz
GCT
=============



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

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120923/00606779/attachment.htm>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:53 AM, <T6...@aol.com> wrote:

> **
>
> The request to be buried in concentration camp clothes strikes me as akin
> to the common minhag of burying murder victims who were killed because they
> were Jews in the bloody clothes they were wearing when they died.  These
> clothes are said to arouse Heavenly compassion.
>

Interesting. Would you say that the goal of doing this is for the deceased
("Look at what happened to me") or for those of us who are still alive
("Look at what my people have to deal with")? In other words, are we
looking out for the deceased eternal well-being, or are we "using" the
deceased as a meilitz for ourselves?

Kol Tuv,
-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120923/6b3ef248/attachment.htm>

 

From: Arie Folger _afolger@aishdas.org_ (mailto:afol...@aishdas.org) 


>>Brian Sykes, the geneticist who reportedly developed this  kind of genetic
analysis, has studied the mitochondrial DNA of contemporary  people. By
correlating know rates of mutations to the differences  between
populations, one can make a fairly solid educated guess as to  how
related different people are. As mitochondrial DNA is inherited  from
the mother only (similar analyses with Y chromosome  sequencing
confirms his findings on the paternal side), it implies that one  can
guess when people had their last common great great n^x  grandmother.

Over time, some women have no kids, or only sons, and thus  their
mitochondrial DNA line becomes extinct. Over hundreds of  generations,
that extinguishes an awful lot of lines, and with his analysis,  he
finds "seven mothers" of Europeans, hence the title of his book,  the
Seven Daughters of Eve. The differences between those individuals  are
fairly large, and hence it is useful to consider those women  genetic
foremothers....


...I was toying with the idea that the  ladies of family Noach were each
very genetically diverse from the other, so  that mitochondrial
diversity can be attributed to that, a Divine act of  social
engineering, but AFAIU, this would be insufficient to account for  the
full gamit of mitochondrial diversity, and doesn't  explain
y-chromosome diversity at all.

I am hoping the responses will  not only be fancy new ways of
understanding our trusted sources, but rather  that scientists among
the chevre will point out where the above picture is  wrong, or right....<<




>>>>>
 
Like RAF, I am very interested in seeing what scientists have to say  about 
this, but there are at least two possibilities that have been  suggested.  
To summarize them:
 
[a] Chazal did not hesitate to suggest exceptions that are not even hinted  
at in the written Torah -- e.g., that not the whole world was covered by 
water  (E'Y was exempted) or that not everyone in the world died (Og 
survived).   So it's possible that the mabul did not cover the whole world and did 
not kill  every human being in the world.
 
[b] Another possibility is that just as the world could have been made to  
look old at the time of Creation, so the post-mabul world could have been 
made  to look much older than it was.  Just as newly created trees could have  
been created with many rings, new-born girls could have been born with more 
 diverse mitochondria than would happen today.
 
 
I have long wondered about a somewhat related question:  how could the  
teiva possibly have held every species in the world?  And one speculative  
answer I thought of was that it held one feline, one canine, etc, each with an  
inbuilt genetic diversity that allowed the feline to quickly branch off 
(after  the Flood) into house cats, lions, tigers, leopards and so on.  The one  
canine quickly developed descendant branches of domestic dogs, wolves and  
coyotes.  There was just one butterfly pair, from which all moths and  
butterflies descended.  This would still have required evolution to proceed  at a 
much faster clip than science would recognize, but it doesn't defy the laws 
 of physics -- how so many species could all have fit into the small space  
of the ark.
 

--Toby  Katz
GCT
=============



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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120923/430d82ea/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 132
***************************************

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..."